Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 55

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

User:Sumita Roy Dutta

Sumita Roy Dutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

And yet another mass Flickr2C uploader of >>10K files w/o usage, sense, and categories, within few days. Steinsplitter, where's your abuse filter? Really unbelievable what's going up here... ((( --A.Savin 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, what’s exactly the problem? I browsed through a few of these and found no glaring scope or license issue. Will you be filing in deletion requests? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I think it's largely just a matter of using the tool to create maintenance and cleanup headaches. I haven't seen any copyright issues, but I (and others) have been speedy-deleting a fair number of his uploads as exact duplicates of existing NASA images. Take a look at Special:DeletedContributions/Sumita_Roy_Dutta, it might illustrate why people were getting annoyed. (FWIW, it looks like NASA's habit of changing the EXIF information before uploading to Flickr prevents them from being automatically detected as dupes, since the actual checksum is different). Revent (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. Yes, duplicates are a problem, especially when not automaticly detected. However A.Savin complained about «>10K files w/o usage, sense, and categories, within few days», none of which is a problem. Oh, well, I’m glad the duplicates are being deleted. Maybe these dupes could be caught by running a new checksum that accounts only the pixel data, not the file as a whole? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Stripping EXIF data might help, but it is bandwidth/processing intensive and would probably be unpredictably unreliable. For any batch upload finding the best IDs and ensuring these are consistently used on the image page, or in the filename, is essential to repairing duplicated uploads. In this case, the Flickr photo_id is at least present, however the NASA numbers should be used to track down duplicates and (possibly legitimate) variations. I note that uploads from the SDASM (which I have uploaded from too) have their catalogue numbers in the description; these could be teased out as well as having the files added to Category:Images from San Diego Air & Space Museum...
I agree that uploading 10,000 files, and then effectively abandoning the batch upload for others to sort out is not acceptable. I am unsure what action we would take as a community, apart from encouraging the uploader to understand our best practices for batch uploading and consider making a project page were everyone could chip in for ideas for improvement.
After taking a look at uploads today, where their scattergun approach to using F2C is creating a backlog headache of virtually uncategorized images with no apparent plan for repairing them by taking responsibility for post-upload housekeeping, I would like to see a throttle imposed for use of F2C until such a time as it is clear that they are taking responsibility. A daily throttle could still be generous, but would allow more time for planning and discussion until users like this demonstrate they are not creating duplicates or poorly named and described images.
The examples from today that worry me are the uploads from the British Library Flickrstream. There are literally /millions/ of clips there, and we already have a million images from that source that have proved very difficult to categorize. Simply adding Category:Photographs from the British Library, with general categories like "People", is not a happy outcome. Though I could spend time creating housekeeping bots to sort this out, I already have plenty to spend my volunteer time on, so I really don't want to be someone else's unpaid cleaner, just because they are uninterested in working out how to tidy up after themselves. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The missing automatic detection of duplicates is not Sumita's fault. The paid WMF coders should have included such a feature years ago. Sumita's uploads include some very valuable and beautiful photo-documents as File:Blue Bird, Nakoda girl (18307939538).jpg for example. In addition, on her talkpage there have been some educational efforts by Revent, 4ing and Bodhisattwa, but only a few days ago. IMO, these efforts should be continued, instead of making it a "user problem". --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I have now blocked them for 2 weeks, since they ignored this discussion (desp. of pinging) and continued their mass upload practice using such "meaningful" categories like Category:Small. Still unclear what to do with the uploads. They may be some potentially useful ones, but no one is able to pick it out and no bot is ever able to do this job nearly as accurate as a human. So, nuking may be an option (pinging Hedwig in Washington for an opinion). --A.Savin 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  Oppose this unilateral block. Did you notify her about this discussion? I see no note on her talkpage. Did you warn her that she might get blocked, if ... ? I see no note on her talkpage. Was there any consensus about a block in this thread? No! --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
We have had the "ping" feature for some time now and so it is quite difficult to overlook a discussion you've been mentioned in. I also would like to add that there were requests on the talk page of this user regarding categorization of uploads (albeit no requests regarding the uploads themselves), as well as that the user nonetheless submitted bad categories ("Small" etc.) on their very latest uploads before the block, and that the answer after the block [1] doesn't look like they really have learnt something. Without the block, they would have continued to damage Commons with their mass uploads. What would you suggest otherwise to stop it? --A.Savin 04:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I would rather see an upload throttle or even a temporary removal of related upload rights (can that be done?) rather than a block. Though the uploads may be creating a bit of a backlog headache, this does not normally fall under the COM:BP reasons for a lengthy first block and it's obviously better for the project if Sumita Roy Dutta were free to sort out categorization and other improvements even if they could not upload a file using Flickr2Commons. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How about a RFC about making F2C restricted for authorised users only? I am willing to start one so we don't have this discussion over and over again. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. I can't understand the logic of giving a tool like this to someone who has no plan on how to ensure the consequences do not create a huge amount of drudge work for someone else. We should have a process where users are authorised to do bulk uploads and somewhere that their activity can be monitored and if necessary stopped, like we have for bots. We've seen too many cases of this tool being misused. -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 Colin. If we could remove the right to upload, maybe better to have 'crats do this, I am absolutely in favor. Not sure if it would help in this case. I think the block should be removed AFTER we have a reaction of this user. If the block expires w/o any reaction and the uploads continue afterwards, we know what to expect and can think of another option.
I have to agree strongly with Fæ. We are cleaning up enough as it is now. We really don't need anymore random bulk uploads dumped onto ourt desks, I have other things to waorry about and other things I'd like to do but can't 'casuse there isn't enough time. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not a new problem, infact similar cases has been brought up atleast 3 times here already, one as recently as 6 weeks ago I think where we agreed on adding some form of a throttle..I personally feel the best option is to not allow users without a 'patroller' tag to mass upload from F2C.. Magnus refuses to update his tool nor fix the ongoing issues but its a really good tool and it will get abused a lot more unless Magnus can update the tool so that when it logs a user on, it will check to see if that user has 'patroller' right (minimum) and if the user doesn't and he/she selected a 'set' to upload to commons, it will refuse to upload them but will allow the user to add one image at a time...Lets not change anything on this side of the wiki, all it needs is a minor change on the tool.. --Stemoc 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis

I thought it would be useful to examine Sumita Roy Dutta's use of F2C in more detail, especially if there is a consensus for action such as upload throttles or tool usage restrictions. Table below.

