Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~23
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~8
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-04: ~80

Other:

• Duplicates: ~0
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~2
• Other speedy deletions: ~5
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~57
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~35
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Artem Karimov

On top of previously mentioned problems, now he engaged himself into edit warring: File:Standard time zones of the world.png.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected for one week. Discussion is to occur on the talk page. Use {{Editprotected}} to request changes before expiration of protection. russavia (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. May be at some point he will realize that if everybody tells him that black is black and he is the only one to insist that black is white, than smth might be wrong, but protection as a temporary decision is fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is more important that all involved understand that slow-revert wars on files such as this are disruptive not only to Commons, but also to other projects which are using the image. Is it imperative that all parties discuss the issues on the talk page of the file concerned. There is nothing more really to say in this matter from where I am sitting. russavia (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny. No exceptions for Kosovo. All separatist movements or none. That simple. Artem Karimov (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, nice monitoring of my contribs. Waste your time more. :) Artem Karimov (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Would you really exclude the United States from the map? At a certain point a separatist movement becomes a legitimate nation. Kosovo has achieved at least some of the markers of being a legitimate nation, and therefore it's not being exceptional to list it as one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be included as well. Along with Trasnistria and Northern Cyprus. They are all de-facto states. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will also help to protect the File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg with its previous detailed description, instead of the current one that appears to hide the relevant details about the subject of this photo. See the story above.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How about I, instead, leave the file unprotected, remove the English description entirely, and place all on notice that the next person to revert, or add any English description at all, without engaging in at least a one-week discussion on the talk page, and with some resemblance of consensus, will receive, courtesy of myself, a two week no-expenses paid vacation from Commons. No-one has used the talk page on the file, so no-one is innocent in this instance. russavia (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the following purely-factual text (which is necessary for ordinary English speakers to have any understanding of the context) be permanently left in place: "Grafitti reads: «Долой власть жидов», where the word «жид» is a derogatory term for «Jew». (The non-derogatory Russian word for «Jew» is «еврей».)" AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have always included this in English description, as your addition is important, but not full explanation of the photographed scene. So, if we include it, we are to include other details. With your explanation it becomes visible that the slogan is derogatory, but is stays unclear about why the slogan is against governing powers.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair, because the most full description was collected in the same way. I discussed the question with other editors and they either added something or explained the theme to research. Also, the question does not depend on the language. The trouble is, one side is inclusive and prefers to show all attitudes; other is not, and prefers to show only their own attitude. To protect his short description and to avoid any other opinion but his own, one administrative user preferred to block me, and he seems to be against any details and explanations in this description. You may see the discussions. They started here with no result, and continued there. In the 2nd discussion I learned there was «место собраний праворадикальных группировок», so I checked the mass media and added the explanation in Russian about «Russian national unity». The 3rd discussion was there, and it appeared that the description must avoid «own idiosyncratic views», so I kept and increased the number of hyperlinks to the sources in the description. Next discussion was kept in DR and helped to improve the translation.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that we have a picture of the gathering of Flat Earth Society, and somebody in the description spends 2 paragraphs explaining how these people actually do not believe that the earth is flat, but actually oppose the doctrine that earth quakes are caused by the plate techtonics. That "full description" would not be helpful. The main reason for that is that it's misleading. In other words the fact that some description is longer doesn't mean that it's better. It's the same with this photo, the shorter description with the translation of the text written actually gives clearer understanding of what is depicted there than a wishwash of "The word 'kike' actually means something different, because the park has been known for kicking out nazis who wrote this slogan". VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To all groups, please take it to the talk pages of the files concerned. That is the essence of what I have stated above. There is no more need to reply here, when valuable time could be spent on discussion of issues relating to the files in question. Thanks, russavia (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios: Sakawat crsc

Can somebody please take care of Sakawat crsc (talk · contribs) – I started going through his uploads and they appear to be virtually all of them copyvios. I tagged about one third of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please watch out for the Wikinger vandal [1] messing up all the taggings and warnings. Annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 14:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite – what I meant was for the remaining, not-yet-tagged files to be nuked too. Do I really have to search Google-images and tag every one of the remaining ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I went through them one by one. Deleted half a dozen as obvious copyvios, tagged some as out of scope or probable copyvios, and left some, all taken with two Nokia phone at 1200x1600px , which seem to be unlikely copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

