Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 20

User:LoliPelu

Special:Contributions/LoliPelu has uploaded a bunch of scans, claimed them as "own work", and tagged them as PD. This needs to be reviewed and possibly dealt with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some have been already marked with no permission, I've tagged a few more with no permission and no source. Bidgee (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be possible that User:LoliPelu is the painter Dorian Allworthy herself. But, OTRS permission would anyway be required. I have notified the user already on his/her :en userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fama Clamosa

There seems to be serious problems with civility. Examples: [1], [2], several of those. What should be best done in this case? --Leyo 11:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Borderline instant block (had I seen them at the time they were posted). Warned the user - block immediately if the behaviour continues. Quite unecessary. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If I had of seen it when it happened it would have been a block for a few days, but I've closed the DR's. Not really valid reason to delete the images other then making personal attacks directed at Admins but mainly one. Bidgee (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Such behaviour cannot be tolerated. This user must learn that using such words will have consequences. --High Contrast (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but I just don't see the point in banning them a few days after their bad behaviour. If they do it again then a block is needed. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As an involved admin (I fixed the DR and was first responder) I decided there wasn't much point doing anything about it, and rather hoped that the user could be made to see sense - a temper tantrum isn't that bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a username change in enwiki; the same change is not reflected here

My earlier username was Akshayapanigrahi; which I got changed to Akkida in enwiki but its not getting reflected here; I have to use the old username to login. Can you help in changing this akshayapanigrahi==>akkida.--Akshayapanigrahi (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Akshayapanigrahi, please ask at Commons:Changing username (by the way: you have confused "user problems" with the Commons:Help desk). It seems you have to do the same for all other projects where you have the username "Akshayapanigrahi" and not already akkida. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on User:Jiriczech

Hi! I would like it if someone takes a look at User:Jiriczech recent uploads. It's loads of small, low quality face images of women with the description "finalist". No license or categories. Evalowyn (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just nuke all of them, but let's let the DRs run a little longer and see if we get any reaction from User:Jiriczech. For the record, they are 17 photos of women, with no description except "finalist" and no category, filenames File:0001.png to File:0018.png, except 0012.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Paddy

Will someone please take a look at this? I don't think such kind of language and agressive behavior should be tolerated in Commons. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you not talk to me first?--Paddy (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He did; the link above shows that an hour before he posted the above, he wrote "Please consider to improve your gross behavior, which is not welcome here."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At that point there was nothing to say about my behaviour. --Paddy (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

At least he is not using plainly wrong arguments, answers to questions regarding his decisions and is not biased. Only naturally that he reacted in this way. One step further and i would had reacted in the same way. But instead of showing some insight you still participate in your own lobby-party. Thank you very much for you incompetence. --Niabot (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To tell you more you are a grass Alvesgaspar! --Paddy (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Paddy for 24 hours Gnangarra 02:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Niabot has accused me of lobbyism and of using others (or sock puppets) to vote against any opinion (here). I don't understand what lobbyism is in this context, but the accusation of sockpuppetry is serious and should be investigated. I politely ask an admin to investigate if I have used User:Maurilbert (or any other editor) and/or sockpuppet accounts to influence the outcome of any decision process in Commons. Even a wiki place has a limit of decency in the way people are treated and that limit has been largely exceeded here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • as requested I've looked over the last month worth of edits by User:Maurilbert & Alvesgaspar and see nothing obvous that raises any concerns to me that these two account may be operated by or influenced by any single person. Yes they have agreed and disagreed, yes they have edited at similar times but then so have I. There are no duck factors that I expect to occur with sock/meat puppet activity. Gnangarra 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Copied from [[3]] at users request (still blocked):

I do not really care too much about the 24h block. What I do find unacceptable is the fact you blocked me on the same users request who caused me to be annoyed in the first place and who squealed on me for his being annoyed here which then in turn caused me to tell him he is a grass and that is the definition of someone who squeals. Also you point out that two of the reason you blocked me are that I called him a grass which is pejorative but not vulgar. Alvesgaspar squealing on me on user problems without letting me know also is dislikeable. And blocking without warning me also is not very nice. No wonder the project is loosing contributors. If this is your aim you are doing it right. Not so friendly greetings --Paddy (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

response Before I blocked Paddy, he made two comments here so Paddy was aware of this discussion, another editor repeated in this thread a warning previously given and then Paddys second comment here continued the inappropriate behaviour Paddy also edited Alvesgaspar user page after the repeated warning with an inappropriate accustion. There was no doubt in my mind that the inappropriate language would continue, esculate and spread thus causing disruption irregardless of further warnings being given Gnangarra 04:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I made two comments because someone else gave me a hint that Alvesgaspar squealed without letting me know before. Do you like to know what I call this behaviour? But I guess you would not like the words I have to use to describe it appropriately. The accusation you are talking about is nothing but the truth with no swear words involved. By the way before you blocked me I went to bed. So something must be wrong with your doubt. --Paddy (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest both Niabot and Paddy stop using the word "squealed" when another editor reports them on one of the Admin noticeboards. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't put me in the same line. I would no call it squealing, but never the less a diva like behavior from Alvesgaspar. If you find this wording offensive, talk with me on my user page to let me put the arguments on the table. --Niabot (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: If somebody lets me know before he reports me I would never call him a squeal! I think it is the same back-stabbing behaviour with which Alvesgaspar removed niabots FPC. And yes I was pissed off that someone who removes an image from FPC, etc. first thinks body proportions are a valid argument with fictive characters like animé characters (in case Alvesgaspar has not noticed eyes, nose, mouth, etc. are not proportional too; they even do not look human) and than have the guts to tell me how to behave. I seriously question his sanity. With his stringent opposition to animé images as FP he even goes to such measures as censorship which I in turn find more disturbing than calling someone names. I might have disturbed a single person by swearing at one point and calling him not so nice names. I agree this is not nice. I would even apologise to him for this but at no point I have seen a deeper insight nor regret for his awful actions. I conclude I have disturbed Alvesgaspar but by his behaviour he has done more damage to all the people who like animé and would like to have great quality animé images and find them in FP here. BTW: I am not a fanboy of animé and think a lot of the stuff is really badly drawn. But if I see how much blood, sweat and tears is put in an animé image it seriously make me cry if I see such ignorant behaviour. --Paddy (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:GerardM

Will someone please take a look at this? I don't think such kind of language and agressive behavior should be tolerated in Commons. Thanks, --Niabot (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for admin action. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then have a look at the response of Niabot ... a fine specimen of the human species.. GerardM (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At least i don't point to things not related to the topic, or combine links to "dick head" with a link to "mirror" that was directed at me. --Niabot (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a need for a swift smack here. GerardM, calling other commons users dickheads is NOT acceptable behaviour here. Furthermore, your response here, "a fine specimen of the human species" is also inappropriate. Take 24hrs to cool off. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, I would suggest blocking Niabot for calling Alvesgaspar "the Jesus of FPC" (in an obviously disparaging context) and then "Let us hope that i don't find some wood and some nails." Those who live in glass houses... Kaldari (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pure frustration to always see the same persons making the same kind of nonsense votes (nomen est omen) that are "rightfully counted". But so long nothing changes and FPC is a private matter for divas, nothing will change. Interesting links to find a connection between them: Futanari (even hidden during nomination), Hentai (QI Votes), On the edge, Dojikko. To conclude: Every voting happend after the same scheme. Especially if you look at User:Alvesgaspar, User:Citron, User:George Chernilevsky and of course User:Steven Walling.

Now we can start talking again and again if "pornography" is a reason to oppose. If this is a reason, then you should delete the images for the same reason or admit that FPC is not fair by any means. --Niabot (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be OK to imply that someone is a dick head. Thank you I will use it in future to prevent getting blocked. --Paddy (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not OK. If you do so, you will be blocked. Bidgee (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did not see that the user has been blocked. Sorry --Paddy (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

At least (refering to Jcb) it would be fine, as long you don't post another link about a shiny surface. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- I consider the block of user:GerardM to be unfair and irrational, given the fact that such sanction should be restricted to those cases where the project is being disrupted or there is an obvious danger of being so. That was not the case, in my opinion, and the link provided by GerardM was clearly not a personal attack. It seems unfair how this user is blocked for a minor peccadillo and User:Niabot goes on disrupting the normal functioning of FPC with his trolling-like campaign, insisting in making personal comments and false accusations (despite the warnings), and distorting the facts. I respectfully request the blocking of GerardM to be removed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest this link from GerardM to you: [4] --Niabot (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Enough baiting! It is disruptive and very much unhelpful. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I said that i don't care about this, as long FPC is controlled by such nonsense. --Niabot (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree. Quit baiting. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree also. The bait thrown in by Alvesgaspar is from someone who clearly lost the grip from reality. Do not at any circumstance take the bait. --Paddy (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I suggest you stop making allegations and other bad faith comments that you can't back up (with diffs) or you will find yourself blocked again. I've had a look at some of the comments and it seem that to me that Alvesgaspar has been commenting on the contribution not the editor (you), where as you have been attacking the editor. Bidgee (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Your assumption is wrong Bidgee! I was not referring to past comments but to this one. Also I have not been writing out of bad faith only commenting on what he has written. And therefore I do not need to present you diffs. If you do not understand why I have written something or if think I need to explain why I have written something feel free to ask me. I can fully back up my »allegations« as you call them. But I do not see any --Paddy (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Paddy, Part II

This user seems to be unable of respecting the basic rules in Commons. Please take a look at this: [5] -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this time. I will respond to any questions asked. --Paddy (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had some time now to respond. I saw two IMHO invalid arguments of citron. I see it as an opportunity for him to support them before the bot collects the votes. No bad faith assumed. --Paddy (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the fete? By what right you strike my vote? You must really learn respect for others.--Citron (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully respect your vote if you can support it. But you can not support a single argument you delivered. --Paddy (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What do we have in this case: An user (Citron), that claims that Futanari without testicles do not exist. [6] After correcting him [7] [8], he insisted that this figures/characters are different and something is wrong. (Missing testicles on left Character) [9]. After that i showed him myself that both variants are typical. I also noticed him that this images displays two variants. I put this information on more then four places before his comment. (Image description, Information message next to the nomination message, English/German article, Image description inside this articles). He had multiple changes to read this information, nearly impossible to miss it. [10] [11]. After that (he was proven wrong) Citron insisted that he can't read German [12] or English [13], while writing English comments all the time (Seriously?!). With the same edit he also claimed that Futanari (i link it again) aren't able to release sperm if they don't have testicles. I proved him wrong again, by a comment with multiple sources, that was posted (while I´m blocked) from Paddy, as i left it on my discussion page. [14] Now Alvesgaspar, that i can rightfully claim to be a villain of myself (isn't it right? [15]), claimed that Paddy, that only insisted on fair voting and rightful arguments will be blocked.

Now it is the time to explain to me, how all this stuff can be just a coincident/missunderstanding and not the try to attack an user (me) for nominating a pornographic picture, without a clue what it is about. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please also read this comment: [16] by myself. Open questions? Please ask me. I'm willing to answer on every question. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have reblocked Paddy for continuing harassment and incivility.[17][18] Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You read my comment? Would you call this "obvious, provocative trolling"? That is the question i have, since it was first, not Paddy's comments. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Citron's comments could border on trolling, but I don't see any specific diff where he is attacking anyone or being obviously disruptive. If I've missed it, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed him that his first claim was wrong. Then he found another, that was also wrong, I corrected him again. And so on. In the midtime he started to claim, that he isn't able to understand or read English descriptions. Since he can even write english comments all time (see above), it should be obvious, that he wasn't even bothered to inform himself or actually making false claims to annoy the supporters (like paddy). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 02:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you not to distort my words, I understand english very well, I only said that I prefer read the articles French than English, because french is my mother tongue. For cons, I do not read German, therefore I could not read the previous description, which did not mention the two variants. The French article that I read, does not specify that both variants are possible. So don't make me say what I did not say! --Citron (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I even added a comment (in english) inside the nomination page (1x right under the image, 1x inside the image alternative text/tooltip). Both should be easy to find as an introduction to the votings. Im a little disappointed that the French article does not mention it, but thats also why i linked on the english version of the article and not the german (knowing, not everyone would be able to read it). After telling and proving to you, that the assumptions where wrong for at least two times, i would had expect you to read the given sources to prevent further mistakes. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an answer of User Paddy: Learn more alofok* 13:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:The strange Ghost

It seems that this user is a reincarnation of the blocked User:Mike Pearson and in de:WP blocked Jerry Dandridge [19], [20]. [21], [22]--Hic et nunc (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, DUCK. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I. Petychov

moved from Administrators' noticeboard – Russian speaking admin help needed

Hi, I need help from a Russian speeking admin.

User Iliya Petychov (talk · contribs) (WikiSense gallery) uploaded several images obviously related to some tractor- and equipment-selling sites. Afaics, most or all of them are copyvios, or, if his contributions were e.g. part of an "advertising campaign", we need at least clear OTRS permissions. He already removed "no permission" tags without giving an explanation, see e.g. [23], and in some cases he also changed the source information to "own work", see e.g. [24].

I've reverted his unexplained removals of "no permission" tag for now, but guess this case will need further observation and – as he keeps uploading more images – I recommend communication with the uploader in his own language (he didn't reply to copyvio warnings and "missing permission" notes, just removed them).

Anyway, a few minutes ago, I found two cases, where he obviously grabbed an image from somewhere, edited it (rather awkwardly), and claimed "own work" then. Please compare

1. the (likely) source file, the first upload File:Беларус-132н.jpg and the second upload File:Беларус-082БС.jpg,
2. the (likely) source image, the first upload File:Картофелекопалка К6-М.jpg and the second upload File:Картофелекопалка МТЗ-132Н.jpg.

Many thanks in advance (to whoever will take care) --:bdk: 00:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried using extracted Russian text from one of the warning templates in case he isn't aware he can click the language links for another language. That got removed too. Now he's tagging images with "independent work". Given your evidence I'm inclined to believe they're all taken from various websites. – Adrignola talk 12:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely for deletion of all user uploads, too many thumbnails. Some images is processed stuff originated in "owner manual" ("интсрукция по эксплуатации"). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, did anyone take care? See [25] and the following two edits. --:bdk: 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Iliya Petychov did not take care and as recommended, uploads have been deleted and an indefinite block applied. Should the user decide to address the issues people have had rather than simply removing warnings, an unblock could be considered. But a convincing argument will have to be made after removing no permission tags, changing the author to one's self, and then falsifying the source of later uploads to avoid red flags on files ripped from elsewhere. – Adrignola talk 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bacheee, new Amir.Hossein.7055 sock

Title says it all. Bacheee (talk · contribs) began his activities immediately after the latest set of socks of serial sockpuppeter Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs) was blocked on en-wiki and has been making the same kinds of uploads (mostly Iranian politicians, with dodgy {{PD-Iran}} claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Blocked Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From a Checkuser perspective I'm not so sure if this is a sockpuppet and would go for Unrelated. He however started to upload files with false "own work" information now, and he uploaded a bunch of files with {{PD-Iran}} without providing a source confirming this copyright status (copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation - not creation). --Martin H. (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm checking the images for their publication date, but I can't be sure about all of them.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DR reverted

I have started deletion request thrice, naving a legal base for that (articles of the Civil Code of Russian Federation). [26] [27] Each time another user reverted my DR. [28] [29] [30] Looks like he insists on keeping illegal images. How can I stop his behaviour? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see FoP violation here, the image is taked inside a building, there isn't artwork nor anything under copyright there Ezarateesteban 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1) This is a work of four architects: I. G. Taranov, N. A. Bykova, Yu. A. Cherepanov and I. G. Goharai-Kharmandaryan.

2) This is an underground station, its interior design is protected by Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276. The law says, "works of science, literature and art are recognized as objects of authors' rights regardless of merit and purpose... works of architecture, urban planning, garden landscaping art". (See the Code.)