F2C Date
Sumita Roy Dutta upload history using Flickr2Commons
105 2015-09-24
1064 2015-09-25
299 2015-09-26
775 2015-09-27
228 2015-09-28
1172 2015-09-30
460 2015-10-01
418 2015-10-02
305 2015-10-03
1000 2015-10-04
2220 2015-10-05
973 2015-10-06
264 2015-10-07
1341 2015-10-08
SQL to generate table 
SELECT count(page_title) AS F2C,
DATE_FORMAT(img_timestamp,"%Y-%m-%d") AS Date
FROM page
JOIN image ON page_title = img_name
JOIN revision_userindex ON rev_page = page_id
WHERE img_user_text = "Sumita Roy Dutta"
AND rev_user_text = "Sumita Roy Dutta"
AND rev_comment like '%Flickr2Commons%'
GROUP BY left(img_timestamp,8);

At the time of the database query (c. midday on 8th Oct), their total number of uploads using Flickr2Commons was 10,624. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion above is thinking in more general terms of a throttle solution, I ran the following query to show who the main users of F2C are so far in October.

F2C Uploader
Flickr2Commons users with >100 uploads 1-8 October 2015
6979 Sumita Roy Dutta
3560 0x010C
1333 Ser Amantio di Nicolao
957 Wolfmann
753 Ww2censor
385 Helmy oved
276 Paris 16
268 Bodhisattwa
199 Kinoko kokonotsu
190 AdamBMorgan
184 Clusternote
148 Benzoyl
140 Einstein2
128 Sporti
112 Wolfmann
105 Geagea
102 Hhm8

--Fæ (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. Revent (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sumita probably should not have been blocked, its not really her fault..we have had similar issues of mass uploading by users using F2C in the past (a block of one actually got the whole of toollabs blocked on commons once as well) and yet we sought not to find a proper solution so blocking Sumita for our own failure is insane..--Stemoc 04:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I do think we need a switch for F2C or similar tools to turn it on/off for individual users. However, in the absence of this, and while the user continued to use the tool despite AN complaint and failed to participate in the discussion .. there's no other option. I'm sure most people would like to see this block lifted if the user engaged and worked with others to ensure it was used properly. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The block was necessary to prevent further disruption and to allow this discussion. Sumita Roy Dutta's block may be lifted if she agrees to refrain from bulk uploads and assigns filenames and categories according to guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User Nino Marakot

User Nino Marakot has continually reverted images on several files that I have edited. Especially on these files: [2], [3], and [4] Often the reasons he puts in the revert log do not make any sense. I cannot seem to get him to converse with me on his talk page about the disagreements. I do not wish to keep reverting and clutter up the upload logs, but I want to keep quality images visible. How should I deal with this behavior? Supportstorm (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What? I don't but i reverted that one. the rest is just in the same source. When i say the better version, the better version. Okay? - Nino Marakot (talk) 4:43 P.M, 10 October 2015 (PTC)

I don't understand what that means. You have reverted numerous times without valid reasons. Supportstorm (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dreamnikhil

Dreamnikhil (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to upload copyvios despite endcopyvio warning; at least three times for the same file that's been deleted. Can someone handle this please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done User indeffed by DMacks. Revent (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert war

Please, will someone assist me with DasReichenz at File:National Socialist swastika.svg. He's revert-warring with me non-stop. I'm the uploader, I've asked him to upload his version separately, he continued revert-warring. We have a history on enWiki, where I know him by his sock "Dannis243". I feel I'm being harassed across projects. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Full-protection for 1 week. So, Dannis243 (talk · contribs) is a sock of DasReichenz (talk · contribs)? --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Not confirmed, but pretty damn obvious in my opinion. Same newbish mistakes and attitudes, same broken English, same rage, revert-warring to push the same edits, and - they/he always religiously blanks his talkpage on every account, never creating a userpage anywhere. On report a couple days at enWiki, awaiting checkuser confirmation [5]. In my experience probably the tip of the iceberg, given the "standardized" appearance of the accounts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Very, very unlikely, per CU logs on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Even so. I could swear I'm talking to the same person, playing the same (kinda "Nazi-ish"?) game. Their English is the same, DasReichenz continued Dannis' arguments without missing a beat.. they both behave in the same strange manner... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong category list.

A few days ago I was editing files in Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią w Dubinach when something wrong happened. Since then category list for these files is wrong – it is shown that eg. this file belongs to Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią and Category:Rok obrzędowy z Wikipedią w Dubinach while actually it belongs only to the last one. I am quite sure that this issue is somehow related to HotCat --jdx Re: 13:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Category move/merge request

Please move/merge Category:Saints Cyryl and Methodius Orthodox chapel in Kaniuki into Category:Saints Cyril and Methodius Orthodox chapel in Kaniuki (should be Cyril instead of Cyryl) in order to preserve edit history. --jdx Re: 12:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done And please, make such requests on the Commons:History merging and splitting page in the future. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User LM2002sept only uploads copyvio photos

  Resolved

LM2002sept (talk · contribs) is only uploading copyrighted photos from commercial sources. Ignores warnings. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Nuked and blocked 1 week. Alan (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Abuso de cuentas múltiples

Se solicitó la verificación de cuentas de un usuario problemático con resultado positivo, abuso de múltiples cuentas con intención de saboter el proyecto. Ver aquí

Cuentas relacionadas, verificado por checkuser
Usuario que lo solicita

--Jcfidy (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Muchas gracias por el aviso de la verificación CU en eswiki. Bloqueados y marcados con {{sockpuppet|Kurara7|confirmed}}. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I came across several of these accounts independently in the past. Good job on getting the connection identified! I went through the contributions for the accounts above and nominated a bunch of files for deletion. The following should also be added to the list:
Could our checkusers please look into possible rangeblocks that might be effective without excessive collateral damage? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  Done Tagged and nuked. Also blocked by Elcobbola (Checkuser here). Alan (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Rapid83 is   Confirmed; also Andrez 89767, AndrezGTFO, Fsdfsdsafsdfffsdfsdfd, and Baron Rojo 0117. There are numerous ranges, so a rangeblock would not be helpful at this time. Эlcobbola talk 19:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Upload

Can I images I have from Google Pictures Upload ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majonitro (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi.
Read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT and COM:L for info.
The 99% of images from internet are protected with copyright.
--Alan (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

