Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 49

Grigori2015 (talk · contribs)

Undoubtedly another sockpuppet of Григорий225. YLSS (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Orion Nebula91

I blocked Orion Nebula91 (talk · contribs) for repeated copyvios. Remaining uploads needs investigation. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gugerell (talk · contribs)

Disruptive editing by this user, who is moving categories that I have created and maintained for almost a decade all over the place without a prior discssion. I have asked him to stop and participate in a discussion first, nevertheless he proceeded to revert every restoration that I have made. The discussion is taking place here Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Streets in Vienna. It's unfortunate, but I think this needs to be brought to a sysop's attention at this point. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

While we are discussing matters on the respective talk page, Gryffindor is doing mass edits. Would an admin please stop this user! --Gugerell (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gugerell: Do not edit other people's messages. That's not acceptable. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Guilherme Gonga (talk · contribs)

Uploads songs and non-trivial logos. No reaction to previous deletion request. I think Portuguese-speaking administrator should be involved. --

I've flagged most of the user's uploads as missing evidence of permission. -FASTILY 05:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Orrling

I just noticed that Yuval Y gave User:Orrling, the filemover right back, and he started renaming the old files. ([1], [2], [3]). I remember the old discussions which endued up his filemover right removed; so wonder any consensus for this, now. Jee 16:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that user Yuval Y was not aware to the long history of problematic editing of Orrling. I have not time know be he made a juge number of removing categories and ading other categories without discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed Orrling filemover permission and notified Yuval Y. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read the history, and also talked with Orrling. It reminded me the phrase "With great power comes great responsibility" and as Iuvenalis once said "But who will guard the guardians themselves?"... Seems as sir Marcus decided that some of the generic filenames Orrling chose are too generic or god knows what, so he started renaming the filenames, and sometimes even changed the description. While Orrling see all Wikimedian as equals and only wants to do his job in fixing the categories, he was very alert at this disruption and asked what the hell, a thing that seems to offend sir Marcus. Orrling went from admin to admin and asked to reverse the renaming. If he asked me back then, I'd immediately rename the files to the original form, to regain his trust, and then ask him to choose less generic names - 'Cause his names are quite generic not meaningless or whatever, not to mention that there are lots of generic filenames in commons. But instead of really talking with Orrling and trying to set things right, he was sent here, and things quickly escalated. From reading the discussion the impression I've got is that people was annoyed since he dared to insist that he's right, and when he got fed away he even dared to go beyond his "caste" using the moving tool one admin gave Orling to help him with his good work in setting order to categories and files. Like I said, it didn't have to get that far. Even now, I wonder if it was better if I had moved the files back to their original generic name - since I had a feeling the using the mover tool would be a trigger to start the mayhem all over again... --Yuval Y § Chat § 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If Yuval Y had checked properly Orrling's block log he would finds that Orrling was blocked many times because of edit waring regarding to file rename. For example: this file was renamed by Marcus Cyron in December 2013. nominated to DR by Orrling in January 2014 and refused and once he get the rename tool he rename it back. He was blocked for edit waring regarding file renamin and categories and de-categories without discussion, many times. In the last period I noticed that he adding rename request directly to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. In that case he dont need to deal with resistance, but since he got beck renaming tool, he had returned to the older behavior. -- Geagea (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you to read the book "Whale Done! The Power of Positive Relationships" or watch this movie in youtube. --Yuval Y § Chat § 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting other admins actions (after AN/U discussion a while ago) is a serious issue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility. When admin change other admins decision the minimum is to notify him. But you choose to give the rename tool back to Orriling so don't be surprised that it was restored. You are not very active (at least latly) and you dont really know the hole materia. So I suggest you read more about the case and check deeply next time. -- Geagea (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems as I was right about the mover tool... I suggest to calm down, one way or another... --Yuval Y § Chat § 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• 18:24, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Philly art.jpg to File:Philly .jpg (Definitely legit) (revert)
• 18:16, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:View of Akko from the south.jpg to File:Akko.jpg over redirect (O:)
• 18:15, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Savanna between Singida and Tabora.jpg to File:Savanna.jpg over redirect (5n76)
• 18:04, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Vallgraven canal, Göteborg.jpg to File:Götet .jpg (Oh yeah123@) (revert)

@Yuval Y: This^^ is vandalism. Please be more careful with your admin tools in the future. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Such an re-renaming is unbeleavable. In my eyes this is vandalism. It seems, there is a user that want to block simple words with his images. This is not usefull and I can't trust this user longer. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the original moves by Marcus Cyron were clearly helpful and should be restored. Some might have been overly zealous IMO, but overall I see no valid reason why Orrling should consider this vandalism, other than COM:OWNership, or insistence to stick to the literal letter of Commons policies (don't we have a policy against that?). Personally I find the long-livedness of Orrling's grudge over this rather worrisome. Not only did they file COM:POINTy DR:s in January this year considering the very same files, nearly a full year later they get their filemover rights back and promptly resume the battle. Furthermore, Orrling seems to deny any fault, as evident on their user talk at User_talk:Orrling#Abuse_of_Filemove_tool_again and accuse another users of "making things up" when they point the behaviour out. --Pitke (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Orrling's filemoves. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest participants here ponder how the current process for adding/removing rights can be improved. Admins are probably savvy enough to check a block log for notes before unblocking, though this is not automatic when changing rights. It would be neat if there was a way of easily adding a note so that future admins were aware that a discussion at AN might be wise before changing rights on certain accounts. Solutions might include showing a summary of an account's block log on the rights page. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea but regarding to the admin action in this case we do have rules. he have to add request her and see if there are any objections especially when the admin is not very much active in this period. -- Geagea (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous file-rename session again onto my uploads

I've just noticed that 9 of last year's ill-renaming session-affected files which were later repaired by me were today moved again to their unacceptable naming state, the instances for the reported multiple acts are -

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

They appear - again as in last year's attack - to all come from single, one user. These re-re-rename acts are not legitimate here. They show, as in last-December's rabid spree of loony violence over these very same files, that the user's focus is centred around a specific editor's portfolio and not around filename problems across Commons. For the case it is yet not clear: All the filenames chosen by me for my above 9 uploads are more than fully legitimate per Commons and have been good the way they were standing before today's act by that person which isn't more nor less than an attempt to resume the whole unsavoury thing recently repaired + punish me for knowing my basic equal rights and Wiki's policy. Seeking remedy would mean rather leaving my filenames alone, acknowledging our list-of-priorities and codes of conduct. Seeking remedy would have meant assisting me in reversing the 22-December nonsensical renames right after I began seeking that assistance admin-to-admin and then on the User Problems page, when I stood as clear as I could on how meaningful this principle of name consistency was to me as the uploader. Criticizing my use of the filemove tool could have probably made sense if I tampered with names of files that other uploaders contributed. It makes however no sense to revoke this tool when everyone (including you, right?) knows that I only used it to fix files from within my humble uploads, maintained by me with responsibility in the light of clauses #1 and #6 in COM:RENAME. Seeking remedy (in contrary to seeking the resumption of the absurd war-declaring saga) would have meant quieting the incitement and flaming against me and allowing things to go back to the pre-Dec-2013 normality and go run after the real problems and problem-makers out there throughout this project. I'm not one of them. Apology if I ever hurt you by deleting the utter-nonsense category you've created, or for not really feeling the urge to be too party-goer here, I'm just an editor who is doing his job and is fervent about the goals and spirit of Wikipedia. I'm evidently very civil for the most part and I've been very polite, patient and compromising with this shocking issue about my donated files and having faced administrative refusal to restore the filenames back then has exposed me to a dimension I had not been aware of yet, and see no reason to put up with either. Because I'm not a good politician, just a wikimedian. Making the world better means responsibility and sense of care. So I'll show you again why it's lucid-clear to everyone that you should have left my filenames in peace:

• File:Savanna.jpg is apt for the image surely no less than File:Hills.jpg, File:Valley.jpg and File:Lake.JPG do (And no, don't go renaming these files now to make your point - history is recorded on here)
• The reference of File:Mukta.jpg to the band with this name is as direct and meaningful as File:Airsupply.jpg referring to the band with that name, and more than File:U2.jpg referring to the band with that name (same as above)
• File:May Day.jpg is as meaningful as (or even more than) File:Halloween.JPG, File:Christmas.jpg and File:Brion Vibber Day.jpg
• File:Sculpture parade.jpg is not more nor less descriptive than File:Sculpture.jpg, File:Parade.JPG, File:Exhibition.jpg, File:Painting.jpg or File:Lecture.JPG, so there was no reason to rename my file
• File:Swedish Hostel.jpg refers to the business that bears this brandname as good as do File:Hilton.jpg, File:Sheraton hotel.jpg, File:McDonald's.JPG and File:Amigo's Restaurant.JPG, somehow none of the above seems to require any extra detail in the filename
• File:Philly.jpg and File:Götet.jpg are the popular nicknames of the respective two cities nationally, the same as applies to File:Nyc.JPG and File:RIO.jpg, with tons of other peaceful Cityname.jpg files such as File:Manchester.JPG and File:Toulouse.jpg
• File:Two men.jpg is as sufficiently descriptive as probably File:Two dogs.jpg, File:Three birds.jpg, File:Four girls.jpg and File:Three Brothers.jpg are
• File:Congo beauty.jpg refers to what is suggested by the image as much as File:The Andalusian Beauty.jpg, File:Bedouin Beauty NGM-v31-p271.jpg, File:Tavush beauty.jpg and File:Dry beauty.jpg all refer to what they show, and probably more than File:French beauty..jpg achieves this purpose.
  Not to mention File:Mushroom.jpg, File:Love.jpg, File:Sin.jpg, File:Grace.jpg, File:Israel.jpg, File:South Africa.jpg, File:Fun.jpg and File:Family.JPG.

When a file name is not misleading or offensive, it is legitimate and workable.
Your battle against my filenames, all the more so when you won't back it by pointing at any actual part of our guidelines or policies, is not really convincing. But again as in last year's campaign I'm not angry, I'm just asking to reverse it. Orrlingtalk 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entire rant on "rabid spree of loony violence" boils down to defending your original (bad) filenames with the reasoning that a bunch of other images with similar (bad) names exist. --Pitke (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like Orrling is only here to make his COM:POINT. Best example is this. I suggest to block Orrling for disruptive behaviour/trolling. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done for a month. Undef next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 Info This user has sent email to OTRS (which is moved to sisterproject::commons): See ticket:2014121010017692. — Revi 18:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I increased the block to 3 months, and prevented this user to send emails. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gee... I sometimes fail to understand what makes a person want to stay where he's not welcome... When I come to a place I try to improve it, to set things better, but when I don't feel welcome or being cut off, I try to figure out why do people dislike what I do and do I have to be there... From what I know Orrling, he kinda reminds me of myself, but also kinda puzzles me. Lately as I tried to help Orrling, I wanted to compromise, but it seemed too late since he was sure that he was working on the categories for the benefit of everyone in commons, and people were persuading him until they backed him in the corner, and somehow it seemed that both sides were too determined to make their point, so eventually I felt I need to back off a little and focus on other things I had to do. Now that I wanted to explain my POV, I saw that Orrling was already blocked for 3 months, so I wonder if I anyone would listen at all... --Yuval Y § Chat § 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am always open to constructive discussion. But Orrling's behaviour does not seem his is willing to do that. Specially when sending a mail to OTRS or the WMF crying fools. Now if he is willing to amend... Regards, Yann (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, when I tried to think things over at first it reminded me the phrase "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" but somehow it didn't feel that that's the case and things were too intense for me... I'd try to talk with him. --Yuval Y § Chat § 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yuval Y: The behavior of Orrling is a serious issue. You can try to talk wit him, but you are involved and therefore please refrain from any further adminaction related to Orrling. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok by me... --Yuval Y § Chat § 12:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:1Veertje

User:1Veertje provides mass renaming requests, resulting no sense. The file name should correspond to what is on the photo. Example File:2005-04-03 133952 4887784868.jpg there are fish to see, not Brussels.

This is her photo, I do not see much problems with the request (except for that she is an administrator and can rename herself).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not her photo, but she seems to be the uploader.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

+ 400 rename requests in Category:Media requiring renaming. 1Veertje is uploading files with {{Rename}} on it, looks like a script/bot out of control. Pinging @1Veertje: --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the Account, but still uploading :/ ... i go to ask WMF techs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked Wikimedia Server OPS, it was a server side upload. The script is stopped now. Thanks for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I prepared the photographs of cgpgrey for transfer to Wikimedia Commons last week. They are high quality images published under a free license. This couldn't be done through flickr2commons because there was html in the EXIF data. Transferring them to Commons thus presented the problem of first editing the files and then uploading them. The only descriptive markers in the EXIF data were the keywords attached to them. I did my best to process these into proper meta data by leaving out the worse tags ("European Union" for any photograph taken in the EU for instance). I was able to get the EXIF data out of the files and generate txt files with WikiText in them. I did not see how I could both update the names to more meaningful names and keep the link to my spreadsheet of meta data so I opted for the rename template. I get it comes as a surprise to have the maintenance Category for renaming files full suddenly but this is a one time thing. Vera ^(talk) 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your contributions :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also noticed that because of the modification, these files are being marked as requiring human review at Category:Flickr images needing human review by the FlickreviewR bot. Maybe you could also premark the files as having their license reviewed, kind of like flickr2commons does? —RP88 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... it also looks like the GPS location included in the EXIF was not added as into a {{Location}} tag like flickr2commons does. Is there an existing bot that could run through these files and extract the location from the EXIF and add a {{Location}} tag? —RP88 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a batch of about 200 earlier on, and those had their locations from exif data added to the description section by DschwenBot. I had this exchange with the author over Twitter last week. I tried to get the Flickr API to list all the images from his account that didn't have a cc-by license, but failed to get it to work :S. --Vera ^(talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I processed about 900 of these files that failed the automated license review, but I didn't encounter any that were not CC-BY-2.0. —RP88 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Vsanchez1961 and Category:Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras

On November 10, I created Category:Finca "Pausílipo" del Doctor Belisario Porras for one particular cultural heritage monument in Panama and made it a subcategory of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Los Santos Province. Then I added, File:07-004-DMHN El Pausilipo 4.jpg, File:07-004-DMHN El Pausílipo 3.jpg, File:07-004-DMHN El Pausilipo 2.jpg, and File:07-004-DMHN El Pausilipo 1.jpg among other files. As you can see from his edit history, VSanchez1961 undid my edits to these files without any explanation. I reverted the edits (thinking maybe they had been done accidentally) and asked in my edit comment why the revert had been made. Vsanchez reverted again, and wrote on my talk page that he didn't agree that a category should be made for a specific monument. I wasn't sure I understood, so I responded on his talk page with an explanation, and waited for a response. Nearly a month passed with no further comment (VSanchez has not made any other edits on commons since then) so yesterday I re-added the categories. Very soon afterwards, an anonIP Special:Contributions/200.46.157.11 reverted my edits. I suppose I don't know if VSanchez is that anonIP user, but just in case, I don't want to get into an edit war here. I'm not sure what to do, and really don't understand the VSanchez's complaint. Can anyone offer advance? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong, that no one is responding? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with your edits. I readded the files back.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Impersonation

Mire D Lam (talk · contribs)

Mireya Lam (talk · contribs)

Mid g17 (talk · contribs)

These three have been causing a disruption at Del Req 12/14 and Del Req 12/13 With Mid g17 claiming the other two are impersonating him/her and uploading images of him/her. The first two have been blocked for now, but Mid g17 is still concerned. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mireya zorrita (talk · contribs) seems to be the next sockpuppet of Mireya Lam. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All blocked now. Yann (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Difficulty in uploading to my upload log - by sloflash in case the tidals didn't work

Several months ago I uploaded some jpgs in error to my sloflash log

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Sloflash

At my request and the request of others the files were removed.