3) That's why even the most simple and the most usual underground station is fully covered by copyright, and that is why this photo cannot be licensed under a free license.

4) The uploader explains that he a) knows about this and b) plans to keep the photo with illegal license hoping that once Russian Civil Code will change.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Tigreso

Tigreso (talk · contributions · Statistics)

Warned about uploading suspicious files many times - yet keeps re-uploading copies of files earmarked for deletion. File:GodtfredKirk.jpg and File:OLE kIRK.jpg nominated on deletion April 22 - File:GodtfredK.jpg and File:OleK.jpg re-uploaded today. NVO (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Jcb (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zscout370

Do you consider as acceptable that User:Zscout370 removed repeatedly a {{Dont overwrite}} notice from his discussion page instead of discussion and even misused a page lock in order to avoid a discussion about it? In addition, he forces through his own controversial opinion from a unconcluded deletion request and removed a {{Split}} request from a file which was overwriten in despite of the convention avoid overwriting existing files (and removed factually in that way the discussed file though there is not the decision to remove it). --ŠJů (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some links to diffs and perhaps consider wording your complaint in a more neutral manner. Saying "do you consider [particular accused behavior, which sounds outrageous] acceptable?" is a loaded question. It implies that if we disagree with your interpretation of the facts, that we are approving outrageous behavior. Powers (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't be so strict on the word choice of somebody with just en-2 in his Babel, but I fully agree that we do need diff links to do anything with this case. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this instance is the image in question about the Arab Legion Army logo is that an overwrite of the image was requested at the DR at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arab_Liberation_Army.svg. The whole "templating" I found insulting; I been working on images for many years and I never had anyone tell me that overwriting images is a very, very bad thing. We overwrite images all of the times, especially when it comes to symbols (an area that I devote much of my time to) and being templated like that, almost like a new user, I found very off putting. If he asked what was going on, instead of just templating me, the situation would have been very different. As for the temporary page lock, I did it in order to stop the addition of the template (which I did remove a few times). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the overwriting of files with an updated version, as long as there is no real difference apart from newer data being used, or simple technical or layout related issues. (A crop for copyright issues is also a good reason.) Jcb (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than the shape of the knife, not really. But all I want this user to do is just ask next time, instead of templating me like I am a new guy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Zscout370: Please try to acknowledge that message templates are generally not insults but a standard way how to give a notice to somebody and call attention to appropriate explanation. It's very impolite to remove a discussion remark instead of answering it and its very improper to misuse admin tools to enforcement of admin's personal wish and suppression of a fellow's opinion. I think, an administrator should know that a file page and file name of an image by Vallecyofdawn cannot belong to an image by Zscout370 and that a new or derivative work should be uploaded under a new filename. That is one of the most basic principles of Commons. I can hardly believe that an experienced user can never take note about it.

@Powers: I think, the link User:Zscout370 and words "his discussion page" are sufficient to find this talk page and its complete history including the disputed template with the relevant link. And I think, the question "Do you consider (some doing) as acceptable?" is a neutral question which can be answered "yes" just as "no" or "as the case may be". A discussion about details of overwriting policy is an another matter which is discussed in the long term (the related discussions are available through the template information which was repeatedly removed by Zscout370). The here discussed "user problem" is that somebody removed comments and proposals of another user instead of response and, apparently, misused his admin rights. --ŠJů (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I am getting at; use a regular message and not a template. Many users who have been here a while do not appreciate templates like that at all. It feels like we are just new users. My suggestion is to use actual words and, as I said, the situation would have been different. Plus, I would rather have my talk page locked for a few hours to diffuse the situation because we were both not going anywhere in a positive direction. As for the overwriting of images, I agree it is something that can be talked about, but elsewhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Regular message templates have the fundamental advantage that their information and formulation are precised by many users on the basis of experiences with many other cases of the same type. They contain well-judged and appropriately complex information for such case – explanation, links etc. (in addition, localized). That's why they should be preferred in case of a typical and well-known problem. It can be surely discussed what is a "minor, uncontroversial correction" which can justify an overwriting or what exceptions from the general principle would be useful but perhaps there is no doubtfulnis that a work by one author cannot be declared as a work by another author or be overwriten by work of another author. --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Zscout370: Please don't take template messages badly. They are very useful for communicating between users who may not share fluency in a common language, just as one example. Assume good faith. =) Powers (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dgolitsis

User:Dgolitsis uploads many images from various sources which are strongly suspected as copyvios and many have been already deleted. It seems that he does not understand copyright issues. Could some admin post a warning on his talk page, please? SV1XV (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, but had to substitute many warnings for it to show. Likely too much leeway has been given to this user. When your talk page is so full of warnings that the maximum number of templates that can be included on one page has been reached, it might be time to take more significant action. – Adrignola talk 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(smiling) That's a good criteria, I think, in most cases. I did most of the tagging, so I'll say as my defense for not warning him, that when I added the tags, the earliest tag was less than a week old. Also, it was not clear how many of those that I tagged were actually problems -- I don't read Greek, so I might well have been missing something important on some of them. Some of them will be kept after our community review, I think.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of his uploads are scans or photos of very old 2D images, but they are tagged as "own work" and dated 2009 or 2010 (the year he harvested them). SV1XV (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A month ago a user in el.wikipedia has warned Dgolitsis about the copyright of an image that uploaded [31].. and here is the response [32]. All in Greek. Seems to me that this user knows that upload images without permission. Ggia (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, however from his answer to User:Ggia it is clear that he knows his images are copyvios. In this case, I would propose to just nuke his stuff that is not obviously {{PD-old-100}} and if he uploads any deleted file again, block him. SV1XV (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dgolitsis used my signature (in addition to his) for his comment (see diff: [33]) in a deletion request for one of his copyvio uploads (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Επιτύμβιο Ρωμαϊκό ανάγλυφο - γυναικεία μορφή (400 περ.π..Χ ).jpg). I request that he is blocked. SV1XV (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

At first I only wondered if he does not know or simply ignores the copyright of some of his uploads. But by now I start to wonder if he is doing some of his uploads to have his fun because it can't get into my head that an upload like File:Atheos alektoridis.jpg is meant seriously. -- Cecil (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Aralbert

User uploads lots of aircraft images, all are tagged as "own work" but many have watermarks from multiple aircraft image hosters like jetphotos.net. Please delete all images and warn/block user. --Denniss (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done by User:Trycatch. --High Contrast (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wetenschatje

User:Wetenschatje is yet another account of User:Lycaon a.k.a. User:Biopics.
Very sad... :-((( Great knowlege, very useful contributions, but Lycaon has used sockpuppet again. Account Wetenschatje is blocked now -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lycaon is not active anymore so I don't think that one can call it sockpuppet. Was there any disruptive behaviour? Problems? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lycaon is active as user Biopics and userpage for Biopics has been created by Wetenschatje. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. sorry for not checking. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't sympathize with the trick, which is ethically questionable imo, but understand its reasons. Now that the anonimity has been broken, it makes little sense to keep two separate accounts. Either User:Biopics whishes to return as a full Commons user, which includes participating in FPC & etc, or not. But User:Wetenschatje should be kept blocked. All this wouldn't have occurred if the community was wise enough when wisdom was needed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• I friendly concern to user Lycaon. I respect him contribution, i highly appreciate him knowledge and talent of the photographer. It is a situation afflicts me a bit. However Wetenschatje must be keep blocked. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• I think many suspected these accounts were linked. I see no evidence of abuse. Biopics never submitted or reviewed images.[34] Wetenschatje's reviews have gradually become more helpful. I value and respect Lycaon's, Biopics' or Wetenschatje's knowledge and talent. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as User:Wetenschatje account is marked as a sock of User:Biopics I also don't see a problem. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean as long as they mark it as an alternative account. I Agree, I will unblock if they agree to have both accounts linked since I don't really see any abuse of the accounts other then failing to to state that they have alternative accounts. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked as I didn't notice that they have already agreed to it. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

EvaK (talk · contributions · Statistics)

This user recieved a warning for this edit but I think a warning block would be appropriate. A rough translation would be: Stop the provocations and the stenches. Go and learn proper photography and proper german. The adult evening classes in Frankfurt offer beginner courses.

Aditional problems:

• Edit war here. Acts as if the page belongs to her. Page was protected already in the past because of the same edit war
• Uploading low res black and white images over existing uploads: 1, 2, 3 and a few more.

User does great contributions but attitude is getting a bit out of hand. Maybe a small dicussion about what to do would be great. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I just read that the black and white image conflict was carried from de:wp to here and that EvaK has stepped down as editor there so maybe we leave it with the warning. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note: She left de.wikipedia on April 12th, which is now more than two weeks ago. Now she continues the undesirable behaviour on Commons. She keeps insulting people and continues edit warring about the same issues, that triggered her de.wp conflict: Replacing images with B&W versions of inferior quality and creating custom arrangements for images instead of using standard layout conventions. If this behaviour does not stop, I don't think we can just leave it at a warning. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

EvaK is an user with an impressive edit count ... and an impressive liability to insults. Maybe she needs some time to cool down, in de-WP she resigned without being blocked. Not sure whether a block will help but maybe even worsening the whole situation. axp_de^Hello! 10:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all she'd have to understand and accordingly admit that she's neither allowed to do whatever she wants (quotation: "Ich tue und lasse, was mir gefällt [...]."; engl. "I do whatever I want [...]"; [35]), nor to insult other users how she wants (quotation: "[...] arroganten Textschmierern [...] bekommen [...] Einfach nur Sarkasmus auf meine Art [...]"); engl. "[...] arrogant [german insult, untranslatable] [...] get [...] my personal form of sarcasm [...]"; [36]). If she doesn't, blocking her account will be the only approiate solution for the problem. Thank you very much. --Boris Karloff II. 12:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just removed an attack off the user page which is totally unacceptable. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

obviously the user is not ready and willing to accept some basic rules here. Both the injuries and PA's as well as the edit wars should be seen as a reason for a block. It is not possible that some "premium" authors and users become more privilegies than others. -jkb- (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's give her one last wake-up call, just to be fair. --Boris Karloff II. 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hopeless; she's still removing every message I leave on her discussion board ([37]+[38]). You may block her, that's fine with me now. --Boris Karloff II. 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked for 3 days for restoring this attack/uncivil comment on the user page, removing comments on the user talk page isn't the best thing to do. Bidgee (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this quotation: "Geh sterben, Du Wixer! [..]"; engl. "Die, sucker!" --User:EvaK to User:Boris Karloff II ([39]) She should be blocked permanentley for that. --Boris Karloff II. 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You would get that after you antagonised EvaK (English translation "Good life even if you actually disappear forever.") Bidgee (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no, it's "Good life, for if you're disappearing forver". Anyway, Amada's right, let's just cool down now. And thanks a lot for everything. --Boris Karloff II. 13:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

K. no more escalation. lets leave it at the 3 day block for now and let this cool down. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that her (really bad) mood mostly results from behaviour by User:Dontworry, who is famous on de-WP for editwaring specially about images and therefore had been blocked for some months even by community vote. Maybe he now learned to mask wikihounding and constant provocations without obviously hurting project rules, but EvaK is not the first user whom he brings to loose his nerves and throw in the towel. If joint admin intervention strikes first and foremost the busy and high quality contributor it doesn't deescalate the situation at all. Ten points for her antagonist, Commons looses one more contributor. Very pity. --Martina talk 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Martina, if you can report editwarring by Dontworry I will check it and if proven block him.

And although it humanly comprehensible to pack back in the same way you have been treated before, this style of discussion will lead to nothing. axp_de^Hello! 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to report even more PA ... she requested permanent block on her user talk page: "Would you be so kind to block my account permanently. I'm unwilling to co-operate with a bunch of fools and idiots any longer."
The next line is in German, roughly translated to: "Go die, you wankers! But watch out that you don't dirty your pants of anticipation."
axp_de^Hello! 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this section to be resolved for the moment. Blocked three days may help to cool down. Hopefully, --4028mdk09 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to block them longer (even thought I normally would), as they are clearly upset but if the user has been having issues they should be using this page rather then letting it built to the point that they start attacking other editors and Admins. I want to see them contributing to the project, without the personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange notices and legal threat from User:Nunweiller

Having never posted a technical issue on commons, I don't now if I'm in the right place, so please direct me to a more proper venue if this is not the one. The thing is, I recently uploaded here two images of old Bucharest, which, granted, had originally been hosted on a Romanian blog: bucurestii-vechi. I had specified that this was the intermediary source, in every such image I uploaded. I want to stress that the images themselves, which were published as postcards ca. 1900 and earlier, cannot have been copyrighted under any governing law, which I presume goes for any digitized reproduction of such. I mean, the artistic intervention on the part of the blogger is running the postcards through a scanner, which would make me the copyright owner of every image I ever scanned for commons.

I log on quite rarely on commons, which is why I only now notice having received a (hidden) threat from a Nunweiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who wrote: Ne vom intalni in justitie. Am sa-ti dau o lectie pe care nu ai sa o uiti cit oi trai tu. This means: "I shall see you in court. I'll give you a lesson you won't be forgetting for as long as you'll live." I take such threats very seriously, as bogus as their content is, because they obviously mean to intimidate me in the worst fashion (which is why he probably deleted it, presumably hoping that I would read it and nobody else would notice). I also suppose that the "no legal threats" policy is enforced here as well.

Nunweiller then proceeded to remove data from the two pictures in that upload: here and here, replacing the license info with his own claim to have created the images (a non-valid/non-existing license) and adding, instead of a description, the summary Imaginea a fost folosita fara a avea acceptul proprietarului blogului ("Image used without approval from the blog's owner")...

Is it possible I'm wrong about the licensing? and could a potential mistake of mine be used against me with such threats? Please advise. Dahn 12:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue persists: said user continues to blindly remove the licenses with the same claim. Even if I'm not right in my interpretation of copyright law, shouldn't the user ask for deletion, instead of stealth actions? Dahn 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is getting more serious as we speak. This reads: Asta se numeste FURT "domnule" Dahn. Om vedea. Se stie cine esti si ce urmaresti dar lucrurile se vor rezolva. Te asigur. ("This is what we call THEFT 'Mr.' Dahn. We'll see. It is known who you are and what you're after but things will be sorted out. I assure you.") Will someone at long last intervene? Dahn 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For postcards that old, they will be public domain. There is no original authorship gained by scanning a public domain photograph/postcard. I've protected both for a month. I can't understand the language to verify your claim of legal threats, though. – Adrignola talk 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. On the translation issue, I've asked two Ro-speaking users to confirm or dismiss my translation. Just in case the legal threats add relevancy - I'm not "out to get" this guy, but neither do I think the community should tolerate his type of behavior. Dahn 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding as a mid-level non-native speaker of Romanian, Dahn's translations are accurate. While we're at it I'd also point out that the person posting this appears to have addressed Dahn in the familiar form (esti [sic: properly would be "eşti"] vs. sinteţi), which in itself is not all that respectful with an adult stranger. In many contexts this could just be informal, but combined with a legal threat it intensifies the implied level of personal hostility. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

An indefinite block has been applied. – Adrignola talk 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for hijacking this thread, but as the matter has been resolved, there would be no harm, I believe. I have found the most delightful set of Lisbon photographs from the 1890s, many of them probably published as postcards. The photographer, however, seems to have took them as an youngster and lived a long life, well into the forties of the 20th century. Is there any way I could upload them here?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Portugal doesn't seem to have any special rules. So, a work becomes PD after death of photographer +70 years. --Túrelio 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and since the times of Garrett we have changed that legislation literally dozens of times before settling in this last version following EU recommendations. I was wondering if there was some kind of Commons regulation that would allow for the upload of images so old, but it seems not, as I already suspected. Thanks.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Velvet Paw

It seems that this user is a reincarnation of the blocked User:Mike Pearson, alias blocked User:The strange Ghost and in de:WP blocked Jerry Dandridge [40], [41]. [42], [43], [44]--Hic et nunc 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved per this. Thanks, --Dferg (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Indiaunity (talk · contribs)

Spamming Commons with links to their facebook account; please block and delete all contributions, including user page and talk page. –Tryphon^☂ 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks, --Dferg (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil tangents by Drork in copyright essay

I brought this up earlier this month at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/04#Uncivil tangents by Drork in copyright essay, not knowing where else to bring it, and someone mentioned that I might want to post it here on the admin noticeboard also. There is a user subpage from last September, called User:Drork/Fallacies in Pieter Kuiper's FoP in Israel, in which Drork says (among other things) that it is a "fact" that another Commons contributor "endorses a propaganda of an organization that vows to kidnap Israelis" because that contributor used a photo of some sign from the West Bank as an example of copyright rules in Israel. Drork (talk · contribs) has had behavioral problems before on Commons, has been blocked before, and now appears to have finally gone away; but this defamation remains. As I mentioned in the village pump message: Surely this is a violation of something on Commons, but I don't know what — it's highly uncivil at best, and possibly libelous. I don't know Drork or the target of the accusation. What is to be done about this? I have a lot of edits, but I'm not an admin, and I don't know if Commons' policy on defamation is different than English Wikipedia's. Is any user allowed to just remove this as a policy violation, or what? --Closeapple (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, this user is indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry: en:User:Drork and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Does that cause him to be blocked on Commons also? --Closeapple 01:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack (feel free to do the same when you see them around). No, blocks from other projects do not instantly cause blocks here. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban clarification

As some of you may know I have an active interaction ban with user:lycaon. Now I am seeing from this thread that there are at least two other lycaons around. I believe my ban applies to those too, but the question is, if I saw no the thread how should I have known. While User:Wetenschatje is linked to User:Biopics, but User:Biopics is not linked to User:Wetenschatje and none is linked to user:lycaon.