inappropriate account/username

IMO, the name of this Commons account Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk · contribs), who has so far 3 uploads (but is also active on :en), is inappropriate and should be blocked/changed. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I support Tùrelio's opinion. Block? Alan (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  Done Blocked per COM:UPOLICY. User can request renaming. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Uploads are clear copyvios, therefore deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a parody of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Empire". Are parody usernames really inappropriate? None of his or her revisions or creations at enwiki say anything negative about Muslims or Germans. Is Commons a "no fun allowed" zone? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) ::Islamic State = terror organization (i don't thing such a username is allowed, might be unlawful in some county's)? If a other admin thinks that the username is okay he can unblock (user filed a unblock request). Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
alright how about this: "Germanic state" = terror organization = genocide Nation = racist Nation = Nazism Nation = hated Nation etc...etc....but there are name of "country" named "Germanic state" and it is used by a lot of User and no one of them got blocked why is that? i think there is racism?--206.125.61.133 03:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
ISIS isn't the only "Islamic state" in history or even recent memory. "Islamic republic" wouldn't work in the username since the Holy Roman Empire wasn't a republic. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Michael, I know you like to make a good fun, which isn't bad per se. But, Commons users don't live on a virtual ivorytower. Today, the term "Islamic state" has only one connotation. Do I need to go into graphic details? --Túrelio (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
he is not making a good fun!!!!! he says the truth!!! there are a lot of Islamic states through history as there are many Germanic states?
Confirmed as a parody of "Holy Roman Empire of the German Empire". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, today "fun" is hardly compatible with the term "Islamic state", IMO. Sure, it might be a prank. However, we are neither interested in providing a platform for IS propaganda nor for an agent provocateur intending only to insult or ridicule muslims — generally speaking; I don't claim the account in question so far did any of this. --Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't have any evidence that the account engaged in either of those at enwiki or here, yet he's banned. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The username is "blocked". He could open a new account under a different (hopefully more appropriate) username. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
^^ @Túrelio: , @Alan: What do you think? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The account has also been blocked on :en, though only for 1 week and independently of our discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO all accounts with clear references to ISIS, Nazism, ETA, ... are completely out of reasonable scope. Alan (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that many Basque nationalists (and Irish nationalists, by comparative extension) would be offended at being grouped together with ISIS and Nazism and at the idea that they aren't permitted to display their love for their country and the people who attempted to liberate their country. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Declined the unblock request for now. Block can always be lifted if consensus evolves thowards unblock but given the comments untill now I think that this is unlikely. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
He reverted you with a strange comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And changed the blocked settings. I gave him a fair warning that I would do so if he/she continued to be disruptive. Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
disruptive? i was trying to add the new username with the unblock request so i restored the old version it is just a mistake!
Actually, I think he or she was trying to say "i want [to be] unblock[ed][.] <suggestion for new username>", similar to what he said in this diff. I believe that talk page access should be restored. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that he/she removed my unblock-decline rational twice. And honestly, we already wasted enough of our energie here. This user was going to be blocked indef. The only question was when. Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
first of all [removed my unblock-decline rational twice] i was trying to add the new username with the unblock request so i restored the old version it is a mistake! but you should NOT blocked my talk page access you didnt even notify ME!!! that is UNLAWFUL!!!
second of all [honestly, we already wasted enough of oudfgjhdgfjmskuyfkuftshshfgsh hsrdfd hdfghg gh fdghfdh dh fdhgfdgfd dfghdfhfdgyhfdgh] honestly, NOBODY has EVER asked you to DO ANYTHING HERE!!!!!!! you could just LEAVE if your unable to deal with User problems!!!!!

[This user was going to be blocked indef. The only qufdghfgh fghfghfghfg dgftghdfg] THAT IS JUST AN UNLAWFUL POV you CANNOT assume that!!!!!! I THINK YOU SHOULD BE BLOCKED INDEF BECAUSE YOU ARE INCAPABLE!!!!!!!

Newbie errors. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thank you again sir i appreciated!

Zero contributions except own talkpage. This is really not worthy wasting our time. Leave the account blocked + close this topic. --A.Savin 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Zero contributions except own talkpage" only because all other contributions have been deleted. He or she has also been trying to contribute to enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
So what? I may create an account, upload 200 copyvios, they get deleted => I still have 0 contribs. --A.Savin 15:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
first of all thats not copyvios the pictures are my own work and you can see that by my user name the Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation in them and even the hebrew version מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית so that is not copyvios i own them.

second of all NO IT IS NOT 0 contribs IT IS 3 contribs!!!

Deletion doesn't erase intent. We still have an user who intended to contribute and share. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC
thank you sir for the Good faith asume! i appreciated!
True. But at least one of his 3 uploads was a blatant copyvio. The other two were obviously islamist flags, while the filenames were in Hebrew (1) or Arabic (1). --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
i also included the discription in english for the two pictures and i clearly say that it is my own work? but the other one i just find it.
As a person, who deleted some of his uploads, I want to say, that I feel uncomfortable with somebody with such username. Let him come back with new username. My humor vein is situated in another place then his, I do not consider such kind of parody funny. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
you feel uncomfortable about my username does not matter!! that is just your own POV which i think it is not allowed!!the think that matter is that my username is for good reason and it does not violate the policy!! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.13.136.10 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority of users here think it is an inappropriate username, therefore: the username does violate policy. Period. Case closed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

old versions

how can I delete old versions of a wiki-commons file.

can you create a button or process in order to delete single versions, for example to delete all versions between the original and the last version ?

It would save much memory space and old unfinshed versions.

--Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Files can only be deleted by an administrator, but in practice older versions of files are not deleted because Creative Commons licensing requires all contributions to be attributed and hence recorded. Deleting images would not save any space since they remain (although invisible to most) on our servers and can if necessary, be undeleted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Labgown

User:Crossleague, One of User:Labgown's possible sockpuppets was recently blocked at EnWiki. Because the main reason for his block is copyright violation, he has used his commons account to upload a number of images which look suspicious. Could someone please nuke his uploads? --wL <speak> 20:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP range for Crossleague is not one previously used by Labgrown or his socks, but it does have the same geolocation; other information is   Stale. Based on behavior, however, this seems   Likely. Account blocked and images nominated here (only one reverse image hit, so DR instead of nuke out of caution and not being fully familair with past image uploads - would be untroubled by a nuke, however). Эlcobbola talk 21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Off topic comment by Ralf Roletschek in the Village Pump and reversion of warning in his Talk page