I now have proper consents for these jpgs but am prevented from uploading the files a second time. I get a message that indicates that wiki has searched all my former uploads and found that the current upload request was previously uploaded. I get instructions to remove my request

The files are an integral part of the itinerary I am putting together.

Somehow I need to get the wiki memory of the deleted files removed so that I can reload the files with proper credentials

The effected pictures are;

            STOP 3 Hadley crossing pic 4 

            STOP 7 pic 4 Gradient 

Can you help?? -- Sloflash (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to "Undeletion review" or "OTRS"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hooperag

Yesterday, Hooperag left Wikipedia (and presumably Commons) after five years because he or she was tired of following the rules (or so they said). This follows the recent deletion of a number of uploads without verifiable source information. Hooperag was back after less than two hours, though, to upload File:Al Abbas Shrine.jpg. Since that file also lacks proper source information, and since the user is apparently not too happy with me after I've explained our requirements, would an uninvolved administrator or experienced user please give it another try? —LX (talk, contribs) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks. Hope that helps, FASTILY 02:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Netanyahu 2010.jpg

User:Yossimgim reverting my upload. I've improved color balance, cropped it to portrait size and so that the head was at the center. The image is used in Infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim is edit warring, but you should upload the modified version as a separate image, as both have valid aspects. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Then he will be putting his version to Wikipedia, I'm sure. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I protected the file for three days, and i agree with Tuvalkin. Further it is up to Wikipedia which file they like to use. See also COM:OVERWRITE. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Comment@Triggerhippie4 There is no "his version" or "my version" of an image in Commons. It works against the spirit of the project to PWN images of which one is not the creator. If you're looking for things to do which will make lasting contribution, there are over 57,000 files pending in Category:Images without source. Many of those are simply template errors and simple fixes, but they're far more necessary than quibbling over what picture may or may not get used this week in some article. Just my 2cents. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is just an extracted figure from this. Triggerhippie4 or anybody interested can make more (but under another filename). :) Jee 15:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Garrykainth (talk · contribs)

Upload spam. Will be good idea to block indefinitely by administrator not involved in previous deletions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done, file deleted. Yann (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

same userpages with plenty of users

User:Young Nyn T (Performer) and User:Nyn T ( Rapper ) and User:The Rapper Nyn T have same userpage before deletion, please check--Motopark (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done (all blocked) --Krd 19:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster

Hello, A while ago i blocked the user for personal attacks (see last AN/U case, this was fred's last chance). Now he is continuing with personal attacks on his talkpage (diff). See also users block log. I changed the block settings to indef. with talkpage access revoked (because the last personal attack was on users talkpage). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at context. It seems to me to be more of a defense than an attack. --185.29.167.179 14:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Making SVG's isn't easy, and Fred's efforts should be appreciated more. Fred was telling Freud that creating SVG's is a difficult and time-consuming task and that he was under stress due to the holiday season. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We are talking here about Fred's personal attacks, and not about Fred's SVG work. Doing SVG work doesn't give him the right to attack users. Here it was very clear that the community don't tolerate Fred's behavior. The 3 months block was his last chance, but the use has decided to use his talk page access to attack other users. No comment about the IP comments... *sigh* --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't attack anyone. The other user came to his talk page and started accusing him of breaking the rules when he obviously hadn't been. Now that is a personal attack, not the response but I see nothing is being done to that user. Dual standards. --31.6.38.75 15:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Being upset and defensive aren't crimes, and the community should become more tolerant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He should be blocked infef in the first place. -- Geagea (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a perfectly efficient way of turning a productive user into a potential vandal. But that seems to be the midset or the less logical admins. --31.6.38.75 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. Indef just means that Fred is always welcome to ask for a block review, however those of us who have been around for a while will recall that Fred the Oyster (and their other accounts) has been disrupting this project and en.wp for a surprising seven years. An unblock rationale would need to not only point to their content contributions, but show a highly credible commitment to change this long term pattern of behaviour which has always appeared deliberately to cause disruption and create a hostile and at times distressingly abusive environment for other contributors. Future administrators should carefully refer to Commons block log, en.wp block log and SPI archive. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the sockpuppet investigations case. Maybe 31.6.38.75 is Fred? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Than you for AGF. I'm a regular user who doesn't want to be identified by this obvious anti-FtO (predominantly German) cartel. --31.6.38.75 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see any users from Germany participating in this thread? From my experience, in German wikipedia they never ban people like FtO. On the contrary, trolling and bullying are quite appreciated there. --A.Savin 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

By a strange coincidence the German sysop who blocked him last time and who was aggrieved that you reduced the block and couldn't wait to extend it. I just went back into the ANU archives and had a look at the block discussion from last time and most of the flak was coming from the German chemistry cabal who didn't like FtO's SVG techniques. So what an amazing coincidence that the user who started this little drama (Freud) is active on de.wiki, as is the sysop who extended the block. Quite unilaterally, vindictively and thorougly erroneously in my view (not to mention accusing me without AGF). And I see that the initial personal attack committed against FtO is still going unpunished. Seems very cabal-like to me.--31.6.29.214 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you get one last change and you waste it by making another attack comment because you have a little dispute about crediting an image; That is not very smart. Now he must deal with the consequences of his actions. And what's with the IP-trolling? Proxy's from the Czech Republic? If he wastes his last change over this it would be only postponing the unavoidable if someone reduces his block. Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

At the last blocking FtO was quite specific about him not coming back so I doubt he cares about "last chances". --31.6.38.75 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I had an email conversation with FtO this afternoon. Among his comments were that he "doesn't give a flying f**k that his block was extended as he wasn't coming back anyway". Also that "the project gained far more from [him] than [he] got from the project, so why would [he] come back?" and the final pertinent remark was that he is "quite content doing [his] thing over at Openclipart.org and without any of the drama, politics and bureaucratic a**holes that [he] had to put up with at Commons" (my censoring). So there you have it, direct from the man himself, do with the info as you wish.

PS: Nice try Natuur12, is your next task, to block the whole world? --103.27.223.127 23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter's action here should be understood in the context of several years of history. This was not just a one-off intemperate response by Fred the Oyster by any means. It is perfectly reasonable for Steinsplitter to conclude that talk page privileges should be revoked. Should Fred the Oyster want to request unblocking at some stage, and can demonstrate a good unblocking rationale, he can make contact by email with any admin (with me if he wishes) to start the process. But he has explicitly said that he does not want to do that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if Fred was not agitated by certain people here who know exactly what I am talking about, none of this would be necessary. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, that Fred has a Fair Warning! on his userpage. His mission is to create SVGs and not to troll the project. He has ranted against many people, but only those letting him not do his work or asking him questions about things, which where not his department.--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Natuur12, you really should try addressing the points made by this IP or prove them false rather than simply silence them under the claim of trolling. I believe your protection is wholly inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You may believe all you wan't but that doesn't make the protection inappropriate and it does not make using proxy's and using them to accuse people of being members of some kind of cabal without evidence okay. Is he is FtO he should not be editing here, if he really is another editor he know where the log in button is if he wants to make his/her point. The last time I checked the blocking admin isn't German anyways. The only German editor I see defends FtO. Natuur12 (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Some users choose to remain anonymous in such cases, I have no interest or need to do so but that doesn't mean you can just demand they hit the sign-in button to suit your fancy. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Matthias Gräff

User:Gräff Matthias has five years of copyright warnings on his user talk page, and is currently uploading a mix of Matthias Gräff's paintings and photographs taken of Matthias Gräff by other people as his "own work", releasing it all into the creative commons. I can't find any suggestion of OTRS permission on past uploads, and there's actually some unclear "negative" permission on work he uploaded by another artist called Gräff, which I can't check without OTRS access. Even with a best faith assumption that this is the artist himself and he's generously releasing all of his paintings as CC-Attribution, the uploading of other people's photos suggests a long-term misunderstanding of licencing. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear members, I have the permission for all of this photos (paintings and photos of Matthias Gräff). They are taken by myself or by friends and familymembers with my own camera. Some of them are taken by my friend of the austrian press, but I have the permission!

Kind regards --Gräff Matthias (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Acutelearn (talk · contribs)

Upload out of Commons:Project scope PDFs with advertisement of computer course. Did not react on deletion request and warning about scope. I think user should be blocked by uninvolved administrator and uploads should be nuked. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 16:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Shyamalchy

Hi, I blocked Shyamalchy (talk · contribs) for 2 hours after he continued uploading images with long how out of scope essays. The images themselves may be useful (except 3 IMO), but the descriptions need to be cleaned. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User add categories with capital letter and those categories are red, also creates out of scope talk pages Commons talk:TALK--Motopark (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Reverted and indef'ed. --A.Savin 14:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Look2See1

Will someone please inform this user that I do not want to communicate with her/him? After being called rude and disruptive, I have no wish to communicate with this person and I already explained that. They left a comment on my user page afterwards and I reverted it. I've read it and I can remove it if I don't want it there. My edit was then reverted. This is disruptive. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I will not continue to edit war with this user regarding his/her preference for links on image descriptions, but I had to correct a lot of incorrect information they had added to category and image descriptions. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And again... I'm trying to diffuse the situation by staying away from this person. Apparently, they want to continue. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: The editor "AgnosticPreachersKid" will not discuss issues directly with me, on my talk page or on their talk page, that they initiated. They have deleted my brief and polite comments on their talk page 3 times today. Oddly, they began this discussion. It appears when I did not auto-agree, but actually thought and replied with constructive points, they took their talk toys and left, swinging by this Commons:Administrators' noticeboard instead of seeking resolution together. There is a faint smell of a cyber-bully, and strong scent of autocratic control habits in this sequence of disruptive behavior choices by AgnosticPreachersKid.—Look2See1 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's your misguided opinion. You attacked me by calling me rude and disruptive when I was neither. I have no desire to deal with people that attack me. It's that simple. Look2See1 has now gone through my contributions and reverted all of my edits and is edit-warring. This is harassment and wiki-stalking. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It should also be noted as much as Look2See1 attacked me for expanding my own comment on their user talk page (before there was a response and thus did not change the meaning or flow of the conversation), s/he edited the heading of this topic. If I did that, I'd be called names. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Take two to five days off whatever caused the problems and realize if you both know so much about the same things that in a few days with less stress and trouble you may very well end up friends. I have read the entire string, and truly - both ya'll need to take a time-out, come back, shake pixel hands and let's all get back to doing what we're here for - working together on the project. Holidays are stressful, people tromping around in areas others have worked is also stressful, but that's no reason to act out at all for something so trivial as what category a house goes into or does not go into on a computer page when that information can be changed endlessly. In personal images here, some of mine have been in and out of categories (by other people) and sometimes they end right back up in the same category after two or three people have moved them around. Categories are great, but if you have enough free time to edit war, please consider helping out in other ways on the project, like scanning new uploads for copyright violations or something with a lasting import. I personally will and would take no action to this minor catfight because I know if you both calm down for a few days you'll find out that you were clashing because you're similar people - with similar interests... Just remember Commons is NOT the internet. Here we get to be polite to our friends and coworkers instead of mad and angry at every post. Just my two cents here. I'm taking no action on the foregoing other than to say I see minor faults on both sides. Forgive and let it go. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm more than willing to disengage and let things go. I'm just asking that this user stay away from my talk page and stop following my contributions. I'm not here, volunteering my time and photos, to get stressed out and insulted. That's a quick way to lose editors. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NetD Müzik/Imouto Studio/Haruto NSX

I think that NetD Müzik (talk · contribs), Imouto Studio (talk · contribs) and Haruto NSX (talk · contribs) (aka w:User:Imouto Studio and w:User:Harut Hajin (HAGF) in English Wikipedia) are the same man. All his contributions are self-promo of one Harut Hajin and copyvios. --Juggler2005 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Blocked and socks tagged. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Under attack by a admin