Besides I have a question, if you are sure that User:Wetenschatje and User:Biopics is the same user? I mean, if they are the same user why User:Biopics is asking User:Wetenschatje to "refrain from doing" something? I mean what the point talking to yourself? Anyway I am lost, and would appreciate if all lycans would be clearly marked as such. Thanks.--Mbz1 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can pretend that the new names are also new users and forget all your old problems you had with some virtual users. And then you can sit back, relax and enjoy the sun and the good weather. At least thats what I am doing. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How cute, and what a great recipe to evade the ban!

The sun, blessing new beginnings

First one needs loudly declare that he is "gone";

Then just a few days later start contributing under a new user name;

Then a little bit later create yet another account "for voting on FPC only";

Doing all of the above while 5 users express sorrows that he is gone, when in reality not only he is not gone, but he kind of multiplied :-);

and atop of all of that to talk to himself in public :-)

Yes, I guess I am ready to enjoy the sun now :-)--Mbz1 15:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good ;-) enjoy - Amada44  ^{talk to me} 16:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For Commons sake, enjoy :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New accounts will eventually get blocked or marked. Obviously you're not supposed to guess until this occurs. But once you know, please don't pretend they're new users, please continue the non-interaction until the term is up. Further, be warned, during your ban it is not appropriate for you to make comments on Lycaon's behaviour (e.g. your sarcastic post above). --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Idolized13 (talk · contribs)

This user's uploads look problematic to me as copyvios. However, I'm not sure that all the files need deletion - one upload was a duplicate of another Commons image - File:Ayala avenue street scene.jpg, which was/is being used in an enwp article. This may apply to some of the other files, in which case redirection/replacement is more appropriate than deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl Jester Windridge (talk · contribs)

This user is uploading myspace-style pictures of himself, with senseless names and descriptions, and often with duplicates of various sizes. I suggest a short block until he reads COM:SCOPE, and deletion of all the unused images (most images are in use on his en.wp user page, which I'm not sure is in line with policy there, but I'm not really familiar with it). –Tryphon^☂ 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not block him because he was not explicitly warned, but I did give him a strong warning and started a Mass DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fghhggf.jpg. As for his WP:EN user page, I think their policy is much like ours -- active contributors can put a lot of personal stuff on their user page, but those whose only work is the user page will be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tzo15 (talk · contribs)

I would recommend blocking this user for a longer period, not only for adding a archive-template to his talkpage without really creating an arcive, but obviously to hinder communication by other users, for overwriting files of other users, such as File:VietinghoffHeinrich.jpg, for uploading again unfree files, such as File:Hube, Hans-Valentin03.jpg and File:AdolfHitlerUndGeneralstab.jpg, but also for this personal attack and insult on me, behaviour which he has shown against other users previously, as his block log shows. --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

strange signature

My fellow collegues,

on Commons:Requests for rights I just found out, that User:Викимонетчик is using the name of another user in your signature, i.e. User:Serjio-pt instead of User:Викимонетчик. What do you think about that behaviour? axp_de^Hello! 07:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered at COM:RFR, user was renamed. --Martin H. (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies all ;-)

How about adding a hint on User:Serjio-pt that this user was renamed? axp_de^Hello! 19:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

user:Asseater 14

Just giving you the heads up about the user named "Asseater 14". Is that really a.. suitable name? Uploads seems fishy aswell. Evalowyn (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats a sockpuppet of Fark. He serched in google, found a picture in Picasa, created an account of the same name on Commons and tried to push the Picasa users upload to Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:HD86

He seems to upload mostly (if not exclusively) copyvios.[45] Can someone have a look and nominate or speedy his images? thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think File:Diadochi2.png is a copyright violation? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:EvaK

Delete? It's just provokating ... axp_de^Hello! 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll know how to handle that ;-) axp_de^Hello! 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thegravicembalo

I have suspicions about Thegravicembalo (contribs) - very wide range of images, low res, few with metadata, some with very strange filenames. I tineyed a few and got no matches, but it still seems a bit odd. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it smells like a copyvio farm to me. Just to be safe, I would advise starting a DR (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Thegravicembalo) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Even worse, File:Ruckers 1634.jpg has a watermark indicating CR by 1st-art-gallery.com! axp_de^Hello! 08:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be in good faith, not realizing that a photograph of a PD 3d object is not again in PD. I notified the user, after I found one picture was taken from a website. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I found a couple more copyright violations. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

Just wondering is it normal around here to get this type of comment on one's talk page around here [46] and [47]. --  Docu  at 21:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just friendly banter, that's all. I actually have nothing against Docu :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Special users attract special comments :-P - Jcb (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said my friend. Indeed they do. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The same administrator was censored here once before (User_problems/Archive_19#Fastily)

and their conduct raised frequently concerns around here (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_27#Unprotections_by_Fastily). --  Docu  at 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Curious, the first link you cite was a thread started, by, well, you. No action was taken because, well, no action was required. In the second link, I have clearly indicated that I will cease to un-salt pages on a mass scale. Yawn. Anything else? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - it's scrutinized, not censored. If you're going to attack me, at least try to get your English straight (Yes, I know you're a native English speaker), it makes for a much stronger argument. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, please give away your admin rights. You are not worthy enough to use such wording while being an admin at the same time. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

-sigh- I really was hoping for some support on this matter! Very well then, sincerest apologies to all and any who took offense at my wording. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Childish and provocative behavior will never be seen as a good deed, if it is to insult others. This is also directed at JCB. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's not normal. Then again, it's not normal for users to blank their user talk page or to repeatedly make snide comments about the experience of other users. Does that answer your question? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In such a case a admin should be mature enough to avoid such needless words. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And other users should avoid making needless snide comments about the experience of other users. Administrators and non-administrators have the same privileges when it comes to making comments on talk pages. Both have the same duty to use those privileges responsibly. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'd repeat, Special users attract special comments. I tried approaching this user (Docu) in a friendly manner; trust me it is of no use, and you will only be slammed back with nonsense posts (like this thread). As for the talkpage post, it seems to be a rather good opportunity for Docu to change their behaviour; they could've at least said something like "Get lost dude!" and end it in a humorous fashion then and there. But no, as always, Docu would start some thread somewhere in the universe, complining about that user's "experience"... Sigh. Rehman 01:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At least now you made it clear what you mean with friendly and humorous. I think we would prefer if you'd avoid these in general. --  Docu  at 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The last thread about Fastily here didn't really need a further conclusion, as Fastily agreed to restrict themselves. At least that's what they wrote.

I agree that their comments on other users experience since are neither acceptable from administrator nor from other users.

Despite the previous thread, the administrator seems to persist though: Sample from [48]: "you could try using that thing in between your ears called a brain"

It's odd though they hardly seek to understand the topics they are commenting on [49] and create large scale damage to projects, e.g. (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-03#File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica_Palm_1c301_5882.jpg).

Given the problem with archiving noted above by LX and in (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_27#Unprotections_by_Fastily), it seems that Fastily is hardly interested in following up on comments and engaging in dialogue. --  Docu  at 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See Docu, now the bad thing is, I could continue this conversation and thoroughly enjoy myself while at it! :) But for the sake of the community, I'll take the higher moral ground and cease to reply :P :P Have a good day, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really up to you to accept the comments here, present excuses and refrain from doing what you agreed to refrain doing last time (User_problems/Archive_19#Fastily). This would avoid taking this one step further.

Clearly don't intend to keep your word though (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Escher_museum.jpg). --  Docu  at 11:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your use of emoticons instead of communication strikes me as rude and insulting at worst, and distinctly unhelpful at best.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:PRVKes.jpg

are there problems with the file? can it take off the template? Pierrot de Lioncourt ^カバー!!!_カバー!!! 09:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ChiaraScarpitta

Looking at his talk page, this user's last three uploads have been of the same game cover, speedily deleted each time. He has no surviving contributions except for this cover which I just marked for speedy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just warned this user that new copyvios will cause a block of his account here. --High Contrast (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayita.dasgupta

Jayita.dasgupta (talk · contribs) is uploading files with unclear source and disputed license, please have a look at Special:Contributions/Jayita.dasgupta! axp_de^Hello! 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jjaman (NSFW)

Jjaman (talk · contributions · Statistics)

Do we really need so many, shall I say, mutilated genitals? NVO (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had a quick view on his uploads, most of them show the same person (himself?), seems to be some kind of odd picture diary. Speedy or DR? axp_de^Hello! 10:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DR please -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Paddy

User:Paddy has been blocked twice in the past couple months for personal attacks and harassment of other editors at Commons:Featured picture candidates.[50][51][52] Apparently this has done nothing to deter his behavior. Now he is calling Ari Linn a callow prude.[53] Since this user doesn't seem to want to participate in a collegial fashion at FPC, and has failed to modify their behavior after previous blocks, I propose that they be indefinitely banned from participating at FPC. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is not just an excuse to manipulate the voting at FPC. After reading the mailinglist (which contains "Hitler!", etc.), we would not have to wonder about such reactions. It was also not directed at Ari Linn, but in general, relating to the mailinglist and following occurrences. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 07:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To remember. The image was POTD and was removed without discussion from a staff member. After that the "discussion" on the mailinglist started, with Kaldari participating as well. After some messages the image was restored as POTD. Soon after that a deletion request was filled in [54]. It was speedy closed by Steven Walling and called trolling. After that Ari Linn filled in an removal request at FPC [55]. Meanwhile the discussion goes on in the backroom by an minority of the users, what i would call canvasing. I wonder if we can take this serious anymore. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 07:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Paddy (Patrick-Emil Zörner according to his user page) isn't even subscribed to the listserv as far as I can tell, or if he is, he doesn't seem to have ever posted to it. His comment is clearly directed to Ari as Ari is the only other person in the discussion. Your conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water. The comment was an unprovoked personal attack and has no place at FPC regardless of any previous issues. Kaldari (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, I have never voted in regard to the image at hand (either in the original FPC or now). If I wanted to "manipulate the voting" perhaps I would start by actually voting myself. The issue here is Paddy's behavior towards other editors. The image issue is irrelevant. Kaldari (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The list is accessible to everyone, even if not subscribed. The only thing you can't do, is to answer to wrong arguments in this current hell of discussion. That the comment is directed at Ari is your impression, not mine. You call it conspiracy? I call it truth. Especially after reading your following offending comment: [56]

"... The only reason it's featured is because it's sexually arousing to anime fanboys who happen to dominate the culture of Wikimedia Commons. ..."

Who started to offend who? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari I am sorry to inform you, but you are wrong. I have subscribed the ML and I have already posted to the list. At the moment I only read. I do not understand why I should address a single person in plural form? Can you explain? --Paddy (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing easier than that: Ari Linn was the only person present in this FPC discussion, when you added your comment. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly use an @ to address one person directly and I definitely do not talk to a single person in plural form. My English is not perfect but I certainly know the use of singular and plural: callows is plural to address more than on person and callow is singular only one person. --Paddy (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Callows isn't even an English word. Callow is an adjective, there is no such word as callows. Kaldari (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How can it be bad than? --Paddy (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The arguments are unsustainable. The accusation that I do not read the mailing list is simply a lie. And the simple conclusion that concerning this subject a lot of the people are prude callows is a fact you can read here on commons and on the mailing list. The deletion of my comment [57] with the comment »removing personal attack« is just silly and absurd. --Paddy (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment speaks for itself. I don't need any arguments. Kaldari (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the link does not make it any more valid argument. The whole reaction on the subject was immature, childish, niminy-piminy, prim, etc.. That and a Facepalm was my statement on the whole ridiculous matter especially on the removal request. If you do not understand that I was making a point and what I was saying feel free to ask me in future. I repeat: I did not address a single person but all the people that support such a removal on so dubious grounds. Lets face it: The picture is featured, it has been voted to the front page, it is used in more than one project,... All I have read is that people do not like to see so much naked skin/boobs, that it is sexist, that they do not like manga and or animé images, that it is nsfw,... which made me conclude that these people must be prude callows nothing less or more. No calling names, no swear words, no personal attacks involved. I was just ascertaining the facts as I see the situation. --Paddy (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- This is not an isolated burst of rudeness that we can control with a temporary block. It is the usual behavior of a certain group of users who seem incapable of promoting their specific projects without resorting to personal insults and other questionable practices. After what happened recently in FPC, where the level of incivility associated with the nomination of some manga images reached an historical peak (see here), I believe that we are becoming the victims of our own complacence. This kind of wiki-hooliganism is making Commons a less friendly place. BTW, no picture is voted "to the front page". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Do you know what an isolated burst of rudeness is? It is calling people wiki-hooligans. BTW the way I look at it the front page image is in queue for 2-3 months. If no one opposes it is voted by consensus. Sorry for not expressing myself more correctly --Paddy (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Can you prove "other questionable practices"? And can you document how those "questionable practices", the "usual behavior of a certain group of users" and your "see here" is linked to this case? If not they should be considered as irrelevant statements at least concerning my case. --Paddy (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will not engage in any rethorical discussion with you. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about and the proposal above is serious enough to be taken seriously. Nobody will approve a permanent ban based on an isolated incident. On the other hand, your recent actions should be assessed in the larger context of your activities in Commons. That is why I called the atention of the community to the group you seem to be part off. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is not rhetorical! I asked you for prove. You can not support your case! Your case therefore is invalid. --Paddy (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposed by OP. We can do without comments like "fucking prick", "Consider to stop taking drugs or maybe take more/others", and "Do not at any circumstances tell me how to behave Dickhead!", striking opposing opinions, and assorted other types of aggressive badgering at FPC. It turns people off participating. --JN466 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  I was already punished for that. You can not bring it up again! That would be double punishment. --Paddy (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Nice to see the same faces again, again and again. Nobody is better then the other. Paddy was blocked already and stayed calm until the same shit started over again. I guess that the problem is not Paddy itself and can't be solved by blocking one user. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• You are perfectly right, Paddy should not be sacrified as a scapegoat. By reading your words above ("the same shit started over again") and the speach you posted in your userpage (here), I wonder where a significant part of the problem is. Both examples reveal a kind of disrespect for the opinions of the other users that should not be tolerated in Commons.Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Now I'm the target. Just "shoot" at me, as you always do. I'm pleased. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also accusing a whole group of being wiki-hooligans very nice language you use there. --Paddy (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all my language has significantly changed since the two blocks. 2nd I did not attack anyone personally any more. 3rd I only expressed my opinion in this case. 4th the issue is full of lies and assumptions about me. 5th I am linked to groups and people although I am an individual. 6th I have not read in the entire thread why prude or callows (callows is not even a word according to Kaldari see above) are bad words or are rude words. Just another witch-hunt IMHO --Paddy (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you do not need my image contributions. So go ahead and block me again. And you get no further images from me. --Paddy (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted File:TimoComLogo_Wiki_01.svg

Hello together I checked the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocom and I've seen that the logo was deleted at Wikimedia Commons. I have no idea why? The media permission was 13th April 2011 but the file exists before. The logo from TimoCom exists at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocom and there is no Problem.