So, I'm making a large discussion in the Village Pump in order to get a concensus about the problematic situation with the files protected in the UK jurisdiction (namely, the Agar.io case). Therefore, Ralf Roletschek commented this, that is at least totally off topic. Therefore, I leaved a warning in his Talk page, but has been reverted by the user twice... three times. With these kind of comments in the Village Pump is very hard to get concensus for a complicated issue like I exposed in the two threads in the VPC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ralf does not speak english very well. I'm absolutely sure, he wanted to say "don't shout" instead of "don't cry", meant as a hint, not to use bold typeface in every written sentence. This is a very old net joke, in the beginning used in the case, SOMEONE WROTE ALL HIS CONTRIBUTIONS IN CAPITAL LETTERS. -- Smial (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, people are generally considered to 'own' their own talk page, and removal of a comment should be taken as implying that the person has seen the comment, read it, and chose not to reply. It's a bit out of line to war about keeping what you said there. Revent (talk)
+1 -- Smial (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Because my english is very bad i use Google: https://translate.google.de/#de/en/Kannst%20du%20bitte%20etwas%20weniger%20schreien%3F --Ralf Roleček 08:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The misunderstanding comes from translating schreien. Unlike Wikipedia this is a multilingual project, so we have to remain mellow about words unless the intent is to disrupt or create a persistently hostile environment. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Smial: Was hat er denn verstanden? --Ralf Roleček 08:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Jammern, weinen, sich beklagen.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
off topic, it remembers me my best friend and his BWV12 Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen. Man dürfte Deutsch lernen können. Was für eine wunderbare Sprache !!--Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, das wußte ich nicht. Das war nicht meine Absicht. Dafür bitte ich um Entschuldigung. --Ralf Roleček 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"No woman, no cry" *sing* ;-) -- Smial (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: Diskulpa por favor, my ingles es muy mal. He utilizado Google para traduccion. --Ralf Roleček 09:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: In American English we'd say "there's no reason to get your knickers in such a big knot over pretty much nothing at all." I perfectly understood Ralf Roleček's remark about "do not cry (shout)" so much. There really is very little reason to go through so much emotionalism and long messages for a simple issue. And here, with complaints about what another user does on his/her talk page, Amitie is way out of line. Talk pages belong to the user, removing messages is something they can do. If they choose to archive them, fine - if not the diffs will always show what happened. I'd give you one suggestion Amitie, and that would be (as suggested to you before your recent block for bad behavior) to take a chill pill and not do so much whining, crying, shouting and complaining. Please feel free to complain to me about my use of English - I would expect no less from you with your history. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: , your written English is good, and you have promoted yourself as a native speaker. Perhaps you would kindly reconsider your use of the "knickers" phrase and "whining, crying" here? It reads as inflammatory or even deliberately nasty, rather than in line with our common understanding of leadership as specified in COM:Bureaucrats, or to "work in a spirit of COM:AGF" which you have at the top of your user page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why the cheap ad hominem Fae? Not helpfull. Natuur12 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand where I have made a cheap ad hominim. Could you point it out for me? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You could just have criticised Ellin's comment instead of bringing up the crat-role. Nothing wrong with the first part of your comment but everything after rather than in line is beside the point and is more about brining Ellin in discredit as a crat what has nothing to do with this discussion instead of giving constructive feedback. Natuur12 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take some time to reconsider my understanding of the leadership role of Bureaucrats within the community, I always thought it was a more general expectation for leadership on issues such as maintaining a non-hostile volunteer environment and that when a Bureaucrat made comments about disruptive behaviour of contributors, it would be seen as with the authority and trust of that elected community role. I have struck my comment. Thanks for the feedback. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OK Ralf Roletschek, apologies accepted (if you used the correct words I would have understood the joke). The problem was not actually the comment itself, but the reversions of the warning and without leaving me a message in my Talk Page (in spanish, my native language, regardless my english level is intermediate to advanced), and also, by not making proper answers in the thread (and yes, the UK legislation is too complicated unlike the US one; in the Court that will be worse). Therefore, as I mentioned regarding to the screenshots, don't mix pears with apples: As I understand, the software itself, the Interface, and (in special) the Artwork are separated elements and cannot be licensed in the same way, just inheriting them (is better to continue in the VPC). --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g and Ralf Roletschek: (En español que lo entendéis ambos). Me alegro que todo esté arreglado.
  • Ralf, cuando tengas un problema por la comunicación escribe en alemán y pide a un administrador que hable alemán nativo (de-N) que te ayude con la traducción.
  • Amitie: Agradezco que aceptaras sus disculpas y no llegue a más.
Sigamos haciendo que Commons sea más grande cada día. Alan (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  No action needed All cleared  . Alan (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Wikicommons user with documented history of deleting correctly annotated work

Sir or Madam,

I would like to report the wikicommons user User:Motopark, who yesterday flagged one of my uploaded photos (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_senses.jpg) for deletion since according to him it lacked information on the author and the licensing. These statements are both untrue as both the author (myself) and the license under which I have made this photo available ( Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International) is clearly provided on the file's page. After looking into it the user Motopark has a long history of deleting other people's correctly annotated work under false premises (see his discussion page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Motopark). I would like to ask you too modest things: 1. Please remove the falsely installed "remove tag" from my work. 2. Please prevent Motopark from vandalizing/deleting other people's work at wikimedia commons (by directly reaching out to him or taking away his enhanced user privileges that he is currently abusing).

It is deeply disappointing if despite taking the time to create this work and sharing it with the wikipedia community and carefully and correctly annotating it, someone can just delete this under false premises.

Thank you in advance and I hope this situation gets resolved,

With kind regards,

Allan --AllanPH (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion nomination, because it's incorrect. The source was stated to be 'own work'. If Motopark has a reason to doubt that statement, he will have to start a regular deletion nomination and explain his concern. And yes, unfortunately you are true that Motopark has a long history of incorrect taggings. Contacting him about this issue at his user talk page has prooved ineffective. Motopark has not used advanced privileges in this case. Every user can nominate a file for deletion, but only an administrator can execute the deletion. Motopark is not an administrator. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I have invited Motopark to respond here. Jcb (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I found out that he also flagged the file of the flag of a state in Venezuela, which is not true because it is created by the government of that state. I added provided the author and the source of the flag. 174.113.217.132 00:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that flags created by the gov. of Venezuela, are under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license? --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@AllanPH: Just to make it perfectly clear, Motopark does not have any type of advanced userrights (other than rollbacker, which is for anti-vandalism) on Commons. He's merely acting as a normal editor when tagging images, and he is not 'technically' capable of actually deleting anything. That's not to say anything about his judgement in doing so, and it's quite possible that admins have given his recommendations added weight because of his experience level, but any inappropriate deletions were not entirely his fault. Revent (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyway his wrong taggings are quite annoying and I have commented often about this at his user talk page for several years now, to no effect. This time I have told him that in case of future complaints I may choose to use my advanced permissions. Y hope Motopark will understand this warning and that the case is thus resolved. Jcb (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing for now. User has been told that new complaints may have consequences. Jcb (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Dinagoldstein keeps adding copyrighted material

For the third time, User:Dinagoldstein has added the same copyrighted material. I've explained twice that there needs to be written permission. They have claimed they are the author of the work and have given permission, but I don't see it listed.

The keep adding it the photos to the article en:Dina Goldstein. Majority of the copying is done from:

http://www.dinagoldstein.com/fallen-princesses/
http://www.dinagoldstein.com/in-the-dollhouse/
http://www.dinagoldstein.com/collections/gods-of-suburbia/

Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an OTRS ticket: ticket:2015092810020953. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: FYI, it's on the editor's user page. Revent (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And also here. Processing of this ticket has not been finished, however. I suggest to hold up any actions concerning this user activity at the moment. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with a User

Hi,

I'm have some problems with an brasilian user, called Yangua, on Wikipedia and now on Wikimedia Commons too. He are deleting all things that I publish on about my uncle Newton Teixeira, a famous artist of Brasilian Popular Music. How can I do to ask some one to stop it.

Regards,

Edgard Costa

Gavezdois (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Edgard,
we have no control over what happens in other wikis/projects. You had uploaded the following images showing Newton Teixeira
You wrote that they were created in 2015/2012, though the depicted person died in 1990. O.k., this might have simply been a misunderstanding. But you also stated "own work". How old are you? Did you really shoot the original photos, surely many years before 1990? Both images were found to be published several years before your upload. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio,

These photos were taken by my mother, Newton Teixeira sister, and I am the sole heir of it. I own all the copyrights of the images and audio of that composer. What I need to do to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavezdois (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, first you need to correct the description. Author= not you, but the name of your mother; Date=? (year when the original had been shot).
Second, you need to send a permission statement to [email protected] in which you explain the authorship and you being the heir of the author and your will to release them under a free license. This should be sent from your official/business email address, not from hotmail or alike. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Túrelio.