Hello,

I had a request a month ago to remove a file that I had placed on commons. I tried to remove it and it seemed to upset a user that is now just hammering my photos and going after the way I once named then ( to remind me of who I was with) and going after photos I took of me, using remote devices, then asserting that I did not own any of my photos and the admin was about to delete everything I have uploaded. Didym is dead set on this war he has created out of no where. No communication just random tags on photos that were named using a naming convention that makes this user feel that I gave away my rights. HELP. --WPPilot (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Nice you started this without properly notifying me. If you do not want to understand the copyright issues with your photos, it is not my problem, I tried to explain it to you. --Didym (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is your problem, not a problem with any photos. I have been bombarded with 24 removal requests in under a hour to the point that is it ridiculous and out of line. You are on a mission and you have no foundation for your assault, it is disruptive and no in the sprit of improving Wikipedia, it is a vendetta that you have decided to under take. BTW, see your talk page, you WERE noticed before I filed this. Please stop attacking me. --WPPilot (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot, please remain civel. There is no need to attack Didym and there is no reason to assume that he/she has some mission/ evil motives etc. Natuur12 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This ADMIN has consumed 3 hours of my morning going after 24 photos based upon his perception of how I once named a few files. No communication, no reaching out on my talk page, he has threatened to remove EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER CONTRIBUTED AND IS ACTING LIKE A administrative bully. I DID NOTHING TO DESERVE THIS. --WPPilot (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see a attack. Didym just nominated some files for deletion because there seems to be a doubt about the freedom of particular files you uploaded. You should try to keep such discussion in the relevant DR. And please don't remove {{Delete}} from files, a admin will close the DR after one week. Please moderate your language and assume good faith. Ragards --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Let's pick this DR as an example. You claim that the image is taken with you're camera and that you own the photograph. I don't see a statement that you took this image yourself. (just a statement won't be good enough btw). If someone else used you're camera to take this photograph, than he/she owns the copyright, not you. Unless the copyright is transferred. Owning an image doesn't make you the copyright holder either. Those are two separate things. So even if someone uses you're equipment to take a photograph the copyright is not automatically yours. Please think of mister Slater and the monkey for example.Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As I explained already these photos were done using my Nikon and a remote trigger device. The camera was rolling, on its own and I, using the Nikon remote started the sequence using the remote, at the start of the race. There is no human operating this, it was setup, positioned and triggered by me using a Nikon ML‑L3 Wireless device. I own it, as the Nikon ML‑L3 Wireless is not a object that can own rights to anything. --WPPilot (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Didym, Natuur12: I have to say that when I read the 'dialogue' on the user talk page page on WPPilot I get sad at the way some users are treated on Commons. It is depressing to see how little good faith you two have in the creators explanations, yet throwing the AGF card at him. I find the explanations entirely credible, and I can fully understand if WPPilot gets very upset and begins writing in caps lock, when exposed to such a lack of empathy. If you had just mellowed down and tried to explain calm and easy what kind of information is missing. The technique used by WPPilot is unusual and much more sophisticated than normally seen. If you read his profile it is pretty clear that the user uses sophisticated techniques. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say that I don't believe him? Don't put words in my mouth Slaunger. He gave a reasonable explenation and I believe him. Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Natuur12: Where exactly am I saying you do not believe him? I am saying that you are not showing good faith to the users explanation here, where you are writing to the user in a manner I perceive as 'lecturing' and 'belittling' after he has explicitly written on his talk page that he took those photos yourself. For me it is quite clear that the user is simply not consciously aware of the importance of stating the circumstances under which the photos were taken on the file page. I believe this could be explained in a much friendlier and helpful manner. I am confident that if this was explained in a mellow way the user would understand much better how his files could give rise to confusion regarding the source and authorship. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that we have a different perspective on AGF since in the other DR's he explained how he had taken them and in this DR he didnont so I explained the subject not the author argument in detail to avoid misunderstanding about the arguments. Anyways, situation solved. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is far from over. That was a unprovoked attack by an administrator. As a matter of fact it was THE ONLY THING THAT ADMIN did today, on the site. The admin it appears from his contrib log: woke up, did not like the fact that I had requested a file be deleted and he went hell bent on every photo the user/admin could find and tagged every one of them for removal in a malicious retaliatory manner Didym is a admin here on commons and if commons is going to allow roage Admins to threaten and intimidate users what is the point of contributing to a site that is under the control of enraged admins with a bone to pick. I really have no desire anymore to contribute here, and it is the direct result of this retaliatory game played by the Administrator: Didym - I am still considering if I should continue to contribute with users like that one welding a ax, in a manner that has no value to anyone other then his/her ego. --WPPilot (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot, you really, really, REALLY need to calm down. Having your files nominated for deletion is not normally an attack, unless there is some kind of previous negative history between the uploader of the file and the nominator for deletion. Nobody here is handling this in the best way, but you called this an attack against you and that was not a good start. Please calm down, it will only help you. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fry1989 problem resolved, goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs)

Not logged in?

Is Wikimedia Commons broken? Because I can't logged in to this wiki. I found this problem a month ago. There is a message said,

Central login

You are centrally logged in. Reload the page to apply your user settings.

I tried to reload but nothing happened. What's the problem? --14.1.210.67 06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC) SNN95

Try to clear your cache and cookies and try again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I had a problem yesterday, when I was automatically unlogged from Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Urek_Meniashvili

Hi, Urek_Meniashvili (talk · contribs) has already a long list of warnings. Many pictures tagged as "self" are doubtfully his work. A complete investigation is needed. As he was already warned, a block may be in order if an explanation is not provided. Now I also wonder if there isn't some sock-puppetry into Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Building of the Union of Architects of Azerbaijan.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. -- Geagea (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexvn200 (talk · contribs)

Continue to upload music of questionable copyrights status and notability after several deletion requests. I think this user should be blocked by uninvolved administrator and all uploads deleted. Will be good idea to involve Spanish/Portuguese-speaking administrator. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Uploads deleted and user blocked for three months (blocked a bit longer as usual because the user is uploading every month a bit). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Orrling

I have blockd User:Orrling as Continuous disruptive behaviour/trolling. After this. and his last comment her. I think that according to his last comment his mails to OTRS should defined as spam. -- Geagea (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Good block. After all the vandalism here on commons. Orrling's last comments show that he don't change his behavior. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This block should be done at least 2 years ago. Hanay (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a pitty that it needs to come this far. I agree with this block. Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

good block. Deror avi (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I support this block as well. Orrling has shown himself to be incapable of working constructively with others for any significant period of time. He has a "my way or the highway" attitude that has no place in a collaborative project. INeverCry 18:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have indefinitely blocked an editor because they have said they would send emails to OTRS. That is OTRS' problem to deal with, not ours. Blocks needs to be grounded in policy, and I can't see how sending emails to OTRS is a blockable action. Please come up with a policy based reason, or I am inclined to reinstate the original 3 month block. russavia (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Russavia: i think disruptive behavior, especially the last comment shows that the user don't like to change his behavior. Blocks are preventive, therefore this block is good and ok per policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter but how is emailing OTRS disruptive here on Commons? It's not. If OTRS don't want to deal with his emails, let them deal with the issue. We don't control OTRS here on Commons, so it's out of our hands completely. And likewise, OTRS does not control Commons. Also, please read my comments below -- I didn't see your reply before I posted it. russavia (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also a bit disappointed that they have been blocked for 3 months for renaming their own uploads back to the names they were originally uploaded under. If you look at Commons:File_renaming, in particular Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed.3F, the files definitely shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. I have come across many rename requests from others in the past where files are needlessly renamed because of similar reasons. To do so with objections from the uploader, no wonder Orrling is just a little bit pissed off. So long as file names aren't misleading (none of them were), and so long as files are aptly described and categorised, does it really matter what files are called? This seems to be a sordid episode which could have been easily avoided. russavia (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Easily avoided by Orrling too though. Why does he raise such a stink about filenames if they're no big deal? I've done thousands of renames, and 10s of thousands have been done on Commons, and yet Orrling seems to be the only one who wants to make a huge issue of it, just because someone changes one of his generic names.

As for this indef block, if he wants to be unblocked, he's supposed to use {{Unblock}}, which was recommended by an admin on his talk. This is still the case, as he's been left with talk privileges. When asked very reasonably to simply make an unblock request, his answer was the same old "I'll do whatever I feel like". What's next with him? Edit-warring if people change descriptions or categories on his uploads and it's not completely to his liking? Enough is enough with some people after a while. INeverCry 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

After having looked at the issues, here is what I think is the best solution:

1. Orrling is unblocked completely
2. Orrling is asked politely to in future please consider naming files more than a single word. But it should be know this is only a request, not a requirement
3. Orrling is informed that files which are covered at Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed.3F may be renamed. File:Wallababy.jpg is such an example.
4. All file movers are reminded that files should not be renamed if they are only being done for the file name to look better (which they were in all of these cases)
5. Then we can all go back to what is important.

INeverCry I agree it was partly their fault too. But they are the only one who has been blocked during the whole process. I don't foresee any problems with the hypothetical situations you raised just above; but I would expect that they would be made aware that if it were to occur that it could result in being blocked. Thoughts? russavia (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree a bit with #4. Those files for the most part were renamed because they were vague, generic, and found to be misleading. Would it really be so difficult for him to give something a proper name rather than the simplest and easiest thing he can be bothered to type? I don't see you uploading anything like that; only him and new or driveby uploaders. Orrling has to know that what he uploads here belongs to the world, not just him. He fights the community continuously, and it doesn't work out. If he were to show a different attitude about it all then what he's doing today, I'd say sure, unblock him. He's got to work as part of the community, not be a free agent with a different set of rules to follow causing problems all the time. I say let him post an unblock request and discuss this all constructively rather than respond with defiance and carelessness and never budge an inch from his positions. INeverCry 20:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Support indef. ban, because there is nothing productive for Commons by this user. Parts of their edits may be OK, but in general we see not much more than timewasting or even vandalism. If they do sth. wrong and their edits being reverted, edit wars and blocks are the consequence. Their block log is already more than enough. Commons shouldn't tolerate long-term abuse like most big wikipedias do. --A.Savin 20:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Orrling shown himself to be incapable of working constructively with others as INC describe. The rename issue was only a consequence of this behavior. After he was blocked he started to send mails so email disabled. And then com the part of the mails to OTRS. This is a troll behavior. And instead of using {{Unblock}} he stated that he will continue in his older behavior. If he wants he still can use the unblock option as user:Revi suggest to him to do. -- Geagea (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Orrling was blocked indefinitely in He:wiki on July 14, 2011 see here there is no way to reason with him. To unblock him is a huge mistake. Hanay (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I was not previously involved in this, I've now read the background in detail and agree that an indefinite block was the correct action. Given the user's behaviour and recent mindset, the block should not be altered in the absence of a specific request via the {{Unblock}} template on the user's talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Russavia: , Orrling's block is about way more than mere OTRS emails or renames. Please see the recently archived UP discussion on the latest renames at least. My opinion, and I don't think many would disagree, is that Orrling has shown over time a troublesome attitude including behaviours of pointiness, ownership, rules lawyering, recruiting new users for his side of old battles, spreading said old battles, taking clearly useful renames personally, harbouring resent over extended periods of time... The OTRS spam may have been the behaviour directly linked to the decision to block indef, but the block reason is not the behaviour but how it shows that the problematic attitude is not going anywhere and is spawning new ways to disrupt the project. --Pitke (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I support the block, sad to see it being done but Orrling refuses to disengage with the file renames issue and behaviour demonstrated by them has been long term. Unblocking them will see this return, with yet more AN topics. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I see nothing wrong in unblocking him without allowing him to access file mover right. But he already mentioned that he has no plan to edit here without that bit. And we we give him that right the first thing he will do is to start renaming his files to that old single word names. It will clutter my watchlist and will be reported here again. So this is a Boomerang; no easy solution exists. Jee 03:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't just the filemover right and filenames, it's the attitude of doing what he wants regardless of consensus and policy; tool misuse, being combative and defiant, taking an ownership stance with his uploads, numerous blocks for edit-warring, etc. The solution is very easy (and very reasonable): edit constructively and be a part of the community, or remain blocked indefinitely. INeverCry 06:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

SPVII DrFresh26

User SPVII DrFresh26 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading suspect logos. It seems that some were deleted and then re-uploaded but I can't tell. It also seems that other users (or sockpuppets) are removing problem tags from files before resolution. The Haz _talk 01:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet: FreshCorp619 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmat2 (talk • contribs) 01:55, January 9, 2015‎ (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Confirmed. Also: Edutainment (talk · contribs) and NovaFlyer7000 (talk · contribs). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

FreshCorp619 would like me to point out our discussion. The Haz _talk 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think he's the owner of the copyright of the Toronto schools' logotypes (DR in here). No problem with his remaining pictures. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaustubh chandra joshi (talk · contribs)

Uploads math related PDFs which looks more suitable for Wikibooks of Wikiversity. No reaction after two deletion requests. Need to be explained Commons:Project scope preferably by Indian-languages speakers. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Dharmadhyaksha. Jee 15:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bluesapphiredigital

The user appears to be using Commons and Wikipedia as a way to advertise their business. I do not believe they intend to actually contribute to the project. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Orgio89

User Orgio89 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting files to his preferred promotional overcategorization ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]), after having been blocked twice already for doing so. There's a previous discussion here about this. He doesn't stop the personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with him either. I remember experiencing similar behaviour from him back in 2008, so my hopes of him learning anything in the process are dwindling. --Latebird (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the user for one month. This is users third block. Edit warring and violation of COM:Overcat (see also last block by INeverCry, the same behavior) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lucky him, I just was going to indef, but Steinsplitter was some seconds faster. There's no hope, next time = certain indef. --A.Savin 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Achim Hering and categories

User:Achim Hering repeatedly adds inappropriate categories to File:Some godforsaken canadian plant no firestops.jpg eg. [19]. At least four other editors have either discussed categories with him or removed the wrong categories See also File talk:Some godforsaken canadian plant no firestops.jpg , User_talk:Achim_Hering#Firestop_pics and User_talk:Achim_Hering#Categories. Can someone look into this matter? Thanks. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bbasujon

User removed deletion request tag and my speedy deletion tags--Motopark (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Speedydeleted, next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior by an admin