Cheers Mitzu82 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been deleted due to "Media missing permission as of 22 April 2011". It had been originally sourced to the website http://www.timocom.de/sec/900100/index.cfm/DYN/umenuaction,505241142330004/, that carries a "© TimoCom Soft- und Hardware GmbH, 2005-2010. All Rights Reserved" note. --Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - this might be on the border for Commons (US). But it is just a textlogo with a set of squares (maybe should resemble photos/paaper sheets) and a street's curve. Could be okay with {{PD-textlogo}}. How was it tagged? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sven Manguard

Smart interaction: [58]. NVO (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't provoke/speak condescendingly to Sven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fastily. Anyone who works in files gets used to people assuming bad faith and incompetence. That being said, I should not have responded to NVO in the way that I did. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your endorsement. NVO (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

? 129.10.245.240 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo Copyright

Hi,

In the wiki article "Divya Narendra", the wiki Commons picture of him was deleted because it said the media lacked permission as of April 11 2011. The picture that was there before was actually taken by Divya's father, so I know it is not a copyright violation. Do you know how I could fix this problem and get the photo back up on his article?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallavi054 (talk • contribs) 2011-05-21T02:18:00 (UTC)

Hi Pallavi054, if the image was only removed from the Wikipedia article, then here is the wrong place for your question, as we have no control over that. If the image itself was deleted, then here might be the right place, but first you should specify the filename of the image, was if File:Divya-narendra.jpg or File:Divyanarendra.jpg? The latter had been deleted already in October 2010 for being a likely copyvio from http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/apr/08facebook.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He means File:DivyaNarendra.jpg logs --Tony Wills (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Last year an IP change the source entry from "own" to "Muni Jaitly". Don't know if that is the name of the above mentioned father. Anyway, a written permission is required as the uploader (has lots of copyvios/deletions) then is not the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sf5xeplus / Sf5bf4

Decent user Sf5xeplus suddenly goes off the rails and uploads over a possible copyvio with beastiality (see deleted contribs). Similarly named Sf5bf4 does the same with a different image. I indefed the second guy, not sure what to do about the first - could just be someone got on his pc. No other edits since March. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The former account may eventually be compromised, assuming that it is/was the same person as behind the en:User:Sf5xeplus-account. His last edit on :en was on March 13, 2011. I would therefore support a precautionary block with a note informing the user about the rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the user prior activity this is clearly an unusual incident, I agree that its likely the account was/is compromised. I have blocked the account as suggested for precautionary reasons and advised the user here of the reasons. I will also leave a short message over on en indicating we are concerned. Gnangarra 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brow276

As user Mattbuck stated all three uploaded images from Brow276 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user are suspected copyvios (and besides of that out of scope). The uploader states one time that other pages showing those images are using "his" license, another time he suddenly has some other explanation for the copyright of "his" picture.

Impo the user should be blocked, his contribution runs contrary to common's scope and copyright issues. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold and wave

Hello! The user "Hold and wave", continues to remove unjustifiably other users' messages from its user talk. 79.36.143.69 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hold and wave can clean up her/his own user talk page. It would be a problem if he acts like this on other pages. --High Contrast (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is current policy, but not all of us agree with it -- see Commons_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#delete comments after they have responded for a recent discussion on whether we should insist that users archive rather than delete. In cases like User:Hold and wave, it would be very useful to have all the comments in one place, rather than having to search the diffs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sting

User Sting uses a very defined language in this discussions: [59] Simply said: He calls me "Kacke" (German for "shit"/"poop"). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As just explained on his talk page I made a really really unfortunate misreading of one of his sentence. It was never my intention to be impolite or offend him. Sorry. Sting (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Then this issue can be understood as closed. Sting explained this particular situation above. --High Contrast (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Celeste6566

This user has continued to upload copyrighted covers after a final warning was left on her talk page. Her other contributions are also problematic: File:Celeste Tuman - Walk on By.jpg and File:Walk On By.jpg are identical; they and File:Tumanwaiting.jpg have the same junk sources and OTRS pending statement, despite apparently being from the user, and all are private pictures of a young minor attached to what is apparently her full name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

w:User talk:Celeste6566 has a history of deletion of copyvios there, as well as an autobiographic WP page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

She is apparently very young, so I didn't block her now, but I did give her a firm warning.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with uploading a new version of the file

Hello ! I'm not sure if i write this to place where it should be, but if this is the wrong place, feel free to move this somewhere else (and tell in description where, so that I can find the answer to this later on).

Problem is, that I was trying to upload a new version of this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AL20_Tercel_Dimensions.jpg, and I did, but when it was complete, the old version of the photo was displayed. When I try to refresh the page, it is still the old version. In file history, the new version is there, but by clicking the thumbnail, the old version comes. The new version is uploaded, I suppose, because the new photo's filesize is smaller, and it is shown in file history.

Can anyone help with what is going on ? Hoikka1 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Except of the file size, the images are identical. Maybe you accidentally selected the wrong file? Rehman 04:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed, that's why i'm asking. No, I didn't select the wrong file; the file size itself shows that it's not excactly the same file. But I noticed clearly in upload process that it was the right one (there were no other files in the folder where i uploaded it). Hoikka1 (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I experimented the same problem with File:Esculturas-orantes-carlos-v-pantoja-de-la-cruz-el-escorial.jpg. For some days the newer version failed to appear, and the only sign that something changed was the file size. Then suddenly it appeared, without my interference. There seems to be some issue with the servers, there are a number of threads in the Help Desk and Village Pump about this.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that many others have this same problem too. Let's hope that this one sorts out. Hoikka1 (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I try and upload this again ? Hoikka1 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, since this is a known issue, I think we should wait... :) Rehman 05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think you should wait, it will eventually appear after some time. There is no use messing up with the file in the hopes of change something, in my experience.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, thanks for both of you ! Hoikka1 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is probably caching. Your browser, or another cache along the way, is probably delivering the old version because it has no way of knowing that the image has changed. The issue, and its solution, is explained, in fairly simple terms, at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had this issue too and so have others. It's not client side, it's server side. See bug 28613. – Adrignola talk 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you -- I'm glad I waffled on where the problem lay -- "Your browser, or another cache along the way". I wonder if it is browser dependent?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dodoimortal (talk · contribs)

As, I'm offline for today, could somebody check (and eventually speedy) the remaining uploads of this user. Most seem to be blatant copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images deleted and the user was blocked for a week since they continued to upload copyrighted images. Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Steven Chiefa

User:Steven Chiefa has uploaded several images to commons [60].He is claiming own work. The images are all thumbs. I nominated http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poster_Facchetti.jpg after finding it at [61] Giacinto Facchetti passed in 2006. I think the problem is that he speaks Italian and may not understand Commons copyright policy in English. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the Italian language can explain better than I can.--Theda (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish locomotive enthusiast

I would like to alert larger community about recent spotting on Commons of IP user from Poland involved in cross wiki disruptive editing, as discussed here. User is interested in steam locomotives and is editing files and articles related to them. He/she might be trying to improve them but is often breaking more than fixing. User has several blocks on several wikis. IP addresses used by the user as discused in de:Benutzer:Tavok/polnischer Dampflokfan.

• 77.255.136.108 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.142.24 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.159.204 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.172.88 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.189.65 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.197.159 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.203.21 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.212.106 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.214.90 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• 77.255.222.89 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I would appreciate help watching activities of those IP's. --Jarekt (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I saw 77.255.222.89 posting machine-translation of under-stubs in de, ru, cz, hu wikis (see interwiki history for pl:1U) - deleted in de (now userified at de:Benutzer:Tavok/PKP-Baureihe TKbb), salvaged in ru, editwar in cz, some reverts in hu. IP editwars with de:Benutzer:Tavok in their userspace draft. All this for an iron tub that didn't even have a firebox! Needs some cross-wiki persuasion. NVO (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Curiously, IP also removed text from ru-wiki articles (removing notice of "according to unconfirmed reports" added during a proper rewrite - [62], replacing "Germany and (later) Poland" with just Poland [63]). So, yes, they follow their articles and can read the language but then why did they post babelfish-gibberisch in first place? NVO (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • If it becomes too much Special:Block/77.255.128.0/18, anon only. Account creation yes or no is your decision. You can watch for IP activites by activating the Allow /16,/24-/32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions-Gadget in your prefs and look for contribs on 77.255.128.0/16 range. (I bet you know this already, however) --Martin H. (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that is very useful, so far my activities here did not involve monitoring IP activities so I am not aware of all the tools which could be used for that.--Jarekt (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See alse here and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#77.255.159.204. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I blocked 77.255.255.0/16 for a month IP was frequently generating new IP addresses and kept vandalizing categories and files related to locomotives and edit warring with users trying to clean it up, while insulting them. Similar blocks were used on pl wiki.--Jarekt (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please de-admin ... (completed)

Blanked section per courtesy.

Monsterkillu (talk · contribs)

Monsterkillu is a new created user doing up to now only deletion request on pictures showing naked people ([64]). Smells very like after a socket puppet. Please observe his/ her suspicious activity. Thx --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not suspicious to start deletion requests. Even new users can do so and start DRs if you there is a reasonably valid rationale. Besides User:Monsterkillu's was on 1 June 1st, 2011. Since then there was no new edit by this user. --High Contrast (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very suspicious for a new user beginning his Commons career with deletion requests. First you have to know that there is actually a possibility to propose a requests and second you have to know the exact procedure. You want make me to believe that this start of a user is normally? Sorry, no way. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, your first step should be to talk to this user, so that he/she at least is informed that his activity has raised suspicion or is seen critical by others. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User is now informed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to submit such deletion requests anonymously or independent from the main account. But I do not think that this user has much experience in filing DRs. In the initial cases, neither a reason was given, nor a page for the DR was opened, nor the uploading user informed: [65], [66]. Only afterwards the user learnt how to complete a DR but even then his stated reasons do not refer to policy and are quite unlikely to succeed. Hence, this could be also very well a user who had no previous contact with Wikimedia Commons but is on some mission to “clean up” Commons. Anyway, this is so far not a misuse, just possibly annoying. I would recommend to talk to him on his talk page, telling him or her why this is unlikely to succeed. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting such unfounded deletion request on images en masse (like User:FAP a few days ago) is a misuse - independently if the user is a SP or not. The user is informed an I requested only to observe this suspicious behaviour, nothing less and nothing more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is possibly annoying but not yet a misuse. You should have talked with him first. I've done this now. If there is an ongoing disruption despite warnings given before, it becomes a problem which can be posted at COM:AN/U. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Working At The Farm

User:Working At The Farm, account was created today, tagged some user talkpages as sockets. I got somebody who was really confused. Can somebody warn him. Or maybe block him and remove the notices (if there isn't any problem with). I'm not so familiar here at commons! Mabdul (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This account is related to this case. --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:EvaKrap.jpg and User:Delay

TL;DR: The matter is resolved.

I'm writing this in the interest of public disclosure, I don't actually think it needs any commentary.

I was contacted on IRC today by some very urgent NL Wikipedians asking me to checkuser several commons users (in apparent good standing), a /16, and several IP addresses based on a concern related to ban evasion on NLwiki. I generally will not perform checks of non-troublemaking users on the basis of mere suspicion and declined to perform most of the checks. I did check an IP purported to belong to User:Delay and saw activity that I thought I should follow up on.

The central point of contention related to commons is an image moved from NLWP originally uploaded by User:Delay for an article on the subject of the image along with a concurrent OTRS permissions exchange. The article was deleted on NLWikipedia as being promotional/spammy content submitted by a banned user and the OTRS permission (2011060110012471) was firmly rejected. The uploader tagged the image for deletion on commons. There was some protest by NLwikipedians that the deletion of the image would suppress evidence of the promotional activity. The image was deleted. The image was subsequently undeleted by User:Silver Spoon after accusations were raised. I have re-deleted the image because without any use or expected use in the projects the image lacks a distinct educational purpose and is accordingly outside the scope of the projects. I appreciate the evidence related concerns of the NLwiki community, but there is no conflict here: No evidence is removed by the deletion, and I will gladly provide the relevant metadata/historical data for this image to anyone who requests it (and expect other commons admins to do so as well).

After investigating the activities of the IP in question and discussing the matter with the involved parties I am satisfied that there has been no material abuse of commons policy here and I've asked everyone to try harder to avoid generating drama— on commons or any other Wikimedia project. I'll continue to monitor things, but I consider the matter closed.

Thanks, Gmaxwell (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:FAP starting deletion request on human penis pictures en masse

[67], Designation on his page User_talk:FAP#Penises was obviously abortive. This spam-behavior is vandalism in my eyes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

it seems to be his exclusive type of contributing here in Commons: [68] --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Only for the past few weeks, before that he was uploading photos of chateaux. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for the past few weeks, and has had several good quality photos deleted via admins/users arguing that lots of good quality photos of the same thing is a BAD thing. I've checked through the deleted ones and have send several to COM:UDEL. I don't disagree with all the proposed/happened deletions, but I don't like the way this is being done, by claiming that "bad quality" "uninteresting photography" "we have other photos" and "no porn please" are legitimate reasons for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

agree, strongly! with mattbuck; commons is a media repository, we are supposed to have "lots of stuff" in every category. also, we have NO agreed policy on "quantity-limits" @ commons. as far as i can tell, there hasn't even been a significant proposal for such a policy, at anytime in the recent past. if any of the users matt mentions above would like to draft such a proposal & call for a vote on it, i would be very much interested in the discussion :P Lx 121 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this vandal and his nominations immediately. Most of the images are in use (in COM:SCOPE). Some of them already deleted without discussion. This is damage for done to the project, supported by George Chernilevsky. I would also request a checkuser in this case. It looks a bit to coincidental. I might be wrong and i don't want to say that he is guilty, but the possibility exists. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A deletion following a nomination for deletion is most certainly not a case where discussion has not been allowed. You are free to protest the deletions in the deletion requests. And you need more than coincidence before you start throwing out accusations that an admin is sockpuppeting. – Adrignola talk 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"A deletion following a nomination for deletion is most certainly not a case where discussion has not been allowed." - this is true ONLY if there is a reasonable time for discussion to occur (i.e.: 1 week is ok, <1 day is not!)Lx 121 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I won't consider any deletion requests while undeletion discussion won't come to the end (2-3 weeks).