--Gavezdois (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Viniciusmarvin

Viniciusmarvin (talk · contribs) uploaded several files that are copyright violations. Fabiano msg 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked and deleted all uploads except one with a DR. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Diego Grez-Cañete and his DRs against my files

I'm so sorry to open this thread, but the limits between Protecting Commons against copyvios and The Extreme application of the Policies, specially Copyright ones (aka. Copyright Paranoia, not in the aim to insult in any way, just naming a huge problem in Commons) are clear. The both Diego Grez-Cañete and Me are experienced users who know the Commons policies very well. But, the latest Copyright-related discussions (in the Village Pump and some DRs) caused this user to take our discussion too personally.

Namely, he is applying the Copyright and the Deletion-related policies only with My screenshots, claiming that I'm commiting Copyvio (a serious accusation) by not crediting properly each elements of Browser Screeenhsots showing Wikipedia uploaded by Me (were the main subject is the Browser or tool, and the depicted elements in the Wikipedia screenshot may be considered just de minimis; that is being discussed in the Village Pump, and several admins agree with the de minimis statement). Therefore, I'm working somewhat hard to correct that issue (even with files that I didn't uploaded, like a screenshot from the Russian Wikipedia, see bellow), but, as I mentioned, we should first discuss how de minimis apply. Historically, only a very few users place additional licensing information in screenshots, and there are hundred and even thsousand of files in Category:Wikipedia screenshots...

I'm not disagreeing his reasoning about Copyright-related issues, but Me and some admins consider his latest editions as questionable, violating COM:POINT:

  • He, first tagged this file as Copyvio, but Natuur12 changed it to a normal DR, and finally, Taivo resolved that DR as Kept.
  • Then, I opened this thread at the Village Pump. Look at the kind of comments that Diego Grez-Cañete were made, insisting that the files should be credited (I don't disagree that), but without mentioning and even considering the de minimis statement (unlike other users that mentioned that).
  • Again, the user nominated this file for deletion with the same reasoning (revenge DRs?), considering that I didn't uploaded the original file (I just cropped that to remove the Windows Taskbar). I tried to find the sources in the Russian Wikipedia (too easy...), but he answered with You have failed to credit the authors, that I considered as he are questioning my job, and even, he justifies his comment; he expects and preffers that other users forcibly do the job instead of doing that himself (this is a Wiki!), refusing to do that. Finally, Alan speedy closed the DR.
  • I leaved a message in His Talk Page (that he should done the same in my talk page instead of tagging files), warning about his editions are not constructive (and considering that two admins speedy closed the two DRs opened against two of my files).
  • This file was renamed by this user (good job), but that file has the same issue that this user are claiming... Did this user nominated that file for deletion or leaved a message to Retama? No. Did this issue (the lacking of proper licensing) of this screenshot been resolved? No. This demonstrate that Diego Grez-Cañete have personal problems with Me, by tagging my files as Copyvio, but ignoring the other screenshots that, by his criteria, are copyvio, too.
  • And finally, He answers my message in his Talk Page with «No veo que hay de malo con que te esté ayudando a que aprendas a subir las imagenes correctamente... pero bueno.», implying that I do not know how to upload files and applying the proper licensing (or in other words, treating me as a stupid and/or ignorant). I'm just following the Policies and how that has been applied historically (we shouldn't talk about Copyvio without considering the de minimis statement, that is discussed in the VPC), and I consider his latest editions agaist Me as disruptive, at the time that He don't want to help with this issue in more constructive ways like using the Village Pump (instead, he leaves sarcastic answers).

By contrast, I have brought back a large discussion that is still unclear making, the posibility to more users and (specially) admins to discuss this issue again; fixing my uploads to add the proper licensing; working in {{Wikimedia-screenshot/sandbox}} (but I need some help with that), updating the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} documentation; and many other constructive editions, unlike Diego Grez-Cañete and his Copyvio tags.

The Community already decided about these specific DRs (Keep), but I insist, we still need concensus about this issue. But, I consider the tagging (only my) files as Copyvio is not in Good faith very likely, and even, I interpret his accusations of Copyvio as I'm not assumming good faith by uploading Free Software screenhsots and miss the additional licensing... required?

I know that Diego Grez-Cañete is a very old, experienced and helpful user, but his latest behaviour should not be allowed, because is inequitable (by not applying the Policies to files uploaded in the same way than for other users rather than Me) and disruptive (by applying the Policies in extreme over files by tagging as Copyvio, that are historically allowed without any issues, and several of DRs related were resolved as Kept).

Finally, most of his latest editions violate COM:POINT (see also POINT in Meta and POINT in the English Wikipedia), while I preffered the Village Pump and his Talk Page. So, I think that this user needs a little break (like my previous block but longer), while we discuss this issue with admins and more users.

PS: I did't mentioned the Agar.io case due the UK legislation is too complicated, and We need, at least, an opinion from an UK Laws expert.

--Amitie 10g (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's broken here, other than pointing out my legitimate concerns on your contributions. Your accusations of "treating [you] as a stupid and or ignorant" and "sarcastic answers" are groundless, as I said, my position has been to help you out. Anyways. I'll wait for others to comment, I don't get your point other than victimizing yourself for no-reason. --Diego Grez return fire 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have responded with a keep on his most recent DR. Although I am not involved actually in your conflict between you two, I would say to Diego Grez to please COM:AGF, as it looks like that he is not willing to help with the solution for his DRs. Wikimedia screenshots indeed should not be deleted, as they serve an educational purpose. Well, if the problem is the licensing with the images, it's simple to fix it. Just provide the link of the file, credit the author, and state the license. If there is a non-free image on it, just crop out the non-free image, upload the cropped version, and ask an administrator to delete the previous version. Done, right? Instead of making a DR to a file with a problem that you can simply solve, you can fix it by yourself. So don't let others do that if you can do it. If they didn't do it, do it. Not to be rude, but I recommend Diego to take a Wikibreak, I know it's just Wikistress. (Sorry for my admin-like tone!) ★Poké95 07:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If Administrators declined your Speedies and speedy closed your DRs, so, what is broken? Why you continuing to doing these disruptive DRs regardless the previous warnings? You're just imposed your POINT without Community concensus (that is We're trying to find in the Village Pump). Please see your editions and the coments of other users (including admins). --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop deliberately lying, the deletion requests were only closed until the issues were solved, not because of the grace of God or whatever deity you believe in (if any). I have not imposed anything, I'm not sure what consensus you're talking about, since your posts have been left forgotten by everyone for repetitive, over-emphasized and unnecessary. It is only you who wishes to disregard Commons' policies and rather impose your view, as you have done on Wikimedia-screenshot, a template that has been around for years, and, now you pushed your own views because you think you are correct, and (oh the irony) without any sort of consensus rather than TL;DR messages. I urge you, once again, to stop distorting facts at your like. --Diego Grez return fire 16:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The big difference here is that I exposed my POINT by discussing, using the Village Pump and following the suggestion from other users. But, you tried to impose your POINT by making disruptive (or at least unhelpful) DRs (that violates COM:POINT and contradicts with your phrase I have not imposed anything) on files where these issues can be easily fixed.
Your POV is valid and my one cound't, but several users (including admins) disagree with your editions, instead of using the Discussion pages (the Village Pump, the User Talk pages, etc) to expose that. Finally, I assume that you know what means de minimis and how to apply, but you didn't mentioned that in any of your discussions... --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if Diego did the research himself instead of forcing people like me to do it for him. Seriously, these are Wikipedia screenshots. It isn't rocket science, and it should be obvious that the images used in enwiki's ISS article are free. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g:   Info Diego reopened his DR I have closed. ★Poké95 01:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Closed. Alan (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  Info With the idea of ​​restoring good behavior and citizenship:
Regards. Alan (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Finally, could an admin speedy close (or at least comment) the 5 remaning DRs opened by Him yesterday (9 DRs in one day?), if apply? --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Links? Alan (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This, this, this, this, and this (with this last, speedy the previous version). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Alan: Can you delete the previous versions of this file? Thanks, ★Poké95 12:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Done, thanks. Alan (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr._Bernd_Gross