MichelleTaylorr (talk · contribs) and serial copyright violation

I've recently tagged two of MichelleTaylorr's uploads as potential and proven copyright violations, and find that the user has a history of this behavior. Is it possible to either block the user from uploading, or require their uploads to be vetted before going live? — Fourthords | =/\= | 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmxx blocked this user for 1 week MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User who has uploaded tons of (exclusively?) copyvios

See here. Can someone sort this out? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Errùwen

Hi Admins! This User is uploading a lot of stuff, lots got deleted already. Seems to be very resistant against any kind of counseling. Latest works are some .ogg files which he/she claims as own work. The files have different speakers, so that can't be true. Maybe a little block for a few days helps? ContributionsThanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Warned user about blocking policy. Let us know if the user continues MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Annab 99 (talk · contribs)

All the uploads from Annab 99 (talk · contribs) are from the flickr album http://www.flickr.com/photos/96336933@N00/ and none of them are free. Please nuke all the copyright violations. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Annab 99 left me a notice on my talk page that the licenses of these files has been changed to a free license. I have put a message at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Five_flickr_files to undelete these files. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Martin H.

Martin H. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Multiple edit warring against several users in Category:Quality images by country and all subcategories, where he removes the topic categories (e.g. "Photographs of the UK" from "Quality images of the UK"). I requested on his talk page (as well as a further user did), but user Martin H. does not see a need for any discussion on this issue. The most strange thing is, that user Martin H. removes topic categories from just a part of QI subcats, without doing it for other ones (like Category:Quality images of Japan and many more; not to mention similar categories for Valued or Featured images) and bringing chaos in the system this way. - A.Savin 13:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The same situation was with other category tree, when a user took categories with typical names of "This street" or "That street" or "Third street", removed them from a mother-category "Buildings of Town" and collected them into into a mother-category "Streets of the Town". The issue was, there were no images of streets in these categories, only images of buildings. When asked about the reason to collect the buildings images into the streets super-category, that user kept silence and avoided any explaining speech. Now there exist several empty and useless "streets" categories. Maybe someone will pay attention and solve this issue.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Give us some specific images, please. The cat names are not very helpful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're free to open a separate topic, but in this section I expect only comments on the issue I submitted. And the edit warring by Martin H. unfortunately seems to go on. - A.Savin 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The quality images related issues are a long standing disagreement (See for example User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_19#Featured_pictures_of_the_United_States) between "maintenance" and "topical" categories. I could not find immediately other similar discussions.

While I share Martin's concerns about the danger of deeper and deeper side categories that form a parallel system to the current category system (it could lead to quality image categories for each "topical" category), I disagree that those are really maintenance categories. The fundamental problem is that indeed we have on Commons no "labelling" system that allows to select in a certain category media with a certain attribute, such as B&W, video, audio, SVG, QI, VI, Featured pictures, aerial, panoramic, date (range), superseded, ... and more arguably heritage buildings, author, ... So we have a permanent problem to find compromises about the depth and visibility of such categories. It is true that Martin is rather inflexible on his point and that he don't want the same discussion to be repeated over and over again. --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems more like a policy issue than a user issue. It needs to be settled whether QI categories and the like are to be within the topic category tree or not (and that's a job for the Village Pump or a RFC, or perhaps elsewhere, but not here). Of course, long-term it would be best if Commons' browsing system was intelligent enough to do filtering and sorting, including by quality status... Rd232 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sanzana45 & User:Sanzana

• Sanzana45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Sanzana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps uploading copyvios after final warning. Moros y Cristianos 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

From a duck test I guess Sanzana45 is a sockpuppet from Sanzana (same kind of copyvio, same nickname). I have blocked Sanzana45 for 1 week (double of Sanzana current block). However I doubt we can get something from this user, he seems to just ignore warnings. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

All her images are/were copyright violations. She was warned a lot of times. Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All images deleted and the account was blocked for a week. Béria Lima ^msg 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of file list Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Afghanistan

I have compiled the list of files under Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Afghanistan that are tagged with the template in question. Seemingly all of the images tagged with this template has a problem one way or another (some should even be re-tagged). The images are expected to comply with the three conditions below.