@Niabot: Yours remark is very similar to a personal attack. However I don't take offense also a simple apology here will be enough. Yours faithfully, mit freundlichen Grüßen --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Niabot; An unsubstantiated accusation of abusive sockpuppetry against someone who happens not to agree with you is not a good way to build a consensus for your opinion of this matter. Don't do it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that a number of his nominations are for photos in use, which he does not note in his nomination. This makes his nominations much more problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this vandal and his nominations immediately is a personal insult and censorship, or is it forbidden to start deletion debates? Besides, FAP has a point to nominating certain pictures for deletion if he thinks they are dispensable, likewise others are doing that with e. g. chemical structures. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

a person who repeatedly makes spurious, unjustified deletion noms, with no regard for commons' policies, could be considered to be engaging in "disruptive editing", vandalism, or "spamming" Lx 121 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But it makes no sense to open DR's on images that are in use (see COM:SCOPE). He doesn't make any difference. Typical pattern: "A penis! OMFG! DELETE!" if useful, used or not. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Niabot wants us to censor people from starting deletion debates? When will he learn that Commons isn't censored? :) Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. You debate about deletion requests on images that are used and in scope. A rather useless discussion. If you want to discuss about COM:SCOPE than use the appropriate talk page, which is not a deletion request. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Most, if not all, of those penis pictures are useless, exactly as many other images depicting users’ hands, streets or pets. I wonder if a similar reaction would have been triggered if the subject were a more neutral one, like sunsets. Until now, the Wikimedia Foundation has been able to raise the funds necessary to continuously increase disk space and go on hosting all the trash that is uploaded every day. But I doubt that such policy will survive much longer, as it will eventually become too expensive and its irrationality too obvious. When that time comes, people will be forced to accept that Commons is no longer their personal warehouse. And the pseudo-democratic protests against censorship, especially those originated in people mostly concerned about their own agendas, will become ridiculous. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How many pictures of sunsets have had multiple DRs on them? Pictures of penises are a tiny, tiny fraction of the stuff uploaded every day, and yet get a disproportionate number of DRs, in this case even for pictures that are in use. I seriously doubt that Wikimedia Foundation will ever reduce disk space; if nothing else, there's a huge amount of video material clearly in scope that can be uploaded that will make these photos look tiny.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I also have my doubts that disk space for common images will ever be a problem. Video files, yes, they can be a problem, especially if more common formats came to be accepted here, and every schoolboy and girl starts uploading his material here as they do on Youtube. On the other hand, eventually at some point a selection process will be needed to get rid of low quality files, but for the time being that is not even an issue, and DRs based on that are usually promptly dismissed. I also recall that deleted pictures don't get deleted from the servers, so no space is saved by deleting them, and therefore it can't be used as an argument.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • "Pictures of penises are a tiny, tiny fraction of the stuff uploaded every day". At the Foundation offices here in San Francisco, we have a 60-inch monitor on the wall devoted solely to displaying the last 100 or so images uploaded to Commons. As a sort of running joke some people keep a count of how many penises show up each day, e.g. "it was a 3 penis day". There is no such count for sunsets. I would also like to mention the statistic that 100% of Commons' penis pictures are Caucasian. What project exactly are we gearing up for that needs 1000+ Caucasian penis photos? I'd be really curious to know what kind of educational endeavor this is facilitating. Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Incidentally, most, if not all the penises which were asked for undeletion in this request were not Caucasian, so perhaps there is a reason to keep them, after all?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
        • There is no such count for sunsets is not an argument one way or the other. A 3 penis day seems to indicate that in fact penises are a tiny fraction of what gets uploaded; what do we get a day, a few thousand images? That's less than 1%. For a diskspace argument, that's killer. Not only is Commons' penis pictures not 100% Caucasian, but the Indian pictures are among those on the chopping block. If you wish that Commons' penis pictures not be 100% Caucasian, this purge should be opposed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Well regardless I don't see how you can call it a "tiny tiny fraction" with a straight face. What other subject is more popular for Commons uploads? There aren't many. Anyway, I guess I was wrong about the racial make-up of our penis pictures. If we do actually have high quality non-Caucasian penis photos, I would certainly hope that they are retained. Saying people should not be able to nominate them for deletion seems a bit of an over-reaction though. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
            • • 4 points

1. i can't see anyplace in this conversation where someone was saying "we should stop all penis-deletion nominations"; what is being said is that "deleting penis pics just BECAUSE they are penis pics, without properly discussing the individual deletions, or without properly applying common's policies in considering the merits of the individual files, then using a NO PENIS "rationale" to justify the deletion, is weak"; it makes a mockery of the principles upon wich commons & the commons community are supposed to operate

2. i only check in on the "penis wars" every once in a while; i generally DON'T like getting involved in all the "behind-the-scenes" crap, but even i've noticed curious patterns of convenience in the nomination & deletion processes. for one thing, there are a number of "anonymous" IP address editors, who do nothing but make deletion noms AND show a remarkable knowledge of commons procedures (& how to use tags!)

3. maybe you guys should start counting things other than penises, to see how the stats compare? with all due respect, it says rather a lot about the mindset of the people "keeping track", that they consider it notable & important enough to pay attention to this statistic, & NOT apply similar close observation to other, more important matters.

wmc now has >10,000,000 media files; mostly images. we have, at most, a few hundred images focused on penises.

so let's be generous & say the ratio is 1,000:10,000,000 = 1:10,000 = 0.0001 - meaning approximately one ten-thousandth of commons' media file collecting consists of penis-centric images.

as an average, the % of daily uploads that are penis-centric images is unlikely to be much larger. i sometimes spend my time sorting new, uncategorized media files. the number of penis pics that turn up in the daily "uncategorized" categories is easily <1%

4. i'm kind of unhappy about your rather glib use of "not censored" here - "Niabot wants us to censor people from starting deletion debates? When will he learn that Commons isn't censored? :) Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

considering that the topic under discussion is the ongoing active censorship of sexual material @ commons, & ESPECIALLY considering your self-identified status as a member of wikimedia staff, i don't think it's appropriate for you to be making a "straw-man" interpretation of niabot's position (requesting that a user be blocked for disruptive editing is not an unusual thing on wm projects, & actually niabot neither formally requested a block nor used the term "censor" in reference to this. unless the user's comments have been heavily redacted, the only thing i can find is a statement of concern, a request for the activity to be stopped, & a request that suspected sock-puppetry be investigated. ...for that matter, it is also relevant if the nominating user's only significant activity is "no penis" deletion noms)

AND it bothers me to see "not censored" being used by a wm staffer, in a way that mocks the principle

i am sorry if my commentary directed @ you may seen "harsh"; BUT you work for the wmf, & identified yourself as such, in this discussion

therefore, you are held to a "higher standard" & more is expected of you

Lx 121 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this problem are deletion requests on images that are in use. [baiting/personal attack removed[69]] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

with no disrespect intended to User:Wsiegmund, i think that he was slightly overzealous in redacting from the above comment by niabot. the wording was pretty mild; & at most, 1/3 to 1/2 of the redacted line would fit the given description. the remaining part of the line certainly wasn't "friendly" to user:NAP, but it discussed the user's work, NOT the person. Lx 121 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• The salient point is we have many "en masse" deletions occur which are never posted here, the subject should have been irrelevantt yet rather than discussing the merits of the individual(group) listings we have yet another pointless discussion about censorship and nudity. Deleting an image is not censorship we do it hundreds of times every day, nor is listing an image for disucssion the whole point is deciding if the image meets the communities scope/policies. The simple fact is that the choice of title for the discussion was inappropriate, a simpler User:FAP pointy en masse delreq would have served to convey the concern about the users action rather then poisoning the discussion. As I see it now those images that are used in articles(not user pages,project,gallery type) should be closed as in scope the rest left to proper reasoned discussion noting that not censored doesnt over rule COM:SCOPE. Gnangarra 07:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed about the discussion getting massively off-topic. haven't seen (or used) the term "pointy editing" much @ commons, but it certainly does seem to fit, in this instance. i'm unclear what User:FAP's exact intentions/motives are, but his recent "work sessions" have involved nothing more than churning out literally dozens of deletion noms of "dirty pictures" Lx 121 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Good to know that Wikimedia has almost unlimited resources, at least enough disk space to keep the present upload policy and host all the existing trash (from which the users’ penises are just a very tiny percentage, of course). Too good to be true, as a matter of fact. I’m ready to believe that money is not yet a problem (as long as the usual maecenases continue to contribute with their money) but the same is probably not true with manpower and system functionality. Yesterday I browsed the COM:DR pages and realized how large is the number of nominations still waiting for attention. Knowing that most of the maintenance work is done by volunteers (us), and that the number of stable editors is decreasing in all Wikimedia projects, I wonder how longer that pile of trash can still grow. Yes, it is very nice to have a place to host our media and defend our ideas of freedom of expression, as long as we don’t have to pay the bill. When the restrictions come (most probably with the videos!), we will finally realize that Commons belong to a private organization, is not ours. I’m not a puritan and have nothing against keeping pictures of human anatomy, which are obviously useful for a large variety of projects, inside and outside Wikimedia. But most of the existing pictures are redundant and of poor quality, as well as almost all images depicting the sunset in various parts of the world. No one can be accused of censorship just because he is using the system to propose deleting some of those pictures. As a symbolic gesture (this is not my usual area of work), I have supported some of those proposals and would have done the same if the subject were sunsets or pets. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no word about censorship in this debate, related to the nomination itself. You claim that the DR list is too long and that we don't have enough manpower. Is it in this case a good thing to let users freely nominate any picture they come across, if in use or not? Will we implement the "Dice 1-Click Deletion" to make things easier for administrators? Or do we reach this goal by scaring contributers away? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

here's a thought: most deletions are LOW-PRIORITY work. the only time-critical deletions are for i) files with clear legal issues & ii) files containing malware/breaking the wiki.

EVERYTHING ELSE in the deletion categories can be considered as "not urgent"; of ALL the backlogged work @ commons', clearing up old (non-time-critical) deletions is the LEAST IMPORTANT

it is FAR more critical that we improve the speed & quality of sorting/categorizing NEW, incoming media files!

Lx 121 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Running the risk of looking politically incorrect I would recomend Commons to explicitly discourage the upload of trivial and poor quality media, and encourage participation in those fields where the project lacks good quality illustrations: eg, new animal/vegetal species and remote parts of the world, just to mention two obvious themes. Yes, I am guilty of having uploaded more pictures than probably needed, just like most part of us. But am ready to propose the deletion of them, if the polciy changes in the right direction. Commons is certainly not my personal warehouse or a show-case of my creations. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Being used does not preclude an image from being nominated for deletion, all images are judge based on policies not on usage. This complaint was raised because of the commonality of subject matter until the community can discuss the subject sensibly and realise that such discussions can result in deletion yet they are not censorship until then more of these discussion will occur. Not censored is recognising that we host all kinds of images without fear or favor and that we can freely discuss the validity of any image, currently this is not the case. Mentioning anything sexual gives a guarantee that those with strong opinions will rally to the cause, which derails discussion by driving away opinions and devaluing consensus. Censorship is removing whole category structures not individual images, editors with strong opinions should also be wary of these discussion as your opinions are being easily manipluated. Gnangarra 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is describing files which are in use as useless. I accept that some images of bad quality need to go. But emphasis on bad quality. Moreover, we need to apply consistent standards. According to CatScan there are about 500 images of the Statue of Liberty. Say I went and took a picture of it at 320*240, there's no way it would be deleted as being useless. But if I took a 12MP picture of a penis... -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try that experiment: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sunny_Eiffel_Tower.JPG. --99of9 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

/me closes under grounds "disrupting commons to make a POINT". :p -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also this DR. DR nomination was created before raised this conflict. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Being in use doesn't necessarily means it is realistically useful in educational terms, most especially when the image is part of a gallery or has been inserted in an article by the uploader. That is why I agre with Gnangarra that being in an article doesn't preclude an image from being nominated for deletion. As for the Statue of Liberty pics, shall we start the cleaning now? ;-). It would certainly be useful to have a very high resolution image of human genitaliae. But that would make most of the remaining pictures dispensable...and automatic candidates for DR... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think the photos voted against at UDEL were about 10MP. And you're wrong, being in use AUTOMATICALLY means it's within scope - see COM:SCOPE. We do not editorialise or second guess other projects' decisions: "oh, it may be in use but they don't mean it"... -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I know what is written in COM:SCOPE and how it can be used to avoid deletion (for example, by inserting our "substandard penis pic" in some obscure gallery or less known language project). However, if people use inteligence to avoid the rules we should do the same to enforce them. If we are really convinced that some picture is uselss and out of scope, all we have to do is replace it in the various projects with a better one (or just remove it, when in a gallery). Anyway, I think that that particular point of Com:scope should be re-analyzed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• In that case you would need a proof, that the picture was spread by the uploader itself, against the consensus inside other projects. That is the smart way to go, since it would avoid unnecessary conflicts and harm to other projects. Using our intelligence would mean to judge on a fair basis, ignoring any kind of genre or taste. That is it what i miss inside the deletion requests of FAP. Only nominating pictures from a well known category alone, ignoring the use cases, can't be considered by me as an neutral activity. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Info -- I have started a discussion here on the present COM:Scope rule under discussion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Comment - I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with some of the things that have been said in this discussion, in particular the references to "private warehouses" and the dispositions of getting rid of "similar images", even if of bad quality. I've not been much of an uploader of self work, but I've here literally thousands of photos I've took with Commons in mind on hold for upload waiting for time and disposition, and I'm somewhat disgusted that this, which has been made with the best of the intentions, can be considered using Commons as a "private wharehouse" by some people. As for "similar images", please take much care with that. Small details in an image can be very important, even if the image is of apparent bad quality. In a city view they can reveal some building being constructed, or a feature which ws only temporary there. In animals and plants they may reveal unusual behaviours or morphologies, even reveal previously unknown variants. Please take much care with that. I'm not really an expert on penises (nor I want to be, frankly) but those images have to be carefully checked for details. I believe an unusual big gland (cock head, dunno the English name) could be of interest, for instance.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, 2 quick points:

1. we are still massively off-topic, in that the original purpose of this discussion was to consider the disruptrive editing practices of user:FAP, which have barely been mentioned.