May someone please tell this user, that an architectural element is not a building...

Thank you, Anika (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have asked them on their talk page. --A.Savin 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ignores it. Continues to move files from architectural-element-category to building-categories. (contributions, example) --Anika (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Verstehe nicht wo das Problem liegt. Die Fotos sind in der Category:Alte Dorfstraße 3, Niedercunnersdorf eingegliedert. Diese Kategorie ist u.a. eingegliedert in Category:Umgebinde in Niedercunnersdorf. Die Kategorie zweimal zu verwenden macht wenig Sinn. Das Einbinden in Unterkategorien macht doch Sinn, sobald mehr als ein oder zwei Fotos da sind. Damit behauptet die Kategorie ja nicht ein Gebaeude zu sein.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Die Category:Alte Dorfstraße 3, Niedercunnersdorf gehört in Category:Buildings in Niedercunnersdorf, nicht in Category:Umgebinde in Niedercunnersdorf (genausowenig, wie in Category:Schornsteine in Niedercunnersdorf oder Category:Roofs in Niedercunnersdorf oder Category:Windows in Niedercunnersdorf) --Anika (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ist doch in der Kategorie Buildings in XYZ. Die Kat Buildings in Niedercunnersdorf gibt es noch nicht. Vlt. anlegen und dann einsortieren? Wenn's besondere Schornsteine sind, legen wir auch dafuer 'ne Kategorie an. LG ,--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bobwiley22

  1. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_54#Bobwiley22
  2. Bobwiley22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
Deletion requests raised on 28 October

It is just a month since the last AN/U request related to disruptive deletion requests for homoerotic images. There was a vandalism warning, but as the user appeared to stop editing, no further action was taken. Could there be more affirmative action this time please? A single purpose account making disruptive edits, should conventionally see a series of escalating blocks. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 3 months, DR closed / reverted. Yann (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