1. The work was first published in Afghanistan.
2. The authors of the work are citizens of Afghanistan and are not also citizens or permanent residents of any country that participates in the Berne Convention.
3. Within thirty days of its first publication in Afghanistan, the work was never published in any country that participates in the Berne Convention.

I was going to make an effort (with the help of others) to review the individual images to make sure if they are complying with the three conditions the template presents and try to re-tag them with something more suitable.

A user (admin) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) has removed my entry to the above page twice so far: with this edit a second time. I will not revert a second time.

I find this disruptive as the user has removed the entry twice so far making the individual analysis of every image difficult. The list would have made it possible for the discussion of individual images to be more visible. This is the purpose of COM:DEL. Alternative method is individually nominating 703 files one at a time with 703 new entries to com:del which in my view would be very disruptive.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See here. Stefan4 agrees as well that the list is out of place there. I must point that so far there's only a single user proposing to delete that template, which in fact was kept with large consensus two times before. I must point as well that even if there are files with that licence without enough author info, that's not a problem of the license itself but of each individual file, and this licence is not more subject to insufficient info than any other random one. I pointed him that he may tag images without such info on a case by case basis, which is not the 703 files of the whole category. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I must point as well that mass deletion requests to purge copyright violations from a group of images (such as a user's uploads, a certain category, or in this case all images using PD-Afganistan) are only accepted if there's an actual evidence or reasoning to go on. For example, a user with 20 confirmed copyright violations and 10 remaining suspected images, or a portion of US WWII photos tagged with PD-1923. If no such reason is provided, then there will be no mass deletion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

COM:DEL is the location where such items can be listed in bulk so that multiple people can process it demanding that I process 703 files all by my self is hardly fair. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for help on Village Pump. I agree that nominating files for deletion without looking at them is not helpful. When you nominate for deletion, you already say that you believe that the file should be deleted... VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS needed

I loaded up today 35 pictures, which were donated by Mrs. Natália Carrascalão Antunes, but I couldn't find the place, where I can add her eMail-adress for the confirmation, that I am allowed to load up the pictures here. Her eMail is [removed to stop spam harvesters] . Greetings, --Patrick (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The email for OTRS is permissions-commonswikimedia.org User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I requested now the confirming eMail by Mrs. Carrascalao. --Patrick (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Social Survey

After I enter wikipedia.org on my web browser URL, I was greeted with this Social Survey, after which it offered a MAC Book Air as a reward. Is this real? Is this an authorized Wiki offer? -- 22:10, 26 February 2012‎ 98.148.242.146

That's more of a Help desk question... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea, but it seems dubious. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You probably misspelled the address. wikipedi.org and wikipeia.org, for example, are scam sites. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/๋ and User:Pinkie Pie

Good morning,

๋ has created an account to (i) tag himself as a sockpuppet from SalfEnergy (ii) tag similarly the account Pinkie Pie.

This last account claimed to have immediately pictures to upload and asked for a confirmed flag (but uploaded nothing). His activity were to open a DR on a .xxx logo, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xxx tld logo.jpg.

This is a suspect behavior. --Dereckson (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. While I were writing this section, Tiptoety blocked the account with the reason Cross wiki blocks due CU information, the CU in question done on en.wikipedia. The account Pinkie Pie should be watched. --Dereckson (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just picking up on that myself - I think all accounts are now locked. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: Tiptoety reports there is a global block on Pinkie Pie. --Dereckson (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User :TheDarkFever

This user is repeatedly uploading copyvio pics taken from other sites passing them as his own work. He has been repeatedly warned here and in En wiki, but has ignored the warnings. Please block this user.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Techman224^Talk 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Paperquest actions