2. commons has NO policy on "quantity-limits" for acceptable files; IF some users want to propose a new policy, then they are more than welcome to draft a document & sumbit it for discussion/seek consensus

SO FAR, THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED

until it does, according to scope & the project's basic "mission statement", commons is a "media repository" with the purpose of collecting as many educationally useful files as possible.

finally: DATA-STORAGE IS DIRT CHEAP; we only have abt 10,000,000 files currently @ commons, mostly pictures, with the average filesize probably well under 25 megs.

bottom line: we are not going to run out of space anytime soon

AND

deleted files ARE NOT removed from the servers; meaning that the "illustion" of saving storage space by deleting files is just that, AN ILLUSION

Lx 121 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Wow, cleary Lx 121 and I have very different understandings of what Commons is and should be! Good, discussing those views is much more interesting than just addressing FAP's disruptive actions ;-). I went through the important Commons pages and didn't read anything about "collecting as many educationally useful files as possible". Please correct me if I'm wrong. As I wrote somewhere above, even if disk space is ridiculously cheap, to maintain the system working smoothly and constructing a well-organized image repository out of Commons is not, despite the effort and excellent work of all volunteers. As what my colaboration is concerned, I would rather use my time and talent helping to enrich and organize a reasonable collection of good quality pictures than keeping track of an imense pile of trash, including all varieties of human genitalae and sunsets (sorry for the joke, I couldn't help it). That is, maybe, the core of our disagreement: quality versus quantity. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It is perhaps worth mentioning that User:FAP is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a more established commons user who is also voting on (some of? I didn't check all of them) these deletion requests. If the other account were some other low-history account I would probably have just blocked both of them for the sockpuppetry and disruptive behavior, but since the other account is unquestionably well established I don't know what the best course of action is. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear publicly from the puppeteer why they engaged in this behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also interested in the true reasons. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

if that's verifiable, isn't it grounds for at (least a) temporary ban, on-the-record reprimand, & if the user is an admin, a "demotion"? Lx 121 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• First, I don't know, who is user FAP.
• Secondly, I give my permission to check of my account by any checkuser.
• In the third, I ask to take measures concerning users who attacked me. Insinuations should be stopped.
• Note: Administrative actions aren't sweet honey. I don't think that removals of files bring to somebody pleasure. It only the work connected with some conflicts, but really needed for project. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, George Chernilevsky isn't the person I was talking about. George is not sockpuppeting to the best of my ability to determine and I agree with his call for avoiding insinuations as they just generate animosity. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• The question is, if we accept sock puppetry or not and how we deal with it. I can just imaging what would happen to me, if i used a sock for manipulate votings. This case is even harder. At first we have deletion requests en mass, at second we have participation of the real account to support the deletion (if i got you right) and at third the user uploaded copyright violations, despite the fact he should obviously know better. In any way a disgusting behavior. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Uploaded copyvios? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• See FAPs discussion page. It might also be possible that the same user included the images inside multiple articles, since that IP is from France. [70], [71] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• After a little investigation on my own, out of curiosity, I would take away the "almost" from the "almost certainly". I have not the least doubt about the socketpuppetry. To avoid further speculation about innocent users, I'll say that the abuser is user:Florent Pécassou, who systematically used FAP to create the POINTY DRs, and then supported the deletion of the files so proposed as Florent Pécassou. it's not even necessary a checkuser, since the sock made this mistake. As everyone can see, the date on the exif is wrongly stated as 5 June 2030, which is precisely the same wrong date which appears on the files of Florent uploaded in the same occasion, and apparently taken in the same day (e.g.: File:Église de Mazerolles (Hautes-Pyrénées, France).JPG). This is such an egregious proof that I believe that the debate should not be about if, but what should be done about it.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I have blocked the secondary account for 1 month. I would support further sanctions, but believe this is a precautionary bare minimum that everyone would agree with. As per others above, I would like to hear an explanation from the user before making the final determination, but this certainly looks bad. --99of9 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Shoudn't the secondary account be blocked forever? To my knowledge, that is the usual thing to do. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Most likely yes. I'm sure 1 month will give us sufficient time to discuss and decide. --99of9 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• The permanent block of the socketpuppet is one thing to do. But why are the administrator rights not removed? Also I see no discussion of blocking the user himself at least for some time. --Paddy (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  There needs to be some consensus for removal first per the de-adminship policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• At least we should hear from him, what he has to say about this. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• He is a danger for the community! He should be tarred and feathered immediately. How long he should be blocked may be discussed afterwards. I have been blocked for less. This person endangers the freedom of free media and free content. --Paddy (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the user and the socketpuppet informed? I would grant them to respond on their own discussion page. Can someone perform a checkuser to make absolutely sure? I am absolutely appalled that nothing is done! --Paddy (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, since I am responding a bit late— I had asked a french speaker and commons admin to communicate with the user in question. I didn't want to disclose the details of my contact strategy in public initially because it would have too clearly identify who I was talking about while it was still possible that there would be some reasonable explanation for the fairly clear cut checkuser results. (I am a commons check-user, and had checkusered FAP and only FAP on the simple basis of the apparently disruptive single purpose behavior. I would not have commented at all except for seeing strong evidence of abusive behavior, my comments were not speculation). I saw no urgent reason for an overly hasty response. Your being appalled was somewhat premature.  :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! Still I think it is a bit of a shady cover up. That is only my personal opinion mind you. I am still appalled about the incident. I am talking about suggesting to delete free media from a free platform. And the general support of doing so. --Paddy (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Im just curios who else is involved in this case. As usual in such aspects it is not done by one user alone. A typical pattern would be to use a sock to make the deletion request, support the deletion by yourself and let it close by someone that is something as a good friend or a loyalist with shared opinion. I won't accuse anyone, but such things are most likely not done alone, since it would have an uncertain outcome, that would not justify to take the risk alone. At a second point it is much easier to hide such a progress, since accusation will usually be directed at the deleting admin and not a supporter. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And the winner is...

• •  Comment of your  Comment: A typical pattern would be to use a sock to unsupport a deletion request over and over again (also sometimes with that stupid "censorship" club), and let it close by someone that is something as a good friend or a loyalist with shared opinion. Fortunately, arguments but not the amount of "yes" or "no" is crucial - in contrast to polls here, where the appearance of sockpuppets is evident. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can stick your "stupid “censorship” club" wording up your ass and get back to normal standard. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say, honey! --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch your language! @Yikrazuul --Paddy (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Question btw: Is there a case, where "User:FAP" starts a DR, and User:Florent Pécassou decided that deletion request? If not, there is no abuse. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've seen, but I think effectively double-!voting in DRs is also an abuse of a sock. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As far as I know, none of the DRs have been closed yet by anyone. But Florent Pécassou did vote on several (most?) of the DRs started by FAP (e.g. this, this, this and this (edit: the last one seems to have been self-reverted)). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We should also realize that mass deletion requests will lead to low participation in single requests. Doubling an opinion on such requests will be often enough to betray the community. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

@Alvesgaspar nice work: [72] [73] --Paddy (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Ykrazuul - Your question sounds sort of "Is there a case where the thieve killed someone? If not, there was no crime". I've not seen a situation where Florent Pecassou deleted himself the files, but the pattern of sock doing controversial nominations and master supporting them with his reputation (quite notable in cases like this) seems pretty abusive to me.
• Actually, the use of FAP for the name of the sock suggests to me that the intentions for its use may have been initially legit, but somewhere in the process it took a turn for the dark side of the force. I would prefer, of course, to hear an explanation from Florent himself, than to speculate about his intentions. In any case, however, I have no doubts that serious abuse has occurred, most notably using his reputation as administrator and established user to play with the good faith and good will of this community .-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd  Support a CU: Voting for a DR twice is a misuse and it would be interesting whether there are other Satellites circling around this user. -- RE rillke questions? 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  No @Darwin, commons has no religion, moral or politics to follow except their own! The media needs to be free and correct license nothing more. And the way this person was behaving was showing disrespect to the commons way. There is no explanation for this outrageous behaviour. And Alvesgaspar support of this behaviour should also be questioned. I believe it is closely linked to the person in question. --Paddy (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  A checkuser was performed. There is no conspiracy, just one user who went wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• User:Paddy makes two serious accusations: (i) that I support the behavior of User:Florent Pécassou, as a pupeteer abusing multiple accounts; (ii) and that I am closely linked to him. Now, he will have to try producing hard evidence of what he states. Either he is successfull, and I will be punished for what I did and leave Commons in shame; or he is not, and I expect him to grow up and start respecting the other editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, I am not and I did not! (i) No, I meant this [74] and this [75] not as a pupteteer. Where did you read that? I did not write it! (ii) I said that I believe you are somehow involved because I can not prove it. You want to punish me for believing something? Ridiculous! Go and punish someone else. I do not like this kind of thread. And telling someone to grow up also not very nice and shows your little respect to others. I call it condescending behaviour. -- Paddy (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• A sock puppet account is a sockpuppet account these are blocked indefinitely which have now done. The User account should be block but doing so at this stage of the discussion is problematic, clearly User:Florent Pécassou has used the sock to push a POV in the DR such actions is unacceptable by any user. For an admin its a serious breach of the communities trust as such User:Florent Pécassou should stand down as an admin. Failing that I'd support the removal of admin tools by the community should it be necessary for that to occur then like all Sock Masters User:Florent Pécassou should also be blocked. Gnangarra 00:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • every Delreq listed by the sock shold be deleted rather than just closed. Gnangarra 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm surfing in a public area and I know this user. Often, we work together. We could stop to say when we are agree if it is a problem (You can see we aren't always agree). Florent Pécassou (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad attempt at defence, the sock accusation wasn't even primarily based on IP sharing, but on uploading pictures taken at the same time with the same digital machine, as "own", so forget about "surfing in public areas" and "working together", you'll have to be more imaginative.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You must understand that your activity is so suspicious that you will need to write more than two lines of text to convince us. In particular, some of the questions you should answer are: What does "working together" mean? Please list every type of working together you have done, and link some examples of it. Do you use the same computer? at the same time? Do either of you use any computer or network that the other one does not? Do you use the same camera? at the same time? Do you discuss which deletions you are voting on? Can you show diffs for examples of where you have disagreed? Do you have the same initials as one another? Why did you not disclose your connection? Do you pretend on wiki to not know one another? Why/why not? Have you ever uploaded a photograph that was taken by the other user? Has the other user ever uploaded a photograph taken by you? When you say you are "surfing in a public area", what kind of area is it, do you know if the other user surfs in the same area, why? Do you ever surf in an area they don't? Did you discuss your sudden shared interest in nudity-related files before you started voting on them? What was the nature of that discussion? Why did you both recently concentrate on this kind of file? --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want resuming my life here but, we are roommates* students who work in the same faculty. It's why sometimes we use same computers or camera. I have explain him most fully* how surfing on this site. He discusses with me of his DR or contributions. It's him who said me that* this kind of file exist in Commons. I haven't supported all his DR. As I said, we could stop to say when we are agree if it is a problem. It is the end of the shcolar year but if it is so suspicious, I could understand the loss of my admin rights. *I try to speack most clearly and use the appropriate words but English isn't my natal language. Thanks. Florent Pécassou (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the situation its reasonable that you respond in your native language, I suggest you do it as soon as you can. Gnangarra 08:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering some of my questions above. I would still like you to answer those you missed (in French is fine). Here are some new questions. What is your relationship to User:Titit09? What is User:FAP's relationship to User:Titit09. Why did you delete some of your own uploads after they'd been on the server for many months with the reason "Uploader request", but without a deletion review? Do you understand that the release of your photographs is irrevocable (can not be undone)? Why did you "transfer" your Flickr uploads to User:FAP? --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I also saw several speedy deletions last weeks by this admin, on regular DRs, where a valid reason for deletion was completely absent. I think he doesn't make a good admin and should no longer be one. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the aggressive tone in this discussion, the accusations, and the hasty deployments of blocks. To me this looks like mob justice. I do not think it is justified. I am especially worried by the accusations being lobbed at people who simply shared the views of the people who are accused of misbehaving. Agreeing with a sockpuppeteer's Commons-politics does not make you a sockpuppeteer yourself. The allegations along these lines chill freedom of discussion and should not be tolerated.

As administrators we are not designated "punishers" here to dole out punishment to the deserving; our role is simply to keep the project smoothly operating and on course. Sometimes we must block people to fulfill that purpose, but this should be an action taken with contemplation and regret. Obviously we shouldn't allow people to double-vote or otherwise manipulate our process, and massive disruptive deletion nominations are an annoyance. But none of these things are emergencies which require us to abandon the principles of calm, reasoned, and respectful decision making which should be essential to the way we do business here.

I think this is doubly true in situations where the troublemaker(s) clearly had an earnestly held, if misplaced, desire to help the project. Many people hold strong views about what is right and wrong for the project. Someone might rationally believe that if we have too many penis images than commons will fail (due to being censored by authorities, for example). Some of these views may be outright falsifiable, some may be completely misguided, some may be simply outweighed by other factors in the judgment of our community, a few might be actively dangerous to our mission. And so they should not stand— and in the long term someone who pushes them disruptively may need to be asked to leave. But this does not change the fact that their views were honestly held for the good of our project and that we should respect them for their good wishes, if not for their decisions or techniques.

If commons were violating the core principles I believe to be embodied in the project— if it were to abandon requiring free licensing for example— I might unwisely violate some rules in the fight against the destruction of what we've worked for, if I thought there was no other option. If it were later determined that my judgment was a mistake I hope that the commons community would show more compassion than they are showing here.

I urge everyone to relax a little and try to work this out with a minimum of accusations and a maximum of respect.--Gmaxwell (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So lets get back to the topic. It seams obvious to me that Florent Pécassou misused a sock puppet (or two) to support his opinion combined with mass deletion requests. Normaly a user gets blocked for such actions. Some of them indefinitely. But what do we do in this case? If i could decide, then i would block him indefinitely, because he misused the trust of the community.

Why no milder "judgment" from my side? As an admin he should know very well about the principals and the consequences for the project. That leaves the question for his motivation. A normal user might think that he isn't accepted by a community and that he has no other choice as to support himself. But we are talking about an admin that had our trust and misused it for it's personal goals. I don't think that this is acceptable in any way. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice speech @Gmaxwell and I understand what you say. My only interest is prevent free images from being deleted. I hate penis images but that is beside the point. My opinion is worth less then the opinion of the community. But if it comes to the question where I stand and the community answers: "delete" I leave. --Paddy (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there has only been one block (and an extension of that block), and since I made that block, I guess I need to respond. I believe my one month block of the secondary account (which you called "almost certainly a sockpuppet") was "calm, reasoned and respectful". At the same time I notified the primary account of this conversation, and asked him to voice his explanation. Although I am not a checkuser, I had investigated a great deal of evidence (including exif data, contribution histories in fr-wiki after every image upload, and voting patterns on commons), and agreed with your opening assessment based on CU. I believe I am in a good position to be objective (erring on the side of generosity) on this block, because in regards to "Commons politics" many would consider me to be on the same "side" as the blocked user (having co-authored for example the proposed COM:SEX consent requirements). I did not view this as an "emergency", but believe that action should be swift once sufficient evidence of disruption is clear. Undeclared sockpuppetry by itself is disruptive of the collegial atmosphere of the community, because it builds suspicion that users are operating "good" and "bad" accounts. But once two accounts operated by the same person start colluding on nominations and votes, that clearly crosses the lines into blatant active disruption, and should be stopped immediately, pending an explanation. You might note that nobody has yet blocked the primary account, and he has now been brought into conversation, which I think demonstrates that level heads have prevailed throughout the involved administrative corps. I have retained and open mind on whether the two users are identical or related and have encouraged others to do the same. I have been monitoring the userpages and discussion, but I have not yet unblocked because the explanations we have seen, even if truthful, are not sufficient to explain all of the evidence. --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about "accusations being lobbed at people who simply shared the views". --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree fully on the last point. But i have to add, that this is the outcome, if trust is lost due to such activities. It always leaves the open question, if this is not a single case, if it even happens among admins (or at least one admin). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 01:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I trust your apology to George will soon be forthcoming, since he has been cleared by CU, and was just doing the job he regularly does of closing DRs? What evidence do you have for maintaining your distrust of him, apart from the fact that some other admin had a sockpuppet? Or are you just leaving the accusations you lobbed because a negative can never be 100% proven? 99of9 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to George for accusing him of puppetry.