سبأ

Hi, Considering Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edraj Alemarat.jpg (all files deleted except one) and User talk:سبأ, I think that some more radical steps need to be taken. Most files from this user are of small size with no EXIF data. I blocked this user for 2 weeks, pending further action. Great thanks to @Gunnex: for this investigation. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If the user continues to upload copyvios to fa wiki which are then transferred to Commons we may need a filter to block Commons transfers of files uploaded by this user to any Wiki. --Denniss (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
AbuseFiltr can't scan wikitext during upload, see phab:T89252. Maybe a insource search helps (it is also possible to use regex there). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My question is, should we delete the remaining files upload on Commons by this user? i.e. Special:Contributions/سبأ. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The "case" is a little bit complicated. In fact we have 2 different user but who are mostly likely (somehow) connected (so far I remember I saw instant local uploads & transfers to Commons within 24 hours).
  1. User محمديان, base is fawiki. I am currently going through the local uploads = these files: Result: +50 fresh copyvios — and still not treating the still alive (transferred) files from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edraj Alemarat.jpg. The user uploaded around 7.000 files at fawiki... I checked hundreds: all kind of resolutions/quality/obvious crops/etc. availbale. Metadata/exif?: Nothing. In 03.2008 the user starts local uploads in the name of "Mohammadian" ("p.b. Mohammadian" = photo by ...) see also below)
  2. User سبأ, the Commons uploader with base in arwiki. I did a quickly run through his uploads = +/- 20 copyvios. This user transfers (mostly) the local uploads from above user (= example: File:Tomb of sheikh Abdul Rahman,Kukherd..3.jpg) and (sometimes) his supposed own local uploads, like File:Khereema.G.A.B.A.L.OMAN.17.jpg.
Some Commons uploads are equipped with OTRS:2013042110000955 (managed by @Mehdi: ). Per User talk:سبأ#Copyright issued for works by "Mr. Mohamadian (Mohammed Kookherdi Mohammadyan)" (but this ticket was also used for a copyrighted Panoramio photo by "Abdolghaffar Alirezaie" via https://www.panoramio.com/photo/47195991). Considering the whole program of supposed Mohamadian's works my doubts around this story are increasing. A look into the details of the related OTRS-ticket may clarify some aspects...
Resuming: local uploads by arwiki user "سبأ" are harmless — the critical ones are those transferred from fawiki user "محمديان". And: All supposed "own works" (no transfers) by Commons user "سبأ" needs spezial eyes, like this one: User talk:سبأ#File:F.R.M.11.jpg. And... all supposed transfers like File:ImagKookherd.Awesherino.20.jpg (here from fawiki user "محمديان"), for which local logs are NOT available, should be tagged with no-source. Gunnex (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The situation is sometimes quite complex: we have fa:پرونده:RuoosALgebal.5.jpg (uploaded locally in 2009) but already locally uploaded in 2007 via fa:پرونده:Lima.jpg = identical: both files uploaded by "محمديان"... Gunnex (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said... complex. An example of a supposed "PHOTO BY MOHAMMADIAN" --> File:Belad.QALAA.4.jpg, uploaded and transferred in 2013 via fa:پرونده:Belad.QALAA.4.jpg, uploaded there in 2009. Declared to be taken in 2004. No exif, 377 × 510 px resolution. And cropped (watermark removed) via https://www.flickr.com/photos/21734774@N08/2628123453 (© All rights reserved by "ضوء عمان " (= Oman Light, see also watermark), uploaded on Flickr with full exif in 07.2008 in 410 x 610 px. Taken in 04.2008. In 2010 reuploaded via https://www.flickr.com/photos/21734774@N08/5191219882/ in higher res. Obviously not a work by "MOHAMMADIA"...
Same procedure for fa:پرونده:Emarat.2.jpg, uploaded locally in 11.2007 ("Pho.b. Mohammadian") but grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/42647020@N00/394010985 (02.2007, © All rights reserved by "lonely girl, Adobe exif from 2005 available).
"(...) should we delete the remaining files upload on Commons by this user? (...)" --> well... Gunnex (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds to me like a good case for nuking everything they ever touched under COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, considering also (fresh example) fa:پرونده:Emarat.6.jpg (" Pho.b. Mohammadian"), uploaded locally in 11.2007 = grabbed from https://web.archive.org/web/20050214082736/http://aidan.co.uk/photo79.htm (wayback 2005, "uploaded 2003-08-29", © 2003, 2004 Aidan O'Rourke - all rights reserved, exif available/indicated = "Nikon Coolpix 990 digital camera") = (only thumb) https://web.archive.org/web/20050214082736/http://aidan.co.uk/photo79.htm. Actually "Aidan O'Rourke" avoids hotlinking images per http://aidan.co.uk/photo79.htm. Gunnex (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Nuke them all, considering (fresh) fa:پرونده:FUJ.RA.5.jpg, uploaded locally in 11.2007 ("Pho.b. Mohammadian") = grabbed from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/3089801 (07.2007, © All rights reserved by "Oliver Licup ", exif available) or fa:پرونده:FUJ.RA.2.jpg, uploaded locally in 11.2007 ("Pho.b. Mohammadian") = grabbed from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/820988 (02.2007, © All rights reserved by "Thursd@y", exif available) or fa:پرونده:TADMER.4.jpg, uploaded locally in 10.2007 ("Pho.b. Mohammadian") = grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sharifbujanda/213361921/ (2006, © All rights reserved by "Sharif Bujanda Viloria", exif available).
I am in contact with an admin of fawiki trying to solve the case also local. In the meantime I am tagging obvious copyvios on fawiki... Gunnex (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
... apparently not necessary anymore, considering fawiki: "We will delete all photos of the user in next 48 houres (...)". Gunnex (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. Good that the issue is also taken care of on fawiki. So unless someone disagree, I will delete the files tomorrow. Regards, 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I had an email from dear Mohamadian about his photos in fa wiki and commons. He said (سبأ) is his family member and She can upload any photos of Dear Mohamadian in commons. For more information you can ask a question from @Mardetanha: . --MehdiTalk 16:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of files uploaded locally by fawiki user "محمديان" were transferred to Commons also by other users. See also fresh copyvio tags at User talk:Darafsh via [6]. Insource search shows 133 files. And there are still files living via the list of uploaded files by "سبأ", which (by unknown reason) are not shown using VisualFilechange. @Yann: ? Gunnex (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I started deleting them, but there are more. Yann (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems Denniss deleted the rest. Yann (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
محمدیان is persian alphabet of Mohamadian! both of them are same. Saba (سبا) is mohamadian's(محمدیان) daughter!--MehdiTalk 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mehdi: Hi, Thanks for looking into this. The issue is that, thanks to Gunnex's investigation, we see that quite of lot of uploads, either directly here or tranfered from fawiki, are not really the works of Saba or Mohamadian. So we are left with quite of lot of small images without EXIF data, where we can't trust the uploader about the source. So I would suggest either to reimport the original full size images with EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:OTRS to confirm which works are really made by Saba or Mohamadian. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi dear. You're welcome. Excuse me for my mistakes in English. Mohamadian is an old man and he used old version of camera (AGFA ISOLETTE- Germany 1955) and canon 110 for 1974!. He sent an email for me and i had lots of conversations with him about all of this (all photos in fawiki and commons). He said "I had photography in Kohkherd and we have lots of photos about Iran and Arabian countries from years ago until now! but I'm old and i couldn't upload all of them in commons.But my daughter can help me. we saved lots of this photos between 1964-1976! and colorful photos to 1986! " after this he sent his email to OTRS ticket:2013042110000955 so his daughter (سبا) start to reupload all of them in commons but she is not able to English! she was 13 or 14! We have lots of projects in fawiki for filter and edit this photos but it was so hard bcuz photos doesn't have any exif.Ive reached a dead end. (u can see all of documentation in this ticket. --MehdiTalk 20:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I can't read Farsi, and I trust you about the OTRS discussion. But if these pictures are scans of argentic prints, these should be bigger than they are. I did scan some of my old pitures from the 1960s to the 1980s, and you can see the result here. Typically like File:Renault 20 TL.jpg (2,424 × 1,555). PS: Your English is quite good. ;o) Yann (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks dear Yann. You can continue deleting all of them. I saw this section moments ago! sincerely:--MehdiTalk 20:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User edits other user userpage aand talkpage

User User talk:Bashudev kgp edits other user userpage and talkpage, see situation here [7]--Motopark (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, A CU is needed. Yann (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  Confirmed Iamsujoydey = Bashudev kgp = Iambabaidey. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheBellaTwins1445 uploads

Question: if a user repeatedly uploads images at lower-than-best resolution, and keeps overwriting the existing one despite being warned by three different people (besides myself, I see Denniss and WikiLeon have left warnings on the topic), does that constitute a blocking offense? If so, at what point?? Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Why did you said I'm overwriting files ? i'm not making any type of vandalism i'm just uploading images from extracted files my point its not to make vandalism i'm trying to contribute with Wikipedia and you have said if I want to upload a different king of image I should of re-uploaded as a single file, so why are you saying i'm making any kind of vandalism, really I don't want to be blocked but seriously guy so what did you want I make ? TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 4:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahem, File:Alicia Fox House Show 2011.jpg - you uploaded your cropped file over top of it and at lower resolution. I know because after undoing it, I did a crop of it myself to act as proof of what you've been doing. Take a look at File:Alicia Fox House Show 2011 (cropped).jpg. The key is the file size between the two: your crop was 283 KB in size, mine which was lossless from the original is 899 KB in size. You've been warned several times not to overwrite images. Even when you upload your crops as a different file, it's still at a lower resolution than the original. Take File:Maryse the best 2.jpg for example - your upload is 993 KB in size. I'd estimate a lossless crop of the same file will weight in at around 2 MB. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheBellaTwins1445: You violated COM:OVERWRITE. If you want to upload cropped images, don't overwrite an existing image. Upload a new one instead. ★Poké95 23:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok this will not happened again I will stop overwriting file names, thanks for the information.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 4:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheBellaTwins1445: Making high quality crops and uploading them as separate files is quick and easy with Commons:CropTool. INeverCry 01:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
...but don't forget to check "new file" at the last step. --wL <speak> 19:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that assumes this editor choose to make use of it... sigh. See File:Dana Brooke handstand choke (cropped).jpg (his crop) versus File:Dana Brooke handstand choke (cropped2).jpg which I made. The latter file is nearly 20 times the size. Tabercil (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios - User:NEETHIARASU ARUNACHALAM