Now the same pattern here: Early closure with a link to the previous deletion discussion, which was closed as delete and restored by Yann without any discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, Geogene is just having a hissy fit because Yann didn't keep a DR open for an entire week even though that's a guideline and it was obvious what direction the DR was going, and for removing a speedy deletion tag with the standard in-template answer of "Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion." instead of themselves converting it into a DR when the fact the automatic removal of a speedy has that statement precludes requiring the remover from converting to a DR and puts the onus instead on the user who originally added the speedy tag. It isn't Yann's fault that some users seem to think they can just keep adding the speedy tag back again over and over to get their way instead of doing what the statement says to do and make a proper DR of why you think it needs to be deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to let this go per Steinsplitter, but don't misrepresent why I filed here. I talked to Yann about the closure on 13 January, and didn't like his answer that much but put it aside. What sent me here on 14 January was when I saw that he told a user to nominate something for deletion [25] (edit summary) and five hours later hit that same user with a Level 4 vandalism warning [26]. Do you think that might be confusing to somebody that might not understand the difference between speedy and regular deletion? Do what the admin says and he'll threaten to block you for it? Geogene (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What I see is a user who kept putting speedy tags on Yann's uploads after their removal and Yann has every right to consider that both harassment and vandalism. The user may not understand the difference between a speedy deletion and a deletion nomination, but that didn't appear to be your original complaint. You complained that Yann themselves did not convert the speedy to a normal nomination and that simply is not their obligation. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Vandals" don't normally ask good-faith questions on your talk page. And this one left such a question on Yann's page four minutes before he ran him off with a block threat. I'm not interested in breaking out my full complaint now, this is going nowhere useful. Geogene (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so glad “we” allowed the mellow current state of affairs to persist (where two admins accusing each other in public never happens and everybody does COM:AGF all the time) by keeping Fæ away from admin tools. Imagine the ruckus we’d have on this page if he had become an admin, instead of the inspirational idyllic atmosphere we can breathe now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tuvalkin That's an unacceptable personal attack, do be a nice chap and strike it before apologising to Fae. The majority of administrators are desperately trying to stop everybody falling out, please don't undermine our efforts with worthless trouble making. Cheers, Nick (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that one of us is terrible at sarcasm, maybe it is me. For the record, this was my way to express both dismay at the public petty bickering between admins we can witness above and express my impression that, even if Fæ was the boogeyman some people so vividly (and successfully, so far) want to warn us about, his addition to the admin pool could not worsen the state of affairs. Therefore no striking, but, as ever, my best regards to Fæ, with apologies for not being able to resist dragging him to this sad spectacle of adminship. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:JuTa

Just for the records: I now went through my logs an reprotected most pages, but unprotected some with a reason like short term vanalism in 2008 or similar. regards. --JuTa 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I should say that I like this: Admins being human but reasonable: Making mistakes, being frank in calling out their peers, and frank at explanations, being swift to difuse drama and cleaning up messes, by actions and words — no cronyism, no backstabbing. Makes me think that there’s hope. Thanks, guys. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DiamantD

DiamantD (talk · contribs) has upload only one picture, a screenshot from a YouTube video which is not under a free license. I nominated this file for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Ban™.jpg. May also be out of scope.

Now DiamantD has made several wrong edits: removing edits from others [27], removing category [28], etc. Already warned. What do you suggest? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done It seems to me, that 3 days block is quite good duration. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Unifyglaxo

The rename requests that this user has been making are disruptive. The user made 20 or more rename requests with the text mala calidad, which means bad quality in Spanish. I declined those requests. After I did that, the user came back online, and reverted the declined requests that I made, and I guess wanted a second opinion. I was quite surprised that the requests were accepted and moved by other file movers. I ask that those moves be reverted so the person who uploaded them won't be offended by the requested user who called those images bad quality. 1989 21:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of these moves were already undone, I just undid the rest. User:Medium69 should not grant these renamings, clearly against policy, and User:Unifyglaxo should ready about file naming and renaming in Commons, or engaging the percieved lack of photographic quality of these photos in a more constructive and useful manner (such as upload better images and ignore these). -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be more careful in the future.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Григорий225 returns?

I haven't seen any new sockputtets of Григорий225 for some time, but quite possibly George8885 (talk · contribs) is indeed one of them. YLSS (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

173.214.228.60

Counter-productive edit warring /St1995 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP just now rolled back Stas again. I have reverted the IP's revert. This is taking place on Laurelle Mehus. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 17:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked, gallery protected indef (the IP is static). INeverCry 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

user:SlartibErtfass der bertige

user tries to have his files deleted because on de.wp there's a dispute about whether or where his pictures in an article are approproate (or not). starts edit-war with other user about his "speedy deletion" tag [29]. argues that a remark "please send usage notification to: slartibertfass@yahoo.de" is an appendix of licence text. altogether: file under WP:POINT. --JD {æ} 15:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted & protected. Next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. User is making legal threats on my talkpage after page protection. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Serial copyvios, Laurie Lind

New user, just Not Getting It with regards to uploading random web-found images. Past warnings. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nuked. Thanks. Alan ^(talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos

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

Hi, as reported and discussed by various Wikimedian enthusiasts before, related to and and in contact with User:Abderitestatos, he is let's say down-the-line forcing since years his strictly very personal view of categorization, but plain-spoken without any consequences by Wikimedia administrators or honest mediation by the Wikimedia community, or even a 'learning effect' or accepting any consensus. Seriously asked for sanctions, please check long time edits by Special:Contributions/Abderitestatos, or/and, User talk:Abderitestatos related to Wikimedia categories, among days/months/years in Switzerland, objects including animals etc, churches, historical photographs, Latin names (see Turicum), and so on, btw just topics from his present talk dating back to 2008, missing additional category related talk pages :-(

His at the time being "strange behaviour" is repeated at least once a year since User:Abderitestatos's very first contributions, so again as of 14(th) and 15(th) January 2015, by once again re-categorizing Category:April 2012 in Switzerland. It may be pointed to again, that topic repeatedly was discussed the past years, and it seems really not to be adequately, as pointed to year for year, to create again subcategories as "1st of April 2012", and so on and so on, as not a international format, respectively, therefore not adequate to date related categories that are used within the Wikimedia projects.

So, ignored again, you may call it vandalism or trolling or incooperative behaviour or whatever, please try to impose sanctions having a minor "learning effect" , or not, as a sign to User:Abderitestatos to respect other Wikimedians opinions, or, in fact, at least to take notice of previous 'discussions', latter tagged as "'" — because User:Abderitestatos seems not to respect anyone other's point of view than his own, lacking common positions if only because it was yet a democratic minor consence, but by the majority of Wikimedians involved to his imho behaviour no longer to be tolerated. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There never was a consensus nor any other kind of decision against categorizing pictures of Switzerland by day, previous discussions on this matter petered out a long time ago; moreover, this template, made by Morio specifically to facillitate creation of such categories, has remained unobjected for about one year and a half now, just as the categories using it. After this amount of time it would certainly not seem too early to tidy up Category:April 2012 in Switzerland, that was quite a mess, with some pictures categorized by day, some by month, some by event, and some clearly over-categorized. --Abderitestatos (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment in real live an old man but not 'stupid', dear Administrators, having usenet/irc etc experiences since about the mid-1980s, as well working years ago in that what the today's generation calls 'IT' in the service of the biggest city and Bund, and before same department of 'the' 1970s bank in Switzerland. Just a personal detail that please in general may ignored as off-topic, but imho adequate for the community itself as incidental, though maybe not for all Wikimedians reading outside that Commons project i years ago began to appreciate very much.

hmmm .... Abderitestatos, completely disagree to your comment, please read yourselves the related talk User:Abderitestatos#Months in Switzerland. Allow to quote the final statement of about a dozen related comments to the talk mentioned and taking another Wikimedian and me imho a lot of time imho spended for nothing: Your course of action is inacceptable, emptying categories to request their being deleted by reasoning that they are empty. I do not think that any further discussing this with you would make much sense. --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

btw: that and some more directly related speedy deletions imho were occured, and thus agreed also by the Administrators that executed the speedy deletions.

And, by Abderitestatos also mentioned behaviour, hmmm ... what about, for example related to Category:Turicum to argue furtherwise: Category:Legio XXI Rapax reenactments at Turicum (Zürich) speedy-deleted in order of Abderitestatos, and marked as incorrectly named .... btw2: was created by me and related some 45 uploads by exclusively me, now as ... at Zurich, grammatically ok, but by the content at least 'strange', in addition to the also in general accepted redirect of Turicum (Zürich/Zurich) ot latter, imho missing a logical dedaction tree (don't know better term in English).

And honestly, please do not expect from me potentially, after experiences to 'change' to my mother tongue to explain/communicate by an IRC channel or separated talk etc.

Abderitestatos, continued thus that 'mediation' is not solved, the above mentioned behaviour as of 19 November 2015, so i remarked as checking my watchlist of uploaed files by me, see starting 00:10, 19 January 2015, i.e. Category:February 2012 in Switzerland to Category:13th February 2012 in Switzerland, and for the time being about 15 further, hmm 'edits', within nine minutes 00:19, 19 January 2015, in addition Category:March 2012 in Switzerland to Category:15th March 2012 in Switzerland ...

btw once more, exclusively files uploaded by me but no other Wikimedian; honestly not at least 'edit-warring' accepted as real reason trying honesty at least to mediate ... But still don't want to believe that should be in general a problem of the present Wikimedia Commons community that still is in silence, thus the logical conclusions may be deniable under other circumstances i experienced again the past days and years ago again and again, among them that i read/accept as it is just a few hours ago. Elsewise, sorry about my maybe missleading English still hoping it's resulting in no further community feedback, i'm really not of English language speaking origin but still learning. Regards Roland zh (talk) 03:55 [edit about 04:12 related to type/precise English], 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment closing from my side to precise, that nto 'just' my uploads on 19 January 2015 are affected, as not intended to also 'check' Abderitestatos' contributions in detail ... sorry, hoping that's the only detail not correctly to be mentioned: Abderitestatos about same time/period on 19 January 2015, using cat-a-lot affecting about maybe 50 edits, thx Roland zh (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by Abderitestatos reverted (just 1 single of about 12 of 21 Jan 15), sinking hope what Administrators do think about such imho trolling by Abderitestatos, related to Category:Bell tower of Grossmünster (Flèche). btw once more was not commented 'wyh' to remove that category :-(( Roland zh (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: File related of that single edit related to Flèche, btw was used as برج ناقوس ('the bell tower') by another Wikimedia project to be appreciated, and linked in the affected file, bye Roland zh (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

and edit-warring continued thus asking YOU to mediate, by Abderitestatos some minutes ago ... but silencing above mentioned speaks for itself :-((( Roland zh (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hubertl

This is the way in which the user is directed towards me and towards those who do not think like him:

• See this comment
  • For clarity, I snipped the comment. You can see the full comment on the diff link above. -- Ram-Man 13:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And this one just because I declined a photo, which then has been declined by other users

"This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten.Please other opinions. --Hubertl 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "

Now I understand that take it seriously, but here you go too far! The way to do is offensive and to the point of paranoia. Ask a comment, thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 19:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Besides that QI reviews it seems has become a dictatorship Austrian who promote each other photo --LivioAndronico talk 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hubertl has, in fact, a very long history of insulting behaviour in German wiki; however in this particular case, your tone ("dictatorship Austrian" etc.) isn't any better. --A.Savin 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply A.Savin, I meant that if you go on qi there are users that Austrians vote favorably photos (never declined) and rely on each other, I probably wrong word and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway phrases like :Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party.,Nobody ever will give you a shit for this!,he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists. and This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten to name a few,I do not seem very delicate. --LivioAndronico talk 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like QI, FP, and VI are very good at bring about pettiness among our users. Granted that my only contact with those initiatives is from this very page and its kin, so maybe I’m being unfair, but maybe it is too much drama, compared against the actual interest of these awards for Commons in general? Maybe if QI, FP, and VI disappeared users could focus on categorization and other such non-confrontational curation tasks (and/or take their drama to Flickr or wherever), and maybe then ANs could be freed for actually important conflicts? Just saying… -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As for me, I really wouldn't be sorry to see QI/FP/VC go. But I doubt that many of their current participants would take care of categories and maintenance tasks instead. Probably they simply would move on to Flickr, as self-adulation is the only motivation for many of them to do something on Commons. --A.Savin 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For me, I participate in QI (more than VI and FP) because I'm constantly frustrated by low quality images and having to sort through them. QI serves a purpose of filtering the good from bad, since it's very hard to delete bad images here on the commons. This is a service that could perhaps be done using some other process, but that does not exist right now. As for categories, QI makes users add basic categorization where they might otherwise add none. It will not ever do more than that, but it is something. And QI is a fairly smooth process with only the occasional childish behavior. In this case there was very nearly a violation of 3RR (See the history) over a few days instead of 24 hours. -- Ram-Man 13:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I copy what wrote Ram-Man that I think sums up the story: As for the photographer, he did properly categorize it and describe it as a theater mask. The issue wasn't the photographer here, who did exactly what is normally required, but an unreasonable objection by a reviewer who was claiming that this was a gargoyle, completely without any justification.

In Addition To from Hubertl (There are books published after death if you did not know):

• full comment is here (snipped by User:Ram-Man for clarity)

Everything to oppose the photo to which I gave the right name and category and that he without any visible source opposes. Also as I go around museums as if it was a birthday party for children, I ask ever to the guardians present what I photographer and I do not say words at random just to wars. I have declined photos by Poco a poco,C messier,Cccefalon,XRay,Ram-Man,Mattbuck (with him there was some problem quickly resolved because we're two intelligent people),Christian Ferrer etc. and I never had problems with them because they were opposed to the normal reasons, just ask them if I have never complained. But having declined a hole and persecuted just because it is said that a Roman mask is a Gargoyle (sic!) I find it ridiculous, over the offensive phrases. --LivioAndronico talk 09:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody have a opinion? --LivioAndronico talk 20:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Livioandronico2013 is well known for a lack of ability accepting critics of his own nominations when nominating pictures in QI or FP - his reactions are sometimes extremely rude and personel. He already have the highest rate of withdrawn picture, because of extremly problems to preselect his own works. Up to now, I have responded with equanimity, but this reaction was and is entirely outside the acceptable range. If you promote his pictures, you will be his very "dear" friend. Any critics is followed by an immediately personell discussion, even when the non-quality of the picture is obvious. Almost every declined picture - from whom ever critizised - stays declined.