In the end a puppeteer was found. I have no tools at hand to check on the behavior of other users (No CU, no look at deleted content). But what can you do as a normal user, other then to state that something does not look right and to spell out your assumptions? They might be wrong, as in this case. But what would the police do in such cases? They accuse some people of potential malicious behavior, hear them, gather more information and decide later on what to do. If the police could not do this, without being 100% sure, then many cases would never come to light. Accusing someone to do something is way different then to judge that he did. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is well told, Niabot. Thanks. Yours faithfully -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Gmaxwell : thanks but I'm already juged and condemned. To stop all this, I've demanded to be de-admined. Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make a note that I have now also blocked User:Titit09. It appears that this account was renamed to FAP some time ago, and the talk redirects to the new username... but... if my reading is right, Titit09 has continued uploads since the rename. So it appears that both accounts were still active somehow. I don't really know much about user-renames, so if anyone who knows more wants to undo this, go ahead and let me know what I've misunderstood. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FAP is saying he's not a puppet. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Slander and hostility

•  Comment -- I fully agree with Gmaxwell on the need to show more compassion and respect. And while there is no doubt in my mind that abusing multiple accounts to reach some objective should not be tolerated in Commons, especially when an administrator is involved, that is the least of the problems here. Disrespect and slander are, because they strongly contribute for a climate of hostility and intolerance. Wild suspicions have been lightly thrown over regular users on the grounds that they shared the puppeteer’s views. And while no evidence supporting them was produced so far, there is no hint of apology or retraction from their authors. On the contrary, their attitude suggests that the original suspicions are intact and that they feel they have all the right to express them freely, as in here and here. The aria "La Calunnia" from Rossini’s, Il barbiere di Siviglia (here) provides a good background for the present thread. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I concur, there has been too much suspicion about this. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  I like Il barbiere di Siviglia and Rossini even though his operas are shallow entertainment. It is great to see how you @Alvesgaspar appeal for respect and in the end of the same paragraph you pillory some assorted people with some very low hits that could even be considered as attacks or insults. And by that distracting from the original problem that is: not rightful deletion requests of a sockpuppet, supported by an admin and some even supported by you. --Paddy (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sridhar100

The user has uploaded many copyright violations, releasing pictures on the net under FAL. Please go through all his contributions and delete all obvious copyvios. I am tried tagging the images. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Redtigerxyz, for spotting this. I went through all remaining uploads and tagged everything with one exception which could be saved thanks to the source information as it was already PD. If you take a look at this article you'll find most of his uploads and if you take a look at his talk page at en-wp, you will see that this a newbie who is not yet familiar with encyclopedic style and our policies at en-wp or Commons. Compared with some other cases, it is surprising to see that he cited in most cases the source link from where the images have been taken. There were three exceptions to this which I have enumerated on his talk page where I have asked him to discontinue this practice. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Niabot

Inappropriate username, name contains a bot, as per username policy its not acceptable..Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a big deal to me, as the user is known as real user. Or is there any similar-named real bot? --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, been around since 2007. The name hasn't caused problems for four years so I think we're safe. Wknight94 ^talk 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Niabot has been around since before that was written, so even if it is misleading, I think he should be grandfathered in. By the way, are you really a Captain? --99of9 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@User 99of9 its not a question of username, its a question of policies..if the username need to be survived you are advised to change the policy in commons, There is no poicy stating that a captain can only be identified in commons, you are advised to read the username policy once again...What i can observe is the term 'bot' is not matching with current policy..if its survived i can freely change my username into Captainbot..??:)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

At some point it gets boring. Thats all i have to say: [76] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Aww, what a charming example of Wikipedia's bureaucracy. It's amazing how adult capable persons can waste their priceless lives on long serious discussions to find a solution of such a "problem". @Captainofhope It's not even a policy, it's just a proposal. And even if this proposal will be a policy someday, it would be reasonable to grandfather older usernames created before its adoption. Trycatch (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The refered to policy uses the words should not (which is different from must not) and the intention of the policy is clear that user names that are clearly deceiving are discouraged but this one is not. Firstly, Niabot is not named "NiaBot" or "Nia Bot" in a way which emphasizes the bot part. Secondly, Niabot is well known in the community and can hardly be mixed up with a bot whose edits are marked by the b flags in the watchlists and histories. Finally, I do not think that it is helpful to enforce a rename of a user who has a SUL and who is active in 26 projects with 26,310 edits in total. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Niabot is well known in the community": do you see a problem for new users? --High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have much watching of other people's edits, so the bot name is really not that important here. Further, do we also ban other languages' versions of bot? I accept some people may be confused for about 30 seconds until they go to his userpage or see him participating in discussions. No need for renaming someone for hypothetical new commons users' 30 seconds when Niabot has over 26k edits on various projects where the name is perfectly valid; and further where it will just confuse the rest of us. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If a policy is valid, then all have to follow that..or that policy need to be changed...If the username 'Niabot' is approved why other user's can't make a name with 'bot' ending..?? --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, if Niabot had the name before the policy was implemented, that's a good reason to keep as is. For the same reason, if you criminalise some behaviour you can't convict people who did it before it was illegal. I accept that there is a qualitative difference between illegal and against our policy, but it's just a point of comparison. Further, we don't have to follow all policies, one of the ideas of Wikimedia is that if something is sensible to do, ignore the rules that say you can't. Now, answer me this, say we do rename Niabot, where does that get us? Why would we want to? Is it confusing you, me, or anyone else? To force an account's rename on such supurious grounds is a waste of time, as is this conversation. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Should not", in English, is not always intended to be a less stringent "must not"; in many cases they mean the same. Powers (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Powers: While not being a native speaker, I beg to differ by quoting from RFC 2119:

MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.

I think that it is helpful to follow this standardized interpretation. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the panellists (word suggested by a translation-robot). We should change the proposed policy, stop this time-waste-discussion and yes, first time I saw the name I was confused, too but 30s (or maybe a bit more) later I discovered one of its his artworks, a bot would unlikely be able to create. Have a nice weekend! -- RE rillke questions? 18:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I was also confused the first time I saw the name. So yes, I think that the policy does make sense and should be enforeced for new users. But Niabot is not a new user, so lets 'live with it' ;) Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely with Amada44 -- I was confused at first; I think we should enforce policy for future new users, but leave Niabot as is.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Avenue (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first came across him in a discussion before, I was confused too. If we are dealing with a single user on Commons, then maybe a rename is not that far off (maybe "Niabott"?). But splitting his global account for this is out of the question. He was there before the policy. I wouldn't let anyone rename me if I were him. ;) Rehman 03:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Worth considering a policy change.."Policy is only of new comers" its not for old user's...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rillke has already suggested such a change at Commons talk:Username policy#Well established use, which seems like a better place to discuss it. BTW, Commons:Username policy is not policy yet, only a proposed policy. --Avenue (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal insult

User:DIREKTOR said that my comments are "nonsense nationalist POV-pushing": [77] I consider that highly insulting because my political views are in a scope of liberal democracy and I am not an nationalist. Can somebody please warn him not to insult me anymore. My objections to accuracy of his map are valid. For some reason, he trying to remove name "Serbia" from name of WW2 country wherever he can and we had similar discussion in English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić's_Serbia#Name_discussion I collected here an list of sources as evidence that his view is wrong and most other users in English Wikipedia agreed with this. However, I am not disputing here his right to have what ever view he want, but he has no right to insult me and to say that my comments are "nonsense nationalist POV-pushing", especially because my comments are supported by all these sources. So, I am only asking that somebody warn him about civilized behavior. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, he removed "The factual accuracy of this description is disputed" tag from his image and he constantly writing that I am author of his map, while he is in fact author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png&action=historysubmit&diff=55148607&oldid=55119368 (I am not author of his map, but of original file that he only used as a source). I do not want to be engaged in revert war with this person, but I do not think that this is in accordance with Wikimedia rules. PANONIAN (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And in addition, on his map's page he copy-pasted reference list from original map that I created. Note that such references that I used are not supporting his idea that "Government of national salvation" was a name of country (look just this one that clearly using name Serbia). In another words, he listed false references for his map. PANONIAN (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Túrelio#File:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1943-44.png.[78] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Chucky Currie

I was attempting to place a page up with pictures then got a rejection notice. I am a World Martial Arts Champion, Black Belt Hall of Fame Member and World Black Belt Member, Black Belt Hall of Fame Member! I was trying to change my user name to Chucky Currie, replacing Chuckycurrie Please visit my website at www.chuckycurrie.com

User:Chucky Currie doesn't exist.[79] Just log out. Then create your new username. Please follow the guidance of COM:USERNAME#Famous_people. You have five contributions.[80] Please note that Commons has a COM:SCOPE. Out of scope images may be deleted. You'll need to provide evidence that you are the creator and/or copyright holder of the Bruce Lee poster. Copyright violations will be deleted and repeated uploads may lead to loss of privileges. Thank you, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User Intoronto1125

see here for edit history has gone round removing deletion templates from files for no reason, when the files clearly should be deleted. Good twins (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have deleted (most of) the files and smacked the user. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Notorious copyright violator

Dencey (talk · contribs) This user has been a notorious copyright violator in the Hungarian Wikipedia, and in the end the community decided to ban him from upload photos for a half-year period. [81] During this period too and also after that he used Commons to upload photos, many of them are and were copyright violations. I have recently found again copyright violations in his Commons uploads. He has been blocked multiple times for copyright violation in huwiki so he stopped uploading photos other than PD-old, but continueduploading copyvios here. (block log at huwiki, "jogsértő", "jogvédett" type of blocks mean block reasons for copyright violations.) I strongly advise to check the photos he uploaded and eventually block him from uploading more photos to commons, as he is trying to evade the rules of huwiki by thinking he can upload anything here and no one will notice if he puts "own photo" to all of them. Please keep this user on watchlist! Thank you. Teemeah (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that. We had numerous problems with him on huwiki. A check on him would be fine. Cassandro (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'd like to suggest that if either or both of you read Hungarian, that you might be the primary line of defense here -- I've just tagged two of his images for {{Delete}}, but it would be much easier and faster if an editor who reads Hungarian were doing it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review his uploads and tag them but it takes time. The primary reason for letting Commons admins know is that he needs a serious ban so that he would notice he can't do anything he pleases here either, otherwise he won't stop his copyvio uploads. Thanks. Teemeah (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already warned him about removing a {{Delete}}. He'll be watched.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jim! I not innocent. My photo is correct. Please check for my picture. Sorry. Dencey (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RennyDJ (talk · contribs)

Repeatly reuploading deleted content and other copyvios. Moros y Cristianos 11:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I blocked User:RennyDJ for 3 days. Which files should be deleted, which ones could be "saved"? axp_de^Hello! 20:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Screenshots of Google streetview for villages in Italy, fraudulently passed off as own work. I've seen this from another account recently. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of Francescocap96, but on closer inspection, I don't think there is a connection. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User was blocked for 3 days by Axpde, I deleted the uploads that he toke from various websites (including file hosting services) with crediting this websites as authors and adding some wrong PD-Italy tags on this very recent photos. Well spotted with the streetview screenshots, LX. --Martin H. (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mvart4u

User is allegedly German artist de:Mischa Vetere, and has filled a category with works of dubious artistic value. I can accept that these are in scope, although I don't much like them. However, the user's behaviour warrants a closer look. A few days ago I misunderstood what was written on an image he'd uploaded, thinking it was an old postcard (which it isn't) rather than a derivative of one, and nominated it for deletion. I withdrew my request once this was cleared up. Mvart4u replaced the image with the comment (BÜCHERVERBRENNUNG 1933 seen by mischa vetere 2011 - for the wikimedians who try to censor me 2010 and 2011 over WIKIMEDIA COMMONS for CHRISTOF BLOCHER.). I later nominated what appears to be a derivative work of a Captain Jack Sparrow photo, and got the following message on my talk page: you stay off my category! it is OTRS approved for COPYRIGHT REASONS!! johnny depp personally has delivered photos to me, and the work is approved, my alteration.mvart4u ps: wännd din chrampf nöd uufgisch, länsch mi känne. seisch ja selber, verstaasch nüt vo kunst, dänn lan verdammt no mal mini arbeit in fridä - jedi arbeit isch OTRS approved; ziit vo de rufmörder fründ isch scho lang verbii. ich werd dich jetzt mälde. I then got subjected to the (apparent insult) that I am from Zurich. User seems to be paranoid about censorship, apparently the timing of this makes it obvious.

On the upside, apparently the UN, Obama, Jimbo, and Shakespeare's Cat like his work... -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: user has now reuploaded that image and added a book-burning image to the source field. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a little hard to sort out whether Mischa Vetere is notable or not. Most of the early Google hits are self-generated. There is no entry for him among the thousands of artists listed at www.artnet.com. He appears, however, to have had a number of shows in various places and an article on WP:DE, so his work may be within scope for us.

The behavior of Mvart4u (whether or not he is the artist) is not acceptable. My two respected colleagues, Martin H. and Mattbuck are just doing their unpaid volunteer job here -- protecting Commons from copyright violations and out-of-scope work. Occasionally they make mistakes -- we all do -- but the reactions by Mvart4u are unacceptable.

Some of the accusations below are serious. He accuses our colleagues of both libel:

"an absolute, inacceptable insult again, not to say clear reputation murdering (martin h's goal since sept. 09!) with many wrong information!"

and:

"i clearly think that the two named users, two unnamed, are for political reasons trying to destroy my reputation, harm my candidature - the way they act is clearly inacceptable, nothing but insults and unbelievable statements."

and also with interfering with his business:

i lost an important illustration contract in hamburg last year due to the 'deletion talk' organised by martin h."

While we do not have an explicit rule about legal threats such as the one at WP:EN, I think we should consider simply blocking this user until he settles down and agrees to obey our rules.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support an indef ban of User:Mvart4u and eventually of his "works". For the record, he's Swiss. This user has a habit to upload over his initial uploads lots of different versions, which in most cases are completely different images; see for example: [82], [83], [84], [85] and [86]. As quite some of his uploads are derivatives, which may need proper sourcing of the non-own parts, the constant changing of image versions may invalidate the required sourcing/attribution.

IMHO, the most serious problems result from his behaviour to stage-manages himself as victim of censorship etc. and to suspect/claim conspiration against himself by everybody who "touches" his uploads, be it removing a nonsense category or asking for the source & permission of an not-own original image he used for his montages. If you dare to do that, as I and Martin H. did in 2010, you get insulted and slandered in similar way as he did again today in the thread below. He even spread his defamations (of Commons) on external websites, such as here (“fiesen zensurversuche über wikimedia commons”). If I would take him seriously, I might have taken him to court for slander last year. However, accusing others, who had challenged his opinion, of censorship and defamation seems to be his regular pattern of behaviour, as might be seen here in a Commons-unrelated discussion (in German).

In addition, he seems to misrepresent the copyright status of his uploads by claiming “fair copyright use applies“ on Commons (see: File:Westland lysander seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg, here and File:The last moment of princess di seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg) as well as on external websites (see bergsee - definition of ART). His private definition of “fair copyright use“ may be confused with the totally different classical (US) „fair use“, but also seems to forbid free commercial use, as suggested by his statement „commercial use would have to be discussed prior edition, publication“ here and thereby contradict the CC-BY-SA licensing of his uploads.

In contrast to his earlier self-praises „i grant it genorously to wikimedia commons“ or “generously gifted to wiki commons”[87], [88], [89] he seems to use Commons as a promotional platform with the intent to get outside commercial contracts, as suggested by these defamatory comments "i lost on the 26th of october 2010 a confirmed illustration contract in hamburg, thanks a lot, turelio!" and "hab letzte woche als lebender künstler mit rechten bereits einen auftrag wegen dir verloren!".

If balanced against his contributions, IMO he produces too many problems. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS tickets 2011052810004977, 2011052810004995, 2011052810005547, and 2011052810006608 have been received from the subject regarding this issue and that comments have been made regarding users. I can't really discuss them further, but I suspect that an indef ban here will require blacklisting at OTRS if performed. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing those to our attention -- they are much the same as the piece below, with at least one target not named here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No surprise. I think he never really understood OTRS, but views it as the supreme Wikimedia being (or ceiling cat). --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ach sieh an - türelio ist auch wieder mit von der partie (habe ich erwartet) - by the way: the swiss german is no insult, but due to simple oversight that mattbuck is from zurich, speeking swissgerman, after his second deletion request and simply says the same, valid for you turelio, martin h. - as long as i verify and have all works OTRS approved, just stay out of my category. your stupid comments from last year and your mutual mobbing now is just too obvious, of course not a way of censoring, of course not. mvart4u 19.17, 28.5.2011

this disussion is so unfair, because it has the clear goal to censor, like a year ago by martin h and türelio. the insults are on the userpage of mattbuck by martin h. of yesterday - all amendments on files have been o.t.r.s approved, because involved artists, if any, have sent their agreement - there are wonderful works liked a lot. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teatime,_samurai_2010_by_mischa_vetere.jpg eg, others less due to it's political content. can't believe that this goes through in the 21st century. [mvart4u] 19.48, 28.5.11

I'm not trying to censor you, I just had concerns about copyright and scope. That was it, to begin with. Now you've given me cause to bring you up here, because your behaviour towards me and Martin is frankly intolerable. I  Support your indefinite block and the deletion of all your images, entirely because of your behaviour. Really, the only problem I ever had with you is I thought your Jack Sparrow image might be the derivative work of something copyrighted. However, I recuse myself from the decision, since I am now biased because you've really pissed me off. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, don't let yourself get pissed off by him. That's his strategy. However, I know the feeling quite well from last year. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked Mvart4u indefinitely, such behaviour done by Mvart4u to valuable, long time contributors and legal threat (which was made in the sub section below this section) has no place here. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have just removed his talk page privs due to continued attacks on myself and Martin. I hope this is not a conflict of interest. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Bidgee and Mattbuck's actions. I was going to do the same this morning if no one had objected.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattbuck & Martin H.