As pointed out on Village Pump, this user is uploading PNG files made from JPGs (not a very productive thing to do). But all the files I've looked at have extraneous sites listed as the source rather than the JPG image. So it appears to be a spam excercise. Block & rolback? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to clean up this and I put an indef block on this user: he is not here to contribute to commons (if someone wants to be nicer than me feel free to change the duration or lift the block). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

All his images are/were copyright violations. He was warned a lot of times. Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Speedied his latest and blocked for three days.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jpullokaran 's abuse language on User_talk:Kiran_Gopi

I felt sad to see that User:Jpullokaran has used an uncivil and becoming language for User:Kiran_Gopi on his talk page. I request the admins to look into the matter. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

I am not much worried about User:Jpullokaran language, beacuse he may got irritated with my DR requests. As it is occurred only once please ignore. Thanks Hindustanilanguage for pointing out the issue here. But I am seriously concerned on some of his uploads.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The most uncivil there was "Have you waked from your sleep?" and it's not really something horrible. Somebody whose english abilities would be higher could write something significantly more stinging while staying much lower than that on the radar. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a notice on the user talk page asking him to be civil. I do not think we need to do any more than this in this case. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

VolodyA! V Anarhist, How do you rate use of the word "Idiots" for Kiran Gopi? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In that context i didn't even notice it. Probably because it's not "You are an idiot" (where it'd be a noun) but rather "Idiots..." (an exclamation). So one can easily have substituted it with "Geez" just with a raised tone of voice. Of course if you are looking through the short post waiting to be insulted about something, you will; but that isn't a statement about the language, but rather about the intelligence of the person feeling an insult. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So, in essence, if someone uses this language, you won't feel insulted. But then, there have been instances when I differed with people on Commons and elsewhere on totally different issues. But I never resort to such adjectives. Do you? Hindustanilanguage (talk)

He has been warned by Sreejith and I think we shall not do more because to me it's an isolated fact. Do you suggest another action or shall we close this topic ? --PierreSelim (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think we should close the issue for now. However, if the user again resorts to this language again, we'll have take this background into consideration. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Arbitrary discussion deletion by Rd232

moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism to here since some people think here is no vandalism involved. --Saibo (Δ) 14:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

here - please revert. --Saibo (Δ) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What an ironic post. This reversion by Saibo arbitrarily deletes discussion; his diff is me restoring it. The content he was trying to restore through reversion was all moved to the talk page (Commons talk:Requests for comment/PD review). Also quite amazing to see an administrator, having provided enough disruptive comments to require them to be moved to the talk page, then to treat the removal as "vandalism" (Commons:Vandalism: a "malicious change"). Rd232 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not my problem that you have inserted some other comments in the meantime to hide your deletion. You are welcome to reinsert them. --Saibo (Δ) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is your problem, since you deleted them, and it is quite obvious that my additional comments were nothing to do with you (don't be so egocentric). And you can cut this sort of nonsense right out - the relevant part of your comments was preserved, and you're welcome to make more relevant comments. You are not welcome to attempt to further disrupt an RFC about how to apply Commons policy because you disagree with that policy. In my email to you I commented

As I said in the closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA, "Most of the rest of this discussion relates to moving all or part of Commons to outside the US, or using uploads to local projects more. Users who want to discuss that further would be best served with a separate RFC on that topic - perhaps Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas." If you want to do that, feel free, but please don't seek to further comment in unhelpful ways on an attempt to figure out how to comply with current legal requirements.