His work as well as his responses clearly shows that he massively overestimates his personal skills on almost every level. This is reflected, among other things, that he, according to his user page, deems himself to be able to speak English at an almost native level. But it is quite obvious that his english skills are very, very low. I would like to emphasize that I don´t judge anyone based on his knowledge of languages, I just want to clarify here that Livio is a huge tendency to increase his own person. So also - up to the 15th of December - be pointed out that his Wikimediaaccount is older than eight years. Which he has deleted in the meantime.

I was in close contact to him until 2nd of January - he sends me 18 mails before - since asked me to promote a picture for FP. I said, that I would not do this, because it was not FP for me - but I said, that I won´t vote against. Since then, he is not my dear friend anymore.

• Livioandronico asserts, that I only assess pictures of other user - see the following gallery, I promoted the following:

• Until then, due to his technical lacks, I helped him with postprocessing the following pictures for him, all of them are QI now, one is FP:

, ,

Some of the most active participants in the QI-process told me directly by mail, that they do not want to nominate/decline/discuss pictures of Livioandronico any more, because Livio always starts a quarrel, he is not able to have an acceptable and friendly dispute, if his pictures are not promoted. Everyone is his dear XXX as long as you promote a picture, but you will become his enemy, unless you critisize his work. Even slightly.

A few days ago I asked Livio on his discussion page to refrain from personal attacks against me. His answer was a further increase by him, he also continued to attac Steindy in the same manner, because he set those personal attacks back.

A short list of his continuing, repetitive attacks, insults and his responses (original orthography):

• stop this stupid affermations
• I beleive that you have some serious problem
• To say that a statement is stupid is not an Personal attack, it is not personal
• And stop to check my pictures.I beleive that you have some serious problem
• Your opinions are often stupid and meaningless
• Trust me,you have problems

• This happened, because I demanded a correct file name and a correct categorization and too a proper description for the bust of a brute (sic!) In the meantime I repaired these problems, it takes me more then one hour. This, in fact, should be done by the photographer himself before a picture gets nominated.

• To demonstrate his very unpleasent manners, here some examples of problems with other users:

[30] - [31] - [32] - [33] - [34] - [35] - [36] - [37] [38] - [39] - [40] - [41] - [42]

• How does Livioandronico responses to critics at his own pictures? (not complete!)

• Typical rude dispute Counterparty:Slaunger
• Livioandronico2013: First thing YOUR policy does not interest me... Counterparty:mattbuck
• Livioandronico2013: What a bad Jebulon, do you think that bothers me? I cry? And 'better not worthy to have QI that not be worthy people. If you believe Oppose, I do it as a hobby, will not change my life one millimeter your childlike attitude. Counterparty:Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Because I want that everyone see what I think of your bad way of doing, not just those who read your page. Counterparty:mattbuck]
• Livioandronico2013: It's very curious Code that you send in CR only my photos, strange no? However I did not say that I do not care about your vote, I wrote that everyone is free to think as prefer.Do you see? even if you thought it was the same symbol, and even after I explained why I cut the photo you continue in your idea what can I do? Each one remains of his idea, as you do not care of my explanations, because you stay on your opinion. Counterparty:Code]
• Livioandronico2013: No Code is the second, short memory? Or is personal or is something else that is better not to say Counterparty:Code]
• Livioandronico2013: No Jebulon,a Sony Alpha DSLR-A550 is very economic,is true. But please be serious(a personal attack? I don't care). Your are not constructive criticism but annoying (a personal attack? I don't care). My work is not improved? Is only a your personal opinion infact other people (I feel so much better than you) write me "Your todays set of images shows a big improvement of your skills, Livio. ". So,we want to do? I don't care.The only thing that interests me is that when I'll be a 53 years old, I'll be hope to be a useful person. Salutations Counterparty: Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Over Jebulon? Non, non, monsieur vient de commencer Counterparty: Jebulon]
• Livioandronico2013: Just ask instead of declining, the crib I did, my brother and another father hospital. We have already had this discussion and are not so stupid as to put back something that I know I can not. Counterparty: Hubertl
• Livioandronico2013: You see Romanin? For one thing fixable you declines a photo,nobody works in this way here .... then do not complain. Counterparty: Jebulon
• Livioandronico2013: OK Jebulon,you win. These stories to children I have bored, I did it for fun, now I don't fun more! I'm really tired. My father always said, if you are not accepted changes air. Goodbye and good luck to all. I end up here. Counterparty: Jebulon
• Livioandronico2013: Ridiculous. Instead of judging ,upload your pictures, possibly not as bad your usual and after we can see. It is easy to judge the work of others without knowing it do Counterparty: Steindy
• Livioandronico2013: At least Ram is a photographer and has 40 Featured !!!. You? Ridiculous,real ridiculous. Counterparty: Steindy

• I am sure, these edits are not complete, in the meanwhile, within this thread he accused me beeing an Austrian dictator and being paranoid.

Unfortunately, nothing helps to find an collegiate level with him, except you promote his pictures positive. I think, I presented enough facts for his repetitive attacks and I can´t see another option than a noticeable pause for selfreflection. He is is in fact not just a single problem - in this particularly case with me, in the meantime his partizipation is really a big problem for a lot of other users. --Hubertl (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean Hubertl? If I had discussions with other users (which are then closed with no problems) should be their to make a claim, too bad they did not! I never sent any emails for promoting FP, God forbid. You have a beautiful fantasy. That your criticisms are stupid? I confirm call a mask Roman - Gargoyle is stupid and call a horse - unicorn so is. I don't use phrases like (For you this is to respond with equanimity?) :Commons stands in close relation to Wikipedia and is part of an encyclopedian projekt and not a children's birthday party.,Nobody ever will give you a shit for this!,he has to do more than just to do some simple photo shoots alike typical japanese tourists. and This looks more like a childish revenge action. This is not a kindergarten! The same Jebulon wrote that categorization is correct but you insist.And where are all these people with whom I would have problems Hubertl, where? You write that "Some of the most active participants in the QI-process told me directly by mail, that they do not want to nominate/decline/discuss pictures of Livioandronico any more, because Livio always starts a quarrel" very strange that I have quarrel only with you! Where is this people? p.s. If you don't understand my English use google translator --LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lazord00d

Lazord00d (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
This user obviously cannot bear a DR on his uploads. Therefore, (s)he nominated the request page for deletion, removed all the DR templates and is trolling (as also in en.wikipedia). --Leyo 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the user a final warning, next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter's warning does not seem to be sufficient as the user continues to remove DR templates. --Leyo 13:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I find this both harsh and not in the best interest of the project. Blocking after a perfunctory warning is good for uploaders of selfies or of copyvios about teen music stars and sports events. This user created diagrams of molecules using chemistry software, and conflict ensued when another user applied stricter cropping/framing (and correctly so, in my view). Reacting by means of spiteful DRs is problematic, but I am sure that avenues for a constructive solution to the matter are wider than just a boilerplate warn & block. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I have the impression that you don't yet have a good overview on this user's recent actions. --Leyo 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

58.167.231.149

58.167.231.149 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)
I noticed this IP editor editing (constructively I should say) on two files related to russavia and also editing russavias talk page, including re-adding some of the boiler plate front matter on that page with intro image and archive system. The IP locates to the Australian continent. To me it looks very much like either russavia himself editing or another person acting on his behalf. If so, it is, as I understand, against the globan ban policy. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It very likely is him. If he wants to edit via IP, there's not much that can be done. The Australian IPs are dynamic, and even if you block them (those ranges usually have only one other IP editor, Jermboy27, and so soft rangeblocks are pretty safe), he's also been known to use open proxies. You could use protections for pages like his talk, but he can just go to another talkpage and another, etc. He's uploaded so many images, you certainly can't use protections successfully in that area. Also, I'd have a hard time being motivated to chase IPs that're editing constructively, and I don't see it as a productive use of any admin's time. I would block open proxies simply for being open proxies, but those are free for the scraping... INeverCry 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• The edits to the images were harmless. I reverted the "Commons administrator" image on his talk page as not helpful, but I'd be friendlier if I knew it was him. Still not convinced it is helpful. If someone restores it, I certainly won't be upset. I've restored other Russavia edits that were reverted by others, because they appeared to be possibly helpful. The ban is of Russavia, not of us. If any of us restores the contributions of any blocked or banned user, we are responsible for it. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy or other requirement for unpaid Commons volunteers to run around after suspected Russavia IP edits. I am sure that WMF employees are carefully and thoughtfully tracking and permanently recording this if they feel it is important, or there are legal reasons to do so, but if they are constructive edits I suspect anyone focused on what is best for educational content creation would say "meh". There is plenty of good stuff to do, shall we get on with it? --Fæ (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I do understand your point INeverCry about the disproportionate amount of resources one can use hunting the dynamic IPs, and as long as "some IP" edits constructively on some file pages, it does not give much meaning. I do think though that it would be sensible to protect User talk:Russavia such that IPs cannot edit them. Increases the barrier a bit because a new user would be needed. But when it is so obvious and the IP is also editing the user talk page it is just asking to be blocked, I would say. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yann Just protected the talk page. As I see it, issue resolved. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a moot point. Hopefully it can convert to a semi if the issue is mainly about what anon IPs are up to on that page. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggested that Yann reduce protection level,[43] and Yann did. I know a lot more about this case, but I'm not commenting because of [44]. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment If the WMF hasn't been able to explain to the commons community the reasons for this ban, it's up to them to enforce it. If they're so interested in counting on us for enforcing the ban, they could have started by providing any explaination, haven't they? Commons admins should take care of commons community businesses (harmful editions, copyright violations and the like), not about unexplained WMF decisions. My €0.10--Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) PS: they have also provided ca-at-wikimedia.org as mailing contact. I do think whoever is interested in chasing Russavia should send their suspicious to such a mail address.

+1 --Leyo 18:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Russavia is now persona non grata on this site and really, really needs to find another hobby. It is not ok for him to break the terms of his ban even if making apparently constructive edits. While "there is no policy or other requirement for unpaid Commons volunteers to " do anything at all, the idea that a global ban should be less enforced because WMF enacted it vs the community is simply petty. I agree that a wild goose chase of IP edits is unproductive, but anyone supporting/encouraging this lame continuation with words or deeds should think again. His friends should buy him some golf lessons, or a pair of hiking boots. -- Colin (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit. --Leyo 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The continued moaning about the WMF block is nearly as lame as continuing to edit when blocked. What's the Latin for "Like it or lump it"? They've said quite clearly why the ban will not be explained. Move along. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know that admins will also be permitted to block without giving a reasoning. ;-) --Leyo 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The WMF hasn't been able to explain to the commons community the reasons for this ban. Non liquet. In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong forum. This page is for reporting violations of bans made by the Commons community, but User:Russavia was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, so it is up to the Wikimedia Foundation to enforce the ban. Try m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the "wrong forum" problem here is using this page to moan about WMF. This page is for dealing with "problematic users" and Russavia is one of those if he continues to defy a ban by the owners of this site. The tiny number of vocal Russavia-supporters need to "deal with that" the same we as we deal with country-specific copyright laws we don't all agree with or understand. This "it's WMF's problem" attitude is as unconvincing as expecting French architects to enforce their non-Freedom of Panorama on Commons. As long as this site is owned by WMF those are the rules just as much as the French make the rules governing photos in their country. Those unhappy with this should voice their concerns directly with WMF and stop playing pointless power games. If you continue to edit here, you accept the rules. Otherwise, fork or leave. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong answer. This forum is to Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes (clearly stated at the beginning). Other issues should be sorted out in the proper "forum". The unpaid volunteer community is not the WMF police force. No representation, no taxes. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 23:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicht alles was hinkt, ist ein Vergleich … (I am not able to translate this into English, sorry) --Leyo 21:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Colin, it is pretty clear that the community here is not interested in enforcing the WMF ban. Philippe should have anticipating the reaction of the community to the global ban of an administrator who recently survived a desysop discussion. It is up to them now to enforce it. If you want to help them - go ahead. I personally am not going to help them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Colin is right here. I am not going to block anyone, but using this case for moaning about the WMF is wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The «owners of this site», Colin, seriously? Tiny number? “Moaning”? — Wow, that’s an impressive display of “loyalty” to the WMF, and really unexpected. But maybe you were a bit too enthusiastic: Agitating for a fork, are you? That would put WMF’s briefs in a knot for sure… Maybe you’ll have to be disappeared for that, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is seriously not about "loyalty", merely reality. WMF disappoint me regularly and I've told them so. I've been a vocal critic of their (past) education programme, which was a disaster for Wikipedia -- producing a report which finally made them act to stop a class of 1500 known-nothings from wrecking our medical articles several times a year. I only hope their new Director isn't as clueless as the previous one. And I was part of the group that led CC (who are part WMF) to "clarify" that their licence is actually unsuitable for some purposes that WMF were claiming it was usable for. So I'm no WMF lap-dog and no stranger to protest. A fork of Commons holds no attraction: I mentioned it merely because forking and leaving are the only options if you remain upset in the face of impotence. Beyond the "usual suspects" I see no groundswell of support for Russavia editing. If the worst response Commons gives to Russavia being banned is that a handful of admins refuse to chase his IPs then I don't think Philippe underestimated Commons at all. The community has shrugged its shoulders, muttered "good riddance" and moved on. You guys should too. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is incremental. Desysopping everybody at WMF wiki without saying "thank you" was one step. Instriducing superprotect was another one. Banning Russavia is yet one more step out of many. If you are familiar with the story of Wikitravel, you probably know how it works.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, these issues are unrelated to Russavia's case. Only a handful of people show a grudge against the WMF, and they try to use this case to purse their agenda. You confuse yourself and others by mixing these issues. And like Colin said, I am certainly not an unconditional supporter of WMF. But the other issues are out of scope here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

restoring incorrect/correct info

I'm only mentioning this here since the user attacked me the last time we interacted. I'm only going to deal with this person in common areas. User:Look2See1 edited Category:Central Union Mission yesterday. The info that was added to the description is incorrect. The six original photos that are in the category (before s/he added the category to these two) are the Central Union Mission's former facility at 1631 14th Street NW in Logan Circle, Washington, D.C. When I created the category, it was for photos of this building. Now the description reads the building is located at 624 Indiana Avenue NW (that's a different building; now demolished) in Logan Circle (Logan Circle is nowhere near 624 Indiana Avenue NW). The description was also changed to say the building was designed by Appleton P. Clark, Jr. (that's only true for the two old photos) and that it's part of the McReynolds Building project (true for the original color photos). The original description was just spliced up and moved around, and now is completely incorrect. I reverted the edit saying "that is a different building; look at the photos" (not a hostile edit or edit summary), s/he restored the incorrect information calling it "temperamental vandalism by PreachersKid?". In what way is my edit vandalism? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Please see former 1-2 January 2015 COM:AN/U regarding editor AgnosticPreachersKid and myself for backround experiences. Regarding my editing of Category:Central Union Mission, correcting and focusing categories and links, and information:

1. I went to the LOC website before making any changes, and read the HABS Central Union Mission project report and image notes. I also read the en:Central Union Mission and architect en:Appleton P. Clark, Jr. articles.
2. I made the corrections and additions these sources provided on my first edit.
3. Though no mention was made of an automobile agency ever in the building, I left that cat. in a "nowiki" with embedded note, in case another editor could verify it.
4. All my info/cats/links were completely reverted by AgnosticPreachersKid, with NO edit summary/notes. No selective links/cats editing was chosen as the accurate and respectful editing option, retaining/correcting data other editors and Commons users could learn from. It was just destruction.
5. I reverted AgnosticPreachersKid edit to restore the correct data, according to HABS/en:wiki — With an edit summary/note.
6. Since the rvt. by AgnosticPreachersKid was illogical and destroying information to my understanding, and experiencing his former temperamental mode of communicating, it seems possible this was an irrational "temper based vandalism" edit, which I also noted.
7. The entitlement and arrogance of AgnosticPreachersKid has become distressing and tiresome, as displayed (in my understanding) by their "I'm not here, volunteering my time and photos, to get stressed out and insulted. That's a quick way to lose editors." from their 2 January 2015 COM:AN/U statement. First, AgnosticPreachersKid is responsible for their own cognitive and emotional reactions/responses/interpretations of stress and insult, not mis-assign motivations/responsibilities to others. Second, we are All volunteering our time and effort, and deserve good faith.