I see that user mattbuck, together with martin h.

(the later permitted himself a year ago to insult me personally by saying, my art is "like shitting in the metro", read what he says these days on Talk:

"The files are trash, created within a few minutes in ms-paint or so. The guy suffers from some very strange idea that his work is censored by the government of switzerland and that he must use all websites to spread his opinion. Regretably he found our project. He thinks, that "OTRS-approved" means, that his work is absolutely ok on Commons - he however not undertand that copyrights and educational use are two different things. The copyright(OTRS) issue is of course resolved long time ago, the scope issue is unadressed so far. I only hope his plan (aka threat) of "insgesamt 5'000 - 10'000 bilder" will not become true. Maybe his candidature for the WM board will show, that Wikimedia Commons is not a place for publishing private opinions in form of self-created, previously unpublished paintings. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. I however continue to remove the tag-like category spam, this works are so pure, so unimportant and so POV, I myself also refrain from writing my personal opinion in Category:Barack Obama or putting my opinion in a paint file and upload it - although I have a person opinion on Obama that the world is interested in.. not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

- an absolute, inacceptable insult again, not to say clear reputation murdering (martin h's goal since sept. 09!) with many wrong information!,

DUE TO MY current CANDIDATURE, unmotivated started three days ago to place a deletion request over a new work of mine and after a 'unpleasant' discussion (of course, the deletion request is taken back, since there is no copyright issue ... it just served it's purpose)

- the reason for all these unmotivated attacks remains since 2009 the same: to get rid of an unpleasant political viewpoint and now clearly to harm the candidature. nota: my category was perfectly in order last week, and i ask johan for every single amendment to re-approve the relevant work.

mattbuck openly declares that he does not like art, why is he suddenly after my category? - i lost an important illustration contract in hamburg last year due to the 'deletion talk' organised by martin h. at that stage over two months, they even tried to delete the portraits by friends of mine (of course for copyright reasons...)

i like the wiki project a lot, but clearly, i have nice, reputable galleries showing my work, eg https://sites.google.com/site/purnevgallery/painting/mischa-vetere - the exhibition since march 16 in berlin was twice prologed till end of july 2011. i start to have real fans for my poetry as well as my paintings (i spend sometimes ten hours on one cycle - i am not that stupid to place the best works in high resolution on wiki [what martin thinks, see above]

- i say it frankly: this way of acting is how germans destroyed individuals, artists 7o yrs ago (let's not forget: BRECHT, KLEE, TM). the result of last year's 'deletion small talks' was the approval of all works by O.T.R.S. - who is martin h. to juge my work?! look how nice just this one blog is: http://vetere.blogspot.com/ - my illustrated books from early days are in collections, archives. THE HOPE-CYCLE eg helped to bring the current revolutions forward - eg the following summary is of highly educational content, was handed out as flyer at the recent conference "despotendämmerung" of the friedrich-ebert-stiftung in berlin http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mischa_vetere_pro_memoria_MANIFEST_AND_FURTHERMORE_2010.jpg - is it poor, that OBAMA, dalai LAMA, erika BURKART quoted me?, that i try to help with works to redefine important human matters: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hope_education_seen_by_mischa_vetere_2011.jpg (HUNGER!), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/be/20110224205646!Shakespeare%27s_cat_by_Mischa_Vetere_2010-2011.jpg (official copmplaint against planned apartheid in switzerland - fully adhered by the human rights commission on april 15, 2011)

i clearly think that the two named users, two unnamed, are for political reasons trying to destroy my reputation, harm my candidature - the way they act is clearly inacceptable, nothing but insults and unbelievable statements. mavart4u

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvart4u (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about your candidature, and please do not try and blame anyone here for losing a contract as you appear to be doing. Who is Martin to judge your work? He's someone who looked at it - art is judged by people who look at it.

My first deletion request was a mistake. I thought from reading the page that it was just a postcard from the 1800s, and so the bright primary colours made me suspicious. I withdrew that one when I realised you meant you had based it on a postcard, not that it WAS a postcard. The second deletion request is a perfectly valid concern about copyright of an image of Captain Jack Sparrow. I stand by that concern.

I am not trying to destroy your reputation, because that would imply I cared enough about your reputation that I wanted to destroy it. I don't care at all. I'll be honest and say I think your art is crap, but I think that about a lot of art. Art is subjective, and something that someone describes as good to someone else may seem like a pile of rubbish. I, personally, do not value your art, but I cannot make an objective judgement of it because art is subjective. I don't think much of the Mona Lisa either.

What I do not appreciate from you is what is frankly paranoia. We're not trying to "censor" you, we're not trying to politically destroy you, we're not trying to make you lose real world contracts. We simply want to keep Commons free of copyright violations. I really have better things to do than try and ruin the career of an artist I'd never even heard of three days ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

the problem i have with the concerted opinion - you do not answer why, when you first of all are not interested in art at all, in additon obviously do not understand much about it either, you go over artistic work (&judge!), over O.T.R.S. approved work of mine even (the so called 2nd deletion request) and why would you further spend your time NOW, this exact week to dicuss, not to say dispute with martin h with all disrespect and assisted by türelio again and again that i do not understand OTRS even? i tell you why: because of my candidature, this is clear mobbing (see martin's statement on your talk, his previous insult), it is to make me look bad again. my category is in order - i comply with all copyrtight needs, as OTRS know. you guys don't like OTRS, that's, mainly martin's concern... - why? isn't there the liberty of expression to respect, as h.clinton, obama re-reconfirmed jast a few weeks ago?! you're personal opinion about me, my art, in such a rude manner braught forward in addition, is of no interest to me - i don't know you, therefore allow judgments like you, an art-hater, does. i explained above, my oversight about language, your provenience; so it's no insult, no paranoya but by mistake in swiss german: stay off my category (if you intervene not even two minutes after an upload, where there is no copyright issue)! mvart4u 19.35, 28.5.11

Stop putting words into my mouth. I did not say I hate art, I just don't think much of yours. Again, I don't care about your candidature, I never have and never will. I won't be voting in the trustee elections, though you're giving me a damn good reason to vote against you. I simply don't care about those elections.

I intervened after the upload because I thought there might be a scope issue - I was watching new uploads that day, you were unlucky. Believe me, given the abuse you're hurling I wish I'd never touched your few blobs of MSPaint on a postcard. I do this sometimes, watch new uploads, primarily for any copyright violations. NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE WAS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

again: "your few blobs of MSPaint" is martin h.'s comments - i use between two to four programms, on this one just two; my lawyer in berlin would wish to know the real identity of you, türelio and martin h - this, your insulting to obviously harm my candidature - my category was until this week all in order; yes it seems bad luck to get in touch with you - with fake and abusive deletion requests, supported by named 'friends' up to 'indefinite ban', just to harm the candidature (for what other reasons?! i care about people who would vote and due to you guys ether can't or won't or will, because they see what nasty game you just played) is going a bit too far to her, especially since i am only in letigimate legal defense of your various attacks, clearly against me as artist, human being. my email is mvart4u@mar.at. i asked the founder of wiki to decide about this artificial, ridicoulous case of yours. mvart4u 29.5.11

This has already gone too far, I don't believe it's acceptable to allow this kind of legal threats to such valuable contributors as Turelio, Martin H and Mattbuck, even more out of what seems to be a tempest on a glass of water, almost out of the blue. I'm not associated in any way with any of the intervening people in this case, but I want to voice my support to a block on this person. This kind of behaviour does nothing to turn Commons in a friendly place.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mvart4u, please do not upload any more of your art to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free educational media. Your artwork may or may not be perfectly good art, but it does not seem to be educationally useful. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mvart4u; No legal threats says, "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to block people for making legal threats on Commons (which I think we should), that should be stated in our blocking policy, as I've suggested in the past. The principle seems to have stronger support in practice than the discussion so far implies. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should probably be a universal policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about this on COM:BP.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for informing me. I said my opinion: This art is not usefull. I'd personally prefer if you look for some other publishing platform - not Commons. And I'd prefer if you stop riding on the idea that OTRS is your greencard for anything... OTRS means that you once approved your identity to demonstrate that not some schoolboys abuse your name for editing here. Thats all what OTRS means. Feel free to donate a few selected files to Wikimedia Common that you previously succesfully published outside, with an serious book publisher, so that Wikipedia projects are able to illustrate an article about your person. But stop using the project as your primary publisher. --Martin H. (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that most images in the user category are outside the scope of this project. If de:Mischa Vetere uses one of his works than, I can imagine keeping about 10 of his works but do not see need for more. --Jarekt (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"On the upside, apparently the UN, Obama, Jimbo, and Shakespeare's Cat like his work..." said (joked) Mattbuck, above. I just wanted to make clear that none of this has anything to do with me, and I've not weighed in positively or negatively on the fellow or his work. Having said that, I support the ban. For me, all that I had to see was "this way of acting is how germans destroyed individuals, artists 7o yrs ago" - outrageous and unacceptably vicious attack for no apparent reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. Nobody here really assumed any association with you. --Túrelio (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Documentation of position received in OTRS ticket 2011060810009641. – Adrignola talk 14:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User requests deletion of all files in ticket 2011061010005944. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Shall I do it? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Having just read the ticket, I agree with that and I would just except those images which are in actual use. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

But make sure that you write in every edit/deletion summary that deletion was requested by Mvart4u. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Suleymanbas (talk · contribs)

This user continues to upload unfree pictures that is promotional pictures from the film company. Now the user has started to refer to a completely wrong license since some of the uploaded pictures was deleted because of no license. Please take an appropriate action against the user. -- Tegel (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Files deleted, blocked 3 days. --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Roland zh

Hello. I need some help and/or advice in dealing with User:Roland zh. User seems to be engaged in pigeonholing everything, and is not open to dialogue. Every attempt at dialogue with him I made was met with continuous reversal of my messages along with laconic and borderline offensive comments in the edition summary. I've been called vandal, edit warrior and even someone with some obscure wish to make the pictures I upload prominent. This picture, for instance, which represents a rat in Calcutta, in a waste bin in Calcutta located in a Calcutta neighbourhood is being constantly deprived of the Calcutta category, apparently due to the preposterous belief that a rat is a rat like a shoe is a shoe in any part of the world. In his last edition, Roland even killed the poor animal, which is very much alive (and was set free, in fact, after the photos were taken). This is going on in a number of other pictures and categories. I'm tired of trying to explain to him about pigeonholing, about statues not being only of people, about his hasty categorization efforts being the origin of many errors, and what else. And most of all, I'm tired of being met with such aggressive and uncommunicative behaviour from his part. This is the first time I've met someone like this here, and I really need some help or advise on what to do. Thanks, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please refer to the edits of DarwIn and Roland zh – relevant are imho edits inbetween 21:33, 8. Jun. 2011 and 23:58, 8. Jun. 2011.

My imho strictly 'logical' and imho not 'pigeonholing' re-categorisations of the uploads by User:DarwIn are marked imho without any doubts in the version histories of the files DarwIn is referring to, and – pointing on that fact — DarwIn does not 'respect' {categorise} tags, p.e. – Category:Kolkata (that and that upload by DarwIn for example) – and Category:People of India in art, i.e. that upload by DarwIn for example.

btw: my user page is marked as {busy} and please contact me JUST in case of 'REAL' urgency, and imho it's a user's decision to participate in 'discussions', or not, so i do due to previous 'bad experiences'.

Imho there's no reason to 'discuss' so obviously 'correct' and commented re-categorisations with 'hints' within the version history of the related file.

Sorry for any inconveniences, no more wasting your probably also restricted free time, with my best regards, Roland zh 00:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, if you don't have time to answer people here in Commons about potential problems with your editions, then just don't make them. I don't know where you got the idea that street food in Calcutta is not related with Calcutta - something you even remarked above - but I've never seen such logic here. And even if you are correct, the proper way would be to discuss the editions, like I repeatedly and politely tried to do, instead of revert, revert, revert and revert topping it with insults and personal offences in the edit summary. I ask you again, please discuss those matters with civility. If you have time to categorise, you must have time to discuss what you do as well. I don't believe you have a "choice" on that, really.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. In my opinion you both have something to learn about categorization. The category Kolkata should not be simply removed, because that removes geographic information from the categorization of the picture. However, when there are relevant subcategories available (Nature of Kolkata -> Animals of Kolkata -> Mammals of Kolkata), the image should be filtered down to the most specific relevant category. I have applied the correct category to that image. Finally Roland, this is a collaborative project, discussion is important - usually a disagreement means that one or both of you need to learn something, and talking is the only way to achieve that. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the street food in Kolkata, there is no appropriate subcategory in existence. {{Categorize}} says "As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into the right subcategories." (my emphasis) Roland, if there is no appropriate subcat, don't just delete the categorization (I have now restored it). Leave it in the parent category until there are enough Category:Street food in Kolkata images to make that subcat. If you're really insistent about keeping Kolkata perfectly clean, make the category now. --99of9 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When I categorised that picture I was thinking in "Waste in Calcutta" which doesn't exist, and forgot to add the city category to the rat as the mammal it is. But IMO Calcutta should still remain there as a category, since there is nothing near "Waste in Calcutta" (or there is?), and so I don't believe that the categorization was incorrect. In fact I uploaded that picture precisely and primarily because it depicted a scene of waste in Calcutta, which I thought could have an educational use to illustrate an article, even more with the rat there. What I found more insulting, actually, even more than the vandal name calling, was Roland claiming that I want to make my uploads "prominent". If I wanted to make them prominent, I would certainly chose something more dignifying than a rat in a waste bin. Something like Janis Rozentals, for instance, or Orissa State Museum in a couple of days. Indeed, the Museum pictures were the primary reason why I got to that photostream, the rat was a fait divers I found there. I never thought it would give me so much trouble and offence.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Listing this picture in category:Kolkata (as the only image in root level) was wrong. We the pidgeonholing addicts (including yours truly) go great lenghts to pidgeonhole everything, deeper and deeper, because otherwise large categories quickly bloat. Category:London now has 422 images in root, Category:Copenhagen has 930. Compared to 0 in Category:Paris and 0 in Category:Kolkata. Which is the way to go? NVO (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it was wrong, as it deals with Calcutta waste, and that category doesn't exist. In any case, as improper as it would be to place it in the top category, it would always be much more improper to remove it without adding any other location category, which was what happened. An I believe you understand that I'm using "pigeonholing" in the bad sense of the world: A quest to remove everything from top cats by all means necessary. This is not helping, this is destroying others work. If you happen to notice my categorization editions in your watch list, you will easily verify that a great deal of effort is put in cleaning the top categories - in that sense I'm a pigeonholer too - along with a similar effort to place the images into meaningful categories, which if occasionally are not the best, they are at least the best starting point to proper categorization. While doing this, I try to avoid creating generic categories to place one or two images inside which can perfectly and easily be found in the top categories - something typical of pigeonholers. The files should be easily accessible and found, that is the top priority, not designing a category tree which may be logically perfect and brilliant, but functionally is a total disaster.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)