Now, please understand that you are being disruptive, and that this is not acceptable behaviour, especially from an admin. Additionally, you're using an inappropriate dispute resolution mechanism (vandalism noticeboard). Rd232 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved. --Saibo (Δ) 14:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do the both of you want? I'd be more than happy to look at both of what you have to say, and likely come up with the result of sending you both to your rooms without dinner, if you want me to. Or you can both act like admins and discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it. We are probably used to pissing matches such as what seems to be occurring by less-experienced editors, but from admins...wow...just wow. russavia (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi russavia, thanks for your comment. What I want is stated right at the start. Rd232 restructured (in fact it is a deletion) a discussion in the way he likes (up to now I avoided to mention: some here might remember that this occurrence is not the first time if this controversial restructuring) and I do not agree with that but he insists to delete my comments by reverting. --Saibo (Δ) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually when i came across this discussion, i first thought that Saibo has lost it. But then this is out of line. Removing discussion because it's 'heated' is equivalent with trying to channel it in the direction that one wants it to go. Such moves, especially during the heated discussion are very contravercial, and should be avoided wherever possible. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you quoted the full edit summary: move heated meta discussion to talk, keeping quote of materially relevant part [emphasis added]. All the comments moved to talk were because they were disruptive, or responses to those comments which added nothing to the discussion of the RFC subject. Moreover they were almost entirely meta comments (complaining about the RFC or the Commons policy it's based on, not participating in it). Moving these comments was necessary because such disruption should not be tolerated. I tolerated quite a bit, but when Saibo came back again with the same disruptive comments, it was too much. After those comments a previously active discussion had no contributions for a week, and a causal element cannot be ruled out. But whether the disruption succeeded or not, there is no doubt that Saibo intended to stop the RFC achieving anything, and by definition that is disruptive. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I clearly stated what I want in the AN section you (Russavia) closed:

User:Saibo has repeatedly made disruptive comments at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review‎, per his apparent belief that the second bullet point in the heading of COM:L (media must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work") is not in fact policy, and that therefore attempts to ensure that PD-tagged images comply with this are some sort of "US-centric" chauvinism. I eventually moved those disruptive comments to the RFC talkpage (quoting on the main RFC page the only part that actually was relevant to the RFC), and pointed out by email that if he wanted to change policy, he was welcome to try. In response he raised Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Arbitrary_discussion_deletion. He is now edit-warring this claim into the RFC page, and from discussion at AIV and his user talk page clearly is not going to desist.

Please assist in preventing further disruption. I ask that an admin give him a final warning, and remove his inappropriate claim. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As for "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." - I already emailed Saibo (immediately after moving the material to the RFC talk page, to explain), and attempted further discussion at his talk page. You can see the results for yourself. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." meaning a deletion of discussion content and ensuring that it stays deleted by reverting its restore? Do you know Doublespeak? --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The content wasn't deleted, it was moved from the RFC main page to the RFC talk page, where it should have been in the first place. And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean with "And you're replying to a comment about user talk page discussions". But, really, I stop that discusion here with you now. Enough time wasted. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"...discuss this on your talk pages and resolve it..." just above - you even quoted it! Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a gesture of goodwill, I've created Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas to enable more discussion of how to reduce the need for Commons and other Wikimedia projects to comply with US copyright laws, an issue obviously of great concern to him. And I've mentioned it at Commons:Requests_for_comment/PD_review#Reducing_dependence_on_US_copyright_laws. Can we now remove this claim from the RFC page, and draw a line under this silliness? Rd232 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again doublespeak. You are the one who demands this discussion - not me (like you try to put it here). I fail to see how this should be "goodwill" - to the opposite since you use try to coin (or establish/push it as solution) the term "Commons abroad" (that is a non-neutral page title). More comments on this on your RFC page.