If I need to file a separate COM:AN/U about this editor also, could an administrator please advise me? I am ignorant if the "on file" documentation that would provide is necessary or important. I have no personal need to do so, but can if a "balanced paper trail" is appropriate. It takes two to have a disagreement, and I do not want all the credit here. — Look2See1 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"All my info/cats/links were completely reverted by AgnosticPreachersKid, with NO edit summary/notes." That is completely false. As already mentioned, I typed "that is a different building; look at the photos". You're once again attacking me by calling me arrogant and saying I'm entitled. How am I being arrogant and acting entitled by correcting your mistake? You called my edit which corrected false information vandalism. How is it vandalism? I did not call you a vandal or any other name, yet you complain about me causing you distress. You're continuing to revert without checking if your information is correct. You haven't addressed the false information on the category description. Are you going to just leave the incorrect information on the category or do you expect others to fix your mistakes? if I fix it, you'll cry "edit war" and complain about that. Also, there's no need to post the above reply here, your talk page and my talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Look2See1: You've continued editing without answering the questions. I would appreciate a response as to why the incorrect information on Category:Central Union Mission should not be corrected. If someone was to read the current description, they would think a building now stands at 624 Indiana Avenue NW (it doesn't; look at Google Street View) and that the building is in the Logan Circle neighborhood (that address is downtown) Not to mention the other errors on the description, like the demolished address being a contributing property to the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District. It's hard to be a CP when that address no longer exists. I'm not sure why you're so adamant about leaving misleading and false information. Just because it was me who corrected it, you seem to automatically revert and refuse to look at the issue. Look at what I've written and tell me you don't see the errors. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the new headquarters information and corrected the description. (it's been in this building since 2012) Category:Central Union Mission now covers the organization (with appropriate categories) while the building photos have their respective categories (built, architect, location, etc.). Hopefully this will solve the problem since no one can be bothered. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback policy

I need guidance on the Wikimedia Commons reversion policy as that subject is not in the index on the Help page. I happened to be browsing the [[Category:Actors]] page and noticed the box saying that the over-crowded files needed to be placed in more specific categories. Having spent a great deal of time doing that, I decided to move on to other categories that needed the same treatment. Feeling that the category [[Category:Film actors]] was very general and could lead to the same problems, I recategorized the files I found there into the more specific [[Category:Film actors by country]]. My edits were reverted by User:Cathy Richards but she provided no reason for her reverts which seem to me to be contrary to the principle of using specific categories where possible. How do I handle the situation? She says on her User Page that "This user prefers to occasionally not stay mellow", so I am afraid to ruffle her feathers for fear of an incident. Mike Hayes (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have a policy on rollback (only guidelines), but these reverts were correct. You should not be placing files in meta categories. Read the notice at the top of Category:Film actors by country. Content from Category:Film actors should be placed into the relevant subcategories of Category:Film actors by country.—LX (talk, contribs) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I figured out what my mistake was. Now I have another problem. I tried to use cat-a-lot and made a total mess of the Cee-Lo category. How do I revert my mistakes. There is now no [undo] tag on my "contributions". Mike Hayes (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I reverted my mistake. Mike Hayes (talk)

Moves by Daniel Mietchen

Hi all,
Is an edit like this is advisable for a FP? It creates a hell lot problems in the templates as well as in en-wiki too.. --The Herald 12:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from AN/U. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I have notified Daniel Mietchen about this thread. Please do this in future, it is generally considered an action incumbent on the person who opens an AN/U thread. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, due to the size of the expected propagation of changes. But this is a question to take up with Daniel Mietchen on his talk page rather than needing admin action. Daniel does widely recognized excellent high quality work for Commons, so I'm sure he will take any advice on board for his future file moves. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ. @The Herald: Why you don't talk with Daniel before reporting here? *sigh* --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Cest bien..--The Herald 13:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I probably wouldn't have made the move myself, given how widely used the image is, but it's hard to imagine the move being overly problematic and the new name is better. Delinker does eventually do a good job fixing up all the broken usages across the projects as well. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the notifications. I was not aware of "a hell lot problems" being created by the move(s), and upon taking a closer look now, I found only one (which I fixed), plus that it may be irritating to see a redlink at the en-wiki nomination page. If there were or are other problems, I'd like to learn about them, so as to consider such effects on future occasions. If any of these problems have been fixed in the meantime, then thanks to those who did it.

Taking a step back to look at a broader picture, I am not aware of any policies against renaming featured files, and wondering whether file names should be considered in the featuring process. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It will be nice to avoid renaming while POTY is running. Jee 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice if POTY images had descriptive file names, but now I see that the priorities are different, so will keep my hands off them. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Descriptive names are good. But many sub-pages are created based on file-names. It is not good to break any links now as the voting is started. We can rename them when the contest is over. Thanks for the understanding. Jee 03:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Problematic uploads

A user seems to upload some possibly non-official and even copyvio images.

• User talk:Iflwlou

The image I'm concerned with is File:Seal of Haikou.svg ‎. Please see comments here.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the city emblem of Haikou, in my reference[45], it said:'中國海口市市徽，海口市人民政府贈', it meaning 'City Emblem of Haikou, China, Haikou Municipal People's Government'.--Iflwlou (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Iflwlou. I appreciated what you are trying to do. I believe it was in good faith. But, there are two problems:

1. That site is not a government site. It is a sort of coin selling site, and I think they made that up.

2. Your version is a derivative. It is essentially a copyright violation.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update:

I initially did not tag it for speedy deletion. But now the story of its origin is clear, and it must be considered a derivative copyvio. I have tagged it for speedy deletion just now. Sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You tagged it for speedy deletion, but I thank you must give me more time to contradict.--Iflwlou (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Haikou.svg. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of WPK

Hello, I was going to create a checkuser request, but also Britannique-Bretagne was blocked without a cu req, so I guess this place is fine for that. I found out that Heraldia seems to be indefinitely blocked user WPK (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/WPK]). This IP on fiwiki made an edit on the Finnish Wikipedia yesterday, and I identified him as a WPK (we on fi-wiki can identify him easily per IP and edits). File:Breast star for the 1st class of the Cross of Liberty.png that he added on the link I gave, was uploaded on Commons by User:Heraldia. This file, which the same IP as fi-wiki's WPK, was marked as speedy deleted, is also uploaded by WPK in 2011. But the clearest one is here: Here WPK (identified by another user on fi-wiki) added a file uploaded by Heraldia to Wikipedia, just a few days after it was uploaded (also notice the time when they edited; at night on the Finnish time). And I know that not many users upload logos like that on Commons. If you need more examples, I can give, but this seems to be clear case. --Stryn (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 22:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of filemover right for User:Medium69 for violating Commons:Language policy

Serial copyvios (again), Laurie Lind (talk · contribs)

Laurie Lind / File:Essex V4 V6 piston.jpg

Recently blocked for this, I think an indef is now needed – at least until they respond and discuss this. Continued series of web-searched images (useful ones we really need), but with no licensing whatsoever. As they've so far failed to respond, I think we're now into en:WP:COMPETENCE (or local equivalent). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that's worth an indef. At least with the last upload, it was not labeled as own work, websource was provided, no bogus license-template had been added. True, it has no evidence of permission and needs to be deleted. However, such kind of uploads are easily caught even by our bots (no license). So, the damage in regard to detecting such uploads and in exposing re-users to copyright-infringement is far lower by this upload than by agency-shots claimed as own work and having a (though invalid) license-template, which may go undetected for some time. The most welcome action here would be to get into real communication with this user. Just my 2ct. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(Editconflict) Done Only copyvios since 24 December 2014. Blocked for 4 months. Next time indef. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to get them to respond? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuous copyvio uploads

Timboliu has uploaded many copyvios in the past (see the history of his talk page) and has been warned for this by Natuur12. Today and yesterday, he uploaded copyvios again. Could an admin take a look and take action if needed? Thanks, JurgenNL (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwangmo

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

This user has uploaded a number of copyvios / files with no permissions / out of scope files (check his talk page, where there is a lot of warnings). I and other users have warned him for several times, but his inappropriate behavior has continued. Please block him.

I am involved with him on Korean Wikipedia (where he is blocked for 2 months) so not doing any action by myself.

— Revi 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Blocked for three days. +500 deleted copyvios since 11 August 2014. Next time the block will be longer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27

Edit warring on File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg and File:World marriage-equality laws.svg against multiple users. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. This user was already blocked once for edit warring on the same document(s). Yann (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of another's work

I noticed a picture on a Wikipedia page that was claimed to be the work of one individual but in fact is my work. I don't mind the picture being on Wikipedia for all to see but I DO mind some other clown taking credit for what was not his work. What recourse, if any, do I have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.120.162 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You could start by telling us which image it is by giving us a link to the image on Wikipedia, and one to the website where you had published it. Then we'll take a look and see how we go further from there. Otherwise, you could try e-mailing our permissions team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and explain the situation (giving links and evidence) to them. If you try that, be prepared to wait; our e-mail team is constantly overworked and it may thus take a couple of weeks until they get back to you. Lupo 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Link on Wiki is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StThomasHarbor.jpg. I never published the picture on the Web. It's from a private collection pictures of a cruise my family took which included St. Thomas. I took the picture from the balcony of our stateroom as we pulled out of St. Thomas harbor. If you click on the picture you'll see Calyponte has claimed it as his "own work." BS! I'd like to see him come up with the date, year, cruise line, ship, and stateroom number for that pic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.120.162 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I find your allegation as rather weak, Caly Ponte has uploaded two photos of St. Thomas and other photos using the same camera (Canon 40D). Bidgee (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I too find the accusation difficult to understand at the moment. 1) If you never published the photo, how did the uploader get it? 2) As Bidgee noted above, this photo is part of a series of some 21 photos, presumably from the same cruise the uploader took. Are you saying that the other 20 photos are also yours, or just this one? 3) It's not difficult to know some details about the cruise, given that they are actually mentioned in the files uploaded by the uploader, whereas you did not mention them in your accusation. The photos are dated 13, 14 and 15 November, 2007. Also, from a few clues, although it's not stated, I would guess that it was possibly a cruise with the Carnival Cruise Lines, on one of the ships Liberty, Triumph or Glory, but that's only my guess. 4) Given the size of cruise ships and the frequency of such cruises, it's not like you're the only person who ever took a cruise there and took pictures from one of the rooms. 5) Do you use a Canon EOS 40D? 6) The uploader's actually published files are much better documented than what you vaguely implied about your unpublished photo. The accusation is not really convincing so far. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the picture I uploaded has been deleted?

I've received a mail from User:Krdbot telling that the image I uploaded into my gallery had been deleted. I have direct and express authorization from the author. How can I uploade images without having again this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawwa Morales (talk • contribs)

@Hawwa Morales: Hi,

You are not the author, and you didn't provide a license. You need a formal written permission from the photographer. Please see COM:OTRSfor the procedure. The image can be restored once the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

New Jermboy socks.

• Jermbollano
• Bareyman61

I believe these two users are socks of Jermboy. Please see related investigation on Wikipedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Editpattern looks like a sock.  Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Difernpor

Most uploads appear to be copyright violations. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Deleted the copyvios, nominated the personal trophy's photos for deletion because out of COM:SCOPE and user warned. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC?

Is there an equivalent to WP's RfC process on Commons? User:Look2See1 has once again restored incorrect information on a category (the same one mentioned here), without addressing any of the concerns I raised. Since no one else (other than myself and Look2See1) commented the last time I pointed out this issue, is there a venue where people will actually chime in? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can also say AgnosticPreachersKid "has once again restored incorrect information on a category" "without addressing any of the concerns I raised" regarding Category:Central Union Mission, as they wrote above. Though informative of both our perspectives, that does not resolve the ongoing problem. My edit notes for the cat. repeatedly indicate the information I used is from the LOC−HABS data report and en:Central Union Mission article. Alas, AgnosticPreachersKid has not addressed that information or those data resources yet, nor have they offering any sources/references to support their opinions. They merely revert my edits in a seemingly temperamental vandalism spirit.