If you which to "draw a line" then restore the deleted discussion parts. --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well there goes that olive branch... Look, I'm not coining or "pushing" anything. "Commons Abroad" was coined by Dcoetzee in the URAA DR (as far as I know) as a perfectly reasonable handle for the idea of hosting files outside the US, where they might not be subject to US copyright laws (though it's probably not that easy to really dissociate WMF from such a non-US-based Commons). The fact that you cannot seem to get your head around the fact that Commons is hosted in the US and run by a US organisation and subject to US laws is not my fault: I've tried to explain it to you. And I've raised the RFC I previously suggested you start, because it gives you (and others who were interested, the DR had plenty of activity) a chance to discuss whether there is a way for Commons (or at least other Wikimedia projects) to host content currently subject to US copyright restrictions. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I do not need that discussion - the content ever was and belongs to Commons. And if the WMF does see any need that hosting this public domain (except in one country) content does not fit their home jurisdiction they can think about what they want to do (that may be moving to another country). --Saibo (Δ) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC) But, ehm, that here is the wrong place to discuss that. --Saibo (Δ) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I raised it with Jimbo in December, and the response made it clear that moving abroad wasn't something the WMF would consider at the moment (practicalities, plus moving to another jurisdiction means then being subject to those laws, which may be much more restrictive in some regards like free speech or fair use). The WMF position is quite clear, that copyright violations should be removed, and URAA creates a new class of copyright violations. Nobody likes it, but that's the situation. I wouldn't mind if you were energetically trying to change that somehow, but all your efforts seem to involve some form of denial of the facts. That denial (to bring this back ontopic) extends to disrupting attempts to deal with the situation as it exists, and that disruption is what I attempted to deal with. Rd232 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with your deletion attempts and you don't like that so you deleted my comments ("deal[t] with"). Of course my comment and even my presence is disruption from your point of view since it is the opposite of helping with your "effort" (quoted from somewhere else). Probably it is also disrupting by the community that you have very few people behind your back and willing to help you with this "effort", hmm? --Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've explained my and your actions repeatedly, and engaged with your bizarre, unsupported and illogical position on Commons not needing to respect US law (which you'd previously tried repeatedly to inject disruptively into a discussion on how to comply with US law), and tried to feed that into a constructive direction (ways to reduce the impact of US law on what Commons wants to achieve). At this point you're just repeating yourself, with decreasing amounts of rationality, both here and elsewhere. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder how compatible with Commons adminship is the belief (which you apparently sincerely hold and cannot be shifted from) that Commons does not need to comply with US law. That's quite separate from the disruptive way in which you have expressed that belief, and then attacked me when I dealt with that - which is in itself a problem. Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure why you are commenting on my admin rights here, but, well: If you think that the community wishes that I, the disruptor, should not be an admin, then please make a desysop request (note that this is no recommendation you to do so). As said above: I will not further waste my time in this discussion with you. --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, a desysop request needs some prior consensus and anyway I don't wish to pursue it on the back of a single incident which hopefully can be settled fairly soon (even though your unwillingness to respect the laws applicable to Commons is rather concerning). If you wish to end this incident, just remove this claim or allow me to do it. That's all. Rd232 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is why I did not recommend that - I am happy that you are able to see it the same way. --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with non-collegial behaviour

I have images that are within scope and in use, and some have been kept after a two deletion requests in 2010 and 2011. Now their existence once again questioned with the exactly same arguments by User:Takabeg with support of administrator User:Jameslwoodward which consistently exercise dependent judgment by unconditionally supporting every action of User:Takabeg. With that support of an administrator-friend User:Takabeg engage in personal attacks and harass other independent voters on these deletion requests. As for the facts:

Exibit 1

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kobe_Luminarie_(2008).jpg User:Takabeg nominates photos of Kobe Luminarie and a photo of a manhole cover. Administrator User:Jameslwoodward votes pro User:Takabeg without a single note about that photo of a manhole cover which is not a photo of Kobe Luminarie and thus is not related anyhow to the arguments for deletion of his or User:Takabeg, proving that he, User:Jameslwoodward, indeed has his judgment compromised. See also User:Takabeg personal insulting comment to User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis there.

Exibit 2

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tower_of_the_Sun_in_Osaka.jpg both User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward take similar actions and ignore every argument from previous two deletion requests by turning into personal attacks against participants of those past debates telling that they "don't know Japanese copyright law" which may look like User:Takabeg and User:Jameslwoodward are both experts in Japanese copyright laws, but they are not. This deletion request also includes some files that don't depict the Tower of the Sun as a whole and don't fall under the main argument for deletion, proving that once again User:Jameslwoodward has his judgment compromised.

Exibit 3

At Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Backus,_Garden_at_Hiroshima,_Autumn.jpg both of the subjects support each other once again and don't even bother to make a little research on that work in subject and instead prefer to blatantly harass me questioning the upload. I couldn't find a similar document here on Commons, but there is a Wikipedia policy WP:MTPPT that prohibits recruiting anyone who agree with you for the purpose of supporting your side of a debate.

Not only I find it very strange to see two users act accordingly in three similar cases, but what worries me most is that their action may lead to deletion of innocent free images and harm the project. Please assist in preventing further disruption from these users. Laitr Keiows (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)