This is the third COM:AN/U posted by AgnosticPreachersKid on this topic. Yet again AgnosticPreachersKid posts biased acquisitions here instead of objectively discussing the category's correct information. Neither will AgnosticPreachersKid discuss that problem or their behavior on my or their talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid seems at ease with attacking and threatening here, but is absolutely unavailable for discussion and solutions.

This now feels like editorial cyberbullying. Will an administrator please help gain resolution with this? Thank you Look2See1 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Look2See1 is again calling me a vandal and accusing me of attacking and threatening him/her without any evidence. Someone pointing out your insistence on reinserting false information is not "cyberbullying", no matter what you think. I repeatedly pointed out the errors in the category description here. The LOC−HABS data report information is only applicable for the two b&w photos. The category description is a mixture of previous information that was added when I created the category, and information from the LOC−HABS data report added by Look2See1. The address listed (624 Indiana Avenue NW) was demolished, that address is not in Logan Circle, that address is not a contributing property to the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District (especially since the building no longer exists), and that address is not part of the McReynolds Building project. This would be a simple thing to correct if it wasn't for the fact Look2See1 hates to be corrected, especially by yours truly. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You say the LOC−HABS data report is the basis of your category description, but that report does not mention anything about the building being in Logan Circle, being part of the McReynolds Building project, or being a contributing property to the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District. Yow know why? Because it's a different building and you took previous information and combined it with the LOC−HABS content. So now the description is patently false. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Look2See1: "Yet again AgnosticPreachersKid posts biased acquisitions here instead of objectively discussing the category's correct information." How exactly is my concern "biased" and I've tried repeatedly pointing out the errors in the description, and yet, you have not replied to the fact the building is demolished and not in the neighborhood where you claim it is. The organization has been housed in more than one location. Look at this photo and tell me you can't see the sign? I tried a compromise description, which lasted for almost two weeks, but I assume s/he thought I'd just forget about it and decided to restore the false information. BTW, this is the second report about this particular category problem, not the third. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User Green Zero

Trolling, POV-pushing, sockpuppetry [46] /St1995 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• uk:user:Green Zero 2 Green Zero 2 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

user:Alan Liefting

Alan, seems to have opinions on categorization that differ significantly from current consensus, and despite of multiple warnings at his talk page and Village Pump he keeps on removing useful categories from pages, see above discussions. I explained to him that he will be blocked for vandalism if he keeps on doing edits which he knows are against community consensus, so he reverted one of my corrections to his category removal. As a result I blocked him for a day, and I am prepared to block for much longer if he continues to do edits which he was informed are destructive. I have a feeling he is trying to get blocked, maybe to make his Wikipediocracy article about how "Wikimedia Commons is one hell of a mess" better. --Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty poor block, no warning, no block notice and not even a link to this AN/U topic on his talk page. And you're in fact involved, so you shouldn't have used your tools (regardless if he was disruptive or not). Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I came back to place a notice on his talk page, but you beat me to it, and I did let him know that he will get blocked for this kind of edits in the Village Pump discussion something I know he read. If you think I should excuse myself from future dealings with user:Alan Liefting since I am "involved", and let others handle his disruptions, I will be happy to oblige. The block will expire tomorrow, and I am sure we will hear more from him. --Jarekt (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

VP is not the place to warn editors, such warnings should be placed on the user talk page and the fact that you made your opinion known on VP and came into conflict with him on the New York template, you should've came here for uninvolved admins to look at it. Also he didn't vandalise. Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this an AGF action from Jarekt. The righ place after a block may be COM:AN/B as a block review by other admins and volunteers. Jee 05:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Jarekt, please don't make assumptions and try and second guess what I am trying to do. I am not trying to get blocked. I want to help build Commons. To build Commons we sometimes have to focus the the problems that we are faced with. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to avoid from Alans block but after the long discussion in the village pump I realized that it is only a matter of time. user Alan Liefting thinks that only his way is the highway. and it is not going to be changed. He knows better then all the users that working her for years (He is already blocked in en.wiki). But, when it seems the the inevitable going to happen it is better to stick to our rules and let the time to do the rest.-- Geagea (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is are the rules here any good. Many editors have left Commons and some of that is because the community is dysfunctional. I am trying to do my best for Commons but the problem is what is the best for Commons. As I have already stated there are no in depth usability surveys that we can rely on to guide our edits. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarekt, your decision making as an admin is very poor. You blocked me for 24 hrs when I was doing very few edits. You blocked me at a time when I was not doing any contentious edits. You blocked me after doing an edit you did not agree with (an interestingly you did not undo). You blocked me, in part, for doing an edit for which I gave adequate rationale. You blocked me even though you are an involved party. Alan Liefting (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarekt clearly did this in good faith, if not quite correctly, and it isn't as if numerous administrators (myself included) had not already admonished Alan Liefting for editing against consensus in this respect. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem of involved admin here and Alan, please understand that you are not the only user here. -- Geagea (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of filemover right for User:Medium69 No. 2

Category:Videos

Hello. There is recurrent vandalism on this category. I reported it in December and the category had been protected. Obviously vandalism happens again since the protection has ended. Please protect the category once again for a long time. Nemesis III ^(discuter) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

I changed the protection to admin only. That should help. Natuur12 (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, checkusers are aware of this problem. Not much we can do here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Nemesis III ^(discuter) 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Hans Barbosa

Hi, Hans Barbosa (talk · contribs) is posting spam. I am involved in this DR, so I request another admin to block him. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nick (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible multiple users controlling account

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

1. Account refers to itself as "the Miami Book Fair International, MDCarchives" [47].
2. Appears to be violation of m:Role account, account controlled by an organization possibly by multiple different people.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional problems with file uploads by user:

1. Frequently uploads photographs credited only as "own work".
2. Does not credit the original photographer of the image.
3. Zero evidence or documentation the original photographer of the images gave permission.
4. Including photographs of living people taken indoors without documentation from the photographer, or indeed any documentation other than "own work" by the likely m:Role account.

-- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Please keep in mind that the Meta policy you have linked to does not apply to Commons. If the account is being misused, that is a separate issue to be raised with the account holder(s). Commons has many perfectly valid role accounts for institutions. --Fæ (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Have those role accounts for institutions been confirmed somehow? -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Some have, but we have no clear policy to require it. It would make a good proposal. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be a policy to require it, as there's unfortunately a potential for fraud. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problems remain with the account, however many people there are that control it together, not attributing properly to the photographer of the photos and instead writing "own work", with zero documentation or confirmation it is "own work", but of who. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lack of sources is a serious concern, sufficient for a deletion request. As the Miami Dade College archives are the identifiable/asserted account operator, it would be easy enough for someone to ping an email or call the contact details on their website. If the account operator is reading this, they may wish to avoid any doubt by confirming they are who they say they are by following the examples at Commons:Email templates and emailing OTRS, then making a commitment to be clearer about their sources. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But at the very least we should (1) Have info on who the photographers were, and (2) Confirmation that each individual photographer gave away their rights to "MDCArchives", and (3) Confirmation that "MDCArchives" is who he/she/they say they are. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fæ

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

Enough. There is hardly a single posting in this thread that forwards our open content aims. I would ask everyone to step away from this, make no further comment whatsoever, and get back to doing more useful work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

See [48] and [49]. See contradicting [50] too. It is clear that Fæ is playing game due to his conflicts with me. I don't care it; but the sad thing that here the victim is honorable Karl Hammer. This type of behavour should be immediately stopped to protect our reputation. (I know a prior discussion with the user in question is preferred; but this is an emergency.) Sigh. Jee 13:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have responded on the OTRS noticeboard, before seeing that Jkadavoor has pointlessly escalated drama by asking for administrator action against me. Jkadavoor was provided with evidence on the OTRS noticeboard that his presumption that Karl understood copyright of the WW2 document and music score was incorrect. He correctly withdrew the OTRS ticket. As for blanking this dialogue from the OTRS noticeboard and posting them in a deletion request that I was not going to make any comment in, I do not see how my objecting to Jkadavoor's actions is a reason for an administrator to take action against me.

If those who politely question OTRS volunteers about tickets that rely on non-public information for the verification of copyright are to be threatened with administrator action for doing so, then this seems to be a blight on transparency or copyright reliability.

To repeat, Jkadavoor got this one wrong, after blanking discussion and moving it to a deletion request so that it now becomes invisible from future searches of the OTRS/N archives, he is asking for administrator action to punish me as the one that raised a question about a dubious file publicly on Commons rather than through closed or otherwise unaccountable channels. --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jee, I'm sorry but I think you may have misunderstood what Fae is saying here. He is not gaming at all. The discussion on the OTRS noticeboard relates to the ticket, and ought to remain there for clarity and later searchability. The DR page is separate, and it confuses matters to have whole chunks of text copied there from another page and deleted from the original. I included a link to the OTRS noticeboard when I opened the DR and that's all that is needed. I'd like to revert if you don't mind. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ and MichaelMaggs. On-topic discussions at the OTRS notice board should stay there and be archived there without being moved elsewhere. There is no gaming here. Fæ voiced his protest against this surprising move without reverting the move. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; I must not loss my faith. There must be some reason why Fæ is investigating my tickets. There must be some reason why Fæ is investigating Ktr's uploads. There must be some reason why Fæ is defending The Photographer. I will cease closing of further tickets until another experienced agent like MichaelMaggs or AFBorchert double check all the tickets I closed so far. Please take over the half processed tickets in my queue. Jee 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not good practice to claim to be worthily extending good faith, and then follow it with unsubstantiated bad faith allegations along with "sighs" and "hmms".

With regard to your obvious implicit bad faith allegations, I am helping The Photographer with some work off-wiki, however you seem to have forgotten about a past occasion when I held The Photographer publicly to account for a series of unhelpful mass deletion requests.[51]VP As for Ktr101, I took a quick look at his small number of OTRS tickets for Commons (12) and immediately saw that there were digitally corrupted files which had been verified by his tickets. Those images were quietly deleted as duplicates, along with one two of his own uploads as copyright violations, some others have deletion requests which you can find notified clearly and publicly on his user talk page.

I would prefer OTRS volunteers to be prepared to answer questions about OTRS tickets in good faith from the out start, without taking it as a personal challenge. What matters is being assured of the best possible copyright review process for Commons with the limited number of volunteers we have available. Images verified through OTRS must remain of the highest reliability to retain confidence of the community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"What matters is being assured of the best possible copyright review process for Commons with the limited number of volunteers we have available. Images verified through OTRS must remain of the highest reliability to retain confidence of the community." -- I fully agree. But I failed to see same level of competence here. Could you make a comment there, please? Jee 09:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I commented the move of the thread, the comment was not made in regard to any perceived pattern where tickets or uploads of selected persons are scrutinized. At this point, I will just give some general advise: The perfect handling of permission tickets requires experience and it is very well possible that at times a particular point was not taken care of. Fæ has undoubtely experience in these matters and it is not uncommon that there are questions at the OTRS notice board in regard to a particular ticket whether all points of importance have been considered. This can be beneficial to all involved, i.e. it is possible to learn from these discussions and we can take care of possible problems as long as we can still contact the copyright holder and/or we delete a copyright violation before we receive a DMCA notice. If you get the feeling that a series of discussions or deletion requests follows some questionable pattern then I would recommend to contact another admin or OTRS member whom you trust and ask for a second opinion. In such cases it is better to have an independent view on this before you make such a concern public. But the same is also true for the other direction. An individual user or admin should not scrutinize or systematically follow all contributions of someone else (with the exception of dull copyright violators whose uploads get nuked). If there are concerns it is likewise best to ask others for help. AGF works in both directions and it is better to play safe in this regard. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

AFBorchert: My apologies. I was in a much stressed state of mind because of the allegations against me going on, on and off-wiki. Most concerning is the leak of no public data. The banned user already quoted my last comment at OTRS-wik on IRC even after the OTRS admins started their investigation. I don't care if my comments get leaked, as I'm very transparent to any types of criticism. But now I'm their target, so every confidential data I'm handling may also get leaked. This is frustrating. So my decision to cease processing new tickets is a security measure to prevent it.

I can't post IRC logs. But they were available to people already online at those times and to group contacts. Please check the comment by a user at (9:17:57 PM) UTC+5:30 06 February 2015 at #wikimedia-commons if it were available to you. You can see a common admin trying to stop him too. See another at (5:55:05 PM) UTC+5:30 03 February 2015. I don't think I need to shed that much blood. But it is WMF's fault, if they have no plan to stop these types of attacks. And off-course, the common admins watching it without emotions. Jee 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not the first time I meet with a consequences of canvassing in IRC channel. Lately, User:Fae spread Russavia's nonsense from IRC channel about this. The same words by Russavia in the IRC channel of Commons found their way to the admin noticeboard. Russavia is a banned user, no matter what he was before, he is in the way to be a troll to this project. That is not because he is a bad person. It is simply the human nature. He is still around in the IRC channel but he cannot contribute in any way so it is a matter of time that he will become a troll to this project (if he is not already). After the "help" of Russavia to Fae he become to a speaker of the banned user Russavia. If you keep doing it I will stop assuming a good faith to his actions. (removed the last sentence). -- Geagea (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is bad faith rubbish. I am not a meatpuppet for Russavia and I never have been.

If you have an issue with Russavia, then raise that in a separate thread.

If you have evidence of a crime, then go to the police.

Making unsupportable allegations of involvement with criminal activity is using this project for publicly smearing my character and should not be tolerated. Provide evidence or go away and do something positive for this project rather than making personal attacks that may cause me real life damage.

You are an administrator on this project and an OTRS volunteer, I expect far better civil behaviour from any user with these rights. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Same words Russavia were said in the IRC channel found their way to the admin noticeboard. The exact words. Russavia will Canvasse but he is not issue. Your actions her are issue. -- Geagea (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Rubbish. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I second Geagea's claim. Geagea: (off-topic) One doubt. Does Russavia still in #wikimedia-admin even after his resignation? Jee 08:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

He was canvassing in #wikimedia-commons. Seen him only short period on the admins channal. -- Geagea (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never cut and paste from IRC to be Russavia's meatpuppet.

I have talked to Russavia on IRC from time to time and as someone who has created a great deal of educational content for this project by working with him for the last couple of years, I see nothing criminal about that, it is not evidence of meatpuppetry. At the moment I comment on #wikimedia-commons less recently as everything on IRC appears to be getting logged and used as "evidence" everywhere else. Honest and frank discussion appears impossible at this time.

Legal threats like yours are not appropriate. Retract them. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(comment removed)

This is another legal threat. You are free to write to WMF legal, stop using this noticeboard for making legal threats. --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed possible legal trhteat from my comment (her). -- Geagea (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry allegation

As Gaegea and Jkadavoor have made allegations that I am a meatpuppet of Russavia, I have opened a separate thread for them to provide the evidence. In my view, serious allegations require serious evidence. I ask that further legal threats are struck from this noticeboard by an administrator and anyone making legal threats is appropriately warned. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this your own words? If you say yes, I will tract my support. It is quite natural that similar minded people have same thoughts. And an apology in advance. :) Jee 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is my own words. The bad faith being shown on this noticeboard is overwhelming at this point.

This is a blatant bad faith witch-hunt. You are scrabbling about trying to find any excuse to convict me of something bad. Go away and do something positive. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My heartily apologies. But keep in mind. it is always safe not to listen a banned user omitting too much of hate crime against the volunteers active here. Here the banned user's accusation against Gaegea and your complaint exactly matches. So I can't blame if Gaegea too thought that way. But I'm not claiming any excuse. My heartily apologies. Jee 09:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your allegation of "hate crime" is not only defamatory, but is a type of crime that is vigorously pursued by the police in the UK. Legal threats are not only against Commons policy and the terms of use for Wikimedia sites, but they are a remarkably stupid thing to write on a public forum unless you have hard evidence to back it up. You are misusing this website to publish libel.

I do not accept your smilies and "hearty apologies", in the context of your multiple bad faith allegations they are clearly meaningless. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bit of a hypocrite! Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

As this discussion has become a series of defamatory personal attacks. I will only respond to firm evidence being presented. I would appreciate an experienced administrator taking action on the legal threats published here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Unmarked redactions have been made to this thread, in some cases leaving my comments with no context. For the sake of anyone reviewing archives, it is a bad idea to break threads without at least leaving a note that a redaction to the original discussion has taken place and why. --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Lecen

Hi, Lecen (talk · contribs) is edit warring on File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG, and refuse to acknowledge (see my talk page). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lecen reverted a lot of users, reverted & protected for one week. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There appear to more than one editor edit-warring, and surely the reverts by admins should be reverting to the earliest file not to the most recent upload which is a duplicate of another file already uploaded under a different name? DrKiernan (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: To which version you mean? 02:31, 4 July 2010? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to 16:16, 4 July 2014 - seems to be the version before editwar. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's best to go with the version immediately before the edit war, at least until a new consensus develops. We can revert all the way back or merge/demerge the files later, if the discussion concludes that way. DrKiernan (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of worried Lecen's edits are motivated by racism. given he threw a fit over someone saying he was probably just a bit olive skinned tanned, accusing them of racism against white people, editing an image to make the person look more Caucasian is suspicious, and others involved with the article he worked on have also been really willing to jump to accusations about racism against whites, e.g. "There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today." On the other hand, they might just not really know what they're doing, and be really aggressive about it. But we probably shouldn't have two discussions about this. this is the original discussion; I'd suggest we move there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As Adam Cuerden has been told in the venues where he has raised and re-raised his arguments, there is a place to discuss viewpoints, and this is not it. The repeated backdoor battleground attempts to runaround editor consensus at the Wikipedia article (i.e., that Adam Cuerden's preferred image is not a suitable illustration of the article contents) is a disruptive waste of time.[52][53][54][55] Adam Cuerden already has a copy of his preferred image, and if he wishes to write an article about that version, then it is perfectly fine to use it for that. Nor is it likely that Lecen logs in here frequently to monitor Yann's posts. Yann himself posted a highly offensive and uncivil suggestion that people who voted to keep the image were "pushing a hidden agenda", which is completely without merit.[56] Astynax (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we separate the en-wiki discussion from the Commons discussion. This is not the place to discuss unmellow responses made at the English Wikipedia. The only relevant question that is left is: is this file in scope or not? The edit war has been dealt with and the hostile responses need to be dealt with at the proper en-wiki noticeboard. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Harassment coming from uk-wp

A group of Ukrainian nationalists have started a campaign of harassing Commons administrator Butko for the media files he's been posting, which includes canvassing at deletion requests and even "inspecting" his Facebook friends. Can we do something about it? SkyBon (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As deletion requests are not a vote, but should be closed based on merit of the reasoning against policies, you can leave a note for the closing administrator on each DR to show there may be a bias in discussion due to canvassing/lobbying. If someone is hounded on this project then COM:BP applies, the hounded party needs to present the pattern of disruption to this project and should avoid responding directly to trolling. If there is personal harassment, it may be best to have an email discussion with an administrator you trust for advice on how to proceed. Depending on what the nature of the asserted harassment is, dealing with it may follow several paths.

Where issues are cross-wiki, Commons administrators will only look at that part of it that is on Commons. Blatant harassment may provide a suitable case to take to WMF-legal for action under the terms of use for the websites, however they will refuse to take on anything that is covered by project policies and the community can handle; so I understand we are informed. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lidaz

Could someone pls have a look at the contributions of this user? They were blocked at French Wikipedia for massive sockpuppetry, and I do not see a single good upload - small files, no exif, doubtful claim of own work. I would just mass-delete them, but I need a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Necessary links are here, and a sock just recently reverted my closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked; uploads deleted. --A.Savin 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

+ sockpuppets by Lidaz

Megamario1, Tarastumkiv, Ralbert285, Lalala2014, Bonnechance7 is sockpuppets by Lidaz [57] [58] — Green Zero обг 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nuked and gone. --Denniss (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Aas Mohammad and his sockfarm

I'm wondering if you could block his accounts at Commons. Maybe even a global lock? Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AASMOHAMMADABBASIACTOR#Multiple_accounts for the list. I've nommed all his images for deletion here, but did not notify at his commons talk. Do you still want me too? Sorry I didn't. It was because I'm tired after spending an hour at enwp cleaning up. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to you. I'm still encountering more socks, so haven't even determined who the master is. If you keep an eye on the enwp talk page (currently headquartering the mess) you may see new accounts added. Best wishes and thanks again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI at enwp just for the record. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Odder's recent behavior

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. No admin action needed. Multichill (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Four months ago, in October 2014, there was a request to remove Odder’s rights after a wheel-war against stewards over the de-sysop of a user. A few weeks later, another issue was widely discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. As a result, Odder admitted to abstain from controversial rights changes (difflink).

The most recent transgression that was just recently discussed on his talk page concerns the access and publication of confidential material on the OTRS wiki. What made this recent incident a major issue was that he published select quotes by me (difflink), and appears to have access to the site, which is restricted to OTRS agents, and a select few other users. Odder previously did have access to the site, but his account was closed in July of last year, thus removing any potential for him to see the material there.

As far as I remember I have never had any personal dispute with Odder. Nevertheless, that fact that a Bureaucrat, who is supposed to remain neutral and maintain order during conflicts, has not only come to the defense of a banned user and used this material in order escalate a conflict, is not an acceptable conduct for a ‘crat or an Oversighter, and I would like to hear more opinions how this can be settled. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the conclusion that sharing nonpublic information is a severe issue and not an acceptable conduct, especially for a bureaucrat and oversighter. --Krd 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

… which is, in general, a valid conclusion, as long as you can prove that I have shared any non-public information as defined by the access to nonpublic information policy. However, Kevin's comment included no non-public information, and the fact of his having taken part in that discussion is not non-public information, either. What is more, I have made no use of my administrator, bureaucrat or oversight privileges at all in relation to this situation, so I think we can all agree that I have not abused any of the positions that I hold on this project. odder (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate odder for coming out in the open about Ktr101's appalling misuse of his OTRS access and self-appointed authority to write on behalf of all Wikimedia projects. Had it not been for odder's work and courage in taking on the component of the Bureaucrat's role in showing leadership in public, rather than in secret on the closed otrs-wiki or by private secretive emails that the community would never hear about, there is no doubt that Ktr101's highly inappropriate behaviour would have never been flagged up for review and discussion by the rest of us.

Ktr101 should have done the right thing and asked to have his OTRS access removed. Not only has he acted in this unilateral self-important fashion, but he has a recent track record on Commons of mistakenly verifying images on Commons that he apparently never checked, as they turned out to be digitally corrupt and were re-uploaded by other users, and defending his own blatant copyright violations by deleting templates that were flagging them as copyright violations rather than either accepting that fact or escalating to a deletion request for discussion (refer to notices at User talk:Ktr101). Someone who so clearly fails to understand basic issues of copyright, or the relationship between OTRS and Wikimedia Commons must not be advising the public who write into permission-commons expecting advice on Commons processes and guidelines from someone competent to do so.

Raising this request against odder on AN/U, rather than asking others who are uninvolved to consider if this was just creating drama and pointless dispute, is again evidence of a significant competence issue for a person trusted with privileged access and represents our community but is unelected. It is unfortunate and sad that Commons has no process for starting a de-OTRS-access vote, as these rights are not handled, nor held to account any more, by the Commons community. It appears that the OTRS volunteer community has no stomach for it. It is the OTRS administrators that should be showing leadership, yet have still failed to take timely or public action, preferring secrecy and personal networking over transparency and proper publicly accountable governance. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, IMHO you miss a key element. Odder's not a Bureaucrat. He's a Commons Bureaucrat and therefore his duries are towards Commons and not to any other external instance. He must remain neutral in conflicts created in Commons by Commons users. However, when it comes to the interference of external instances in Commons affairs, a Commons Bureaucrat is supposed to stand on Commons' independence and grant the rights of the Commons community and of the Commons individual users. I have no real clue about what's going with Russavia or with any other Commons' user punished by the WMF, but unless the Commons community (and, if not possible, Commons representatives) is duly informed and proper argumentations are provided, I support Odder's (and any other Commons Bureaucrat) instance. BTW, a situation in which a person is charged without known defence and prevented even from appeal is simply repugnant, regardless of the merits of the accusation (which are kept hidden and unknown to any of us). My €0.02 --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ktr101 what did you hope to achieve with this trouble making post ? Why couldn't you just allow the OTRS administrators to deal with the issue of leaks ? It looks like you're now trying to seek revenge against someone who has issues with your behaviour, rather than trying to deal with what is a serious issue. Can you please close this down and allow the OTRS administrators to deal with the situation in a clear, calm and impartial manner. Nick (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Nick, this thread should be summarily shut down -- it seems likely without merit, or if there is merit, it is in entirely the wrong venue, and has been introduced in a way that is (at best) very sloppy. The more general thread below could be split off, since it's about a general topic that's separate from an individual's behavior. -Pete F (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nick suggested, but didn't link, something important: Ktr101 said in the initial post above that "As far as I remember I have never had any personal dispute with Odder"; however, just a few days before, odder voiced some criticism of Ktr's behavior: Special:Diff/148854002 That criticism appears to have gone unaddressed in the meantime. Failing to disclose that fact, and instead stating that there is no conflict, does tend to support the idea that this whole hullabaloo is some kind of personal revenge campaign. We shouldn't waste our time on stuff like this. -Pete F (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Access to the otrs-wiki

As of today, I see 398 Wikimedia project accounts that have been granted OTRS access (most are unpaid volunteers, a few are the personal accounts of WMF employees but none appears to be official staff accounts).

In Ktr101's statement above, he states that there are accounts with access to the otrs-wiki that are not publicly shown as having OTRS access. To verify Ktr101's statement, where can a list of these accounts be found, along with their rationale for access? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS/Personnel should be a start. Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I never stated that, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. There is no secret OTRS cabal, and as Natuur wrote above and your research clearly shows, the information is publicly online. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And for the complete list: OTRS/Users. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12: , I am aware of these two lists. The first is a manual one, the second seems automatic from group rights and does not imply a complete list for otrs-wiki access. It seems slightly ridiculous to reverse engineer a manually created list, especially as it likely to be out of date, have errors and may never be intended to be a complete list of everyone with otrs-wiki access as well as publicly having access to OTRS.

If there is a policy behind it, such as "the only people with access to the otrs-wiki are OTRS volunteers, WMF development, the OC and en.wp Arbcom", then this would make a lot of sense to me. --Fæ (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The second list clearly states: "This is a list of all user accounts on the OTRS system. Note: This list will be updated every 2–4 weeks by an OTRS administrator. Last update: 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)". And given the page history this seems to be true. I can't check if this list is really complete though. Natuur12 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. You seem to be misunderstanding what is being asked for. People with otrs-wiki access is not the same as people with OTRS database access. The lists you have linked to, neither explain why that would be, nor provide a list of the differences. --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood you indeed and I'm afraid that I don't have an answer for this quesiton. Natuur12 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ktr101: "OTRS cabal" is your way of putting it, presumably to marginalize anyone alarmed at potential ungoverned and unaccountable closed wikis, closed email lists and decisions made through personal networks and private emails appear to be a nutty extremist shouting conspiracy theories rather than summarizing the facts of current working practices.

You stated "restricted to OTRS agents, and a select few other users" it is that which I ask to have specifically listed. It is not an extremist nor unreasonable expectation for projects that value community transparency and openness.

By the way, OTRS volunteers are volunteers not agents. There is no contract, nor are OTRS volunteers supposed to be acting as agents of any other party.

Do the right thing Kevin, resign your OTRS access and apply for it again next year when you may be able to demonstrate a better track record both on this project and others. --Fæ (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I said a select few just in case there were other groups of people that I did not know about (WMF staff, for example), so I wanted to include all people. As for my word choice, I erred, but I am allowed to make mistakes, just like you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not claim to represent all Wikimedia volunteers, be acting as advised by the Foundation, nor claim to have the ultimate power to ensure images get deleted from all Wikimedia projects. At this point, considering your raising of this thread as a means to have a crack at odder and make yourself look wronged, your apology on the Village Pump seems exceedingly political and your ego seems unchecked. Resign your OTRS access and your apology may look slightly more believable and your unelected authority seen to have some actual responsibility and accountability. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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