NEETHIARASU ARUNACHALAM (talk · contribs), re-uploads files that were deleted for copyvios. --AntanO 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jcb: 'Negative OTRS' should be taken to mean a 'failed' OTRS clearance, right? (not that one was not received) Revent (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: unless it concerns the same image? Ankry (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: One of the two new uploads was the same as a previously deleted image, and I nuked it on that basis... the other is 'new', though a similar image of the same person. I just wanted to check if it was 'we didn't get a clearance, and it timed out' or 'the supposed clearance was bogus' before actually blocking. It might be a simple lack of clue, and not someone deliberately trying to sneak something past us. My not blocking is not prejudicial against someone else deciding to do so, just that I am 'not quite sure'. Revent (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Yes, that's true. I delete files for 'negative OTRS' when it becomes clear in the ticket that we will not receive a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thekohser

@Thekohser:

Kohs seems more intent on trolling users by revenge DRs than any real contribution. Anyone else would be having warnings or have been blocked. He owns Wikipediocracy, but this should not become a get out of jail free card. 82.132.233.233 23:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I already speedy kept the revenge DR's. Should be warning enough since the signal is clear. Natuur12 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
That isn't how it works. That isn't how any of it works. You can't keep something that is a rule violation because you don't like the nominator. At least one admin [8] agrees and thought Natuur12's close was not appropriate. 6 of the 7 files he nominated for deletion were deleted, with one not because passing admin probably haven't noticed it yet. I think Thekohser should be thanked for noticing these out of scope files. 2601:140:C002:47FF:C881:855D:C79E:37CD 13:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a misleading statistic. There are other nominations that are either pending or were withdrawn, and in particular the one you link above was mistakenly deleted after already having been kept in a DR; it has now been restored. Thanks to Mr Kohser would be premature as he doesn't seem able to distsinguish between an advertisement and a memorial to a Holocaust victim. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the kids next door are also watching this discussion. I didn't know who this user was when I speedy kept the DR's. I speedy kept them because revenge DR's create an usafe working environment plus the DR's where just plain sloppy. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
How did you know they were "revenge" if you didn't know who posted them? 2601:154:C101:A20:1CB:A494:9276:138 23:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Stating the obvious to make it more obvious for those who have trouble to interpertate and to apply the rules of logic. "Who" revers to the person behind the account. Natuur12 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean inappropriately kept in a request. Wheel warring is bad. Wheel warring to push a spiteful action is desysopable. 2601:154:C101:A20:1CB:A494:9276:138 23:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at the timing. The Admin who apparently overrode the DR did so without comment and was using Visual FileChange- I assumed that to have been lagged and she saw a previous version of the DR in which I was yet to comment. Also, she did not consult the admin deciding the DR as she should have done if it had, in fact, appeared closed to her at the time she deleted the image. This is not wheel-warring, it is correcting an apparent error. You'll see that I notified the "ovverriding" admin at the time. Please withdraw your spurious and trolling accusation of wheel-warring. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Lengthy and boring text on my talk page. Summary: No harm done.    Happy Halloween everyone! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Unable to create an account

Sir, I am trying to make a new account but don't see the image in my Mozilla Firefox browser. I never had this problem on any of the other sites. Will appreciate your assistance at the earliest. Mahmood Javaid, Pakistan [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 39.47.20.189 (talk) 13:31, 06 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Probably the captcha. @39.47.20.189: It is possible for an admin to generate you an account, with a randomized temporary password emailed to you by the server. You would need to indicate the account name you want, though. Revent (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's related, but Avast + Chrome + Commons is known to cause problems, including captcha not showing. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If the captcha isn't working on Commons, maybe the user could try w:Special:UserLogin/signup or m:Special:UserLogin/signup? An account created there would still work here thanks to SUL. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
He could also mail the OTRS team via info-commons wikimedia.org so they can create an account for him/her if that doesn't work. Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User RMarvyn

RMarvyn (talk · contribs), the user has multiple copyright violations. Latest images are from Palmeiras site , photographer credit Cesar Greco/Ag.Palmeiras/Divulgação, as can be seen in this link. Please, delete images and block your account. Fabiano msg 23:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Blocked for one week. Érico (msg) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:שמעון נטף (Shimon Nataf)

Hi,

All of the uploads by User:שמעון נטף (Shimon Nataf) are book covers, and they are most likely copyright violations. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done. תודה. -- Geagea (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Upload Wizard Problems

Please stop whoever it is from dicking around with Upload Wizard. Upload Wizard used to be a popular and relied-upon page. Its changes over the last six months are incompetent, disliked, and unwanted. I just can't deal with it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G41rn8 (talk • contribs) 02:27, November 11, 2015‎ (UTC)

Wrong venue. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullying of a new user

I am a new user and my images are a mixture of Christian and secular content. They have been requested to be deleted by INeverCry and when I stood up to them, Motopark weighed in, seemingly claiming that I have breached Fair Use, which I have not. Every image in all those files was taken or made by me. If you look at the files data, you can see they have been made on my Apple Mac. I have the original files here as proof.

I have been put up for speedy deletion. Look, the work I have put up is the same as I have taken from Wikimedia. I desktop publish and sell photos. I am giving back to other people, the benefits that Wikimedia Commons has given to me. Some of the content is Christian, much wasn't. Some, had the users looked properly, was clearly researched tables which DO have educational value. This is a clear case of bullying.

My page Cateartios has also been taken down. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cateartios No one approached me first. It has been straight aggression. I placed an objection in the request file and my objection has been deleted/reverted by INeverCry. I am looking at Motopark's talks and many people are objecting about their behaviour. Their own photos are one's they have taken, so how can they object to professional work?

What can be done about these bullies. I will not approach them again until I hear back from you.

Thank you, Cateartios (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I filed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cateartios in good faith. I tagged User:Cateartios for speedy deletion in good faith (now deleted by Alan). I've been polite toward Cateartios, and in return have been called a bully and told I was guilty of religious discrimination. I'm sorry this editor has taken it that way, but I truly didn't act with either motivation. INeverCry 09:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Alan: could you chip in with a better explanation of why the user page failed to meet COM:Scope and deletion was necessary? I note that the deletion log comment refers to Commons:User pages, however this is not a guideline or policy supported by consensus.
@Cateartios: It is the convention on Commons to avoid user-created material unless there is a good case for educational, cultural or historical value. Some self-created religious materials or cultural miscellanea would fit this description, such as illustrative diagrams, photographs of relics, shrines, church brass rubbings etc. From what I can see of your uploads, these are all self made bon mot sayings or logos, some digitally added to photographs; not dissimilar from what you might expect of Christmas cards. From my viewpoint they fail to meet COM:Scope, but you can make a case in the deletion request for all or some of the images if you believe there is some part of the definition of project scope that supports finding them of reusable value. It might be poor practice to delete a user page without a bit more discussion, but please assume good faith and continue to ask for clear explanations from the administrator and take care to review the policies they are applying. No admin action should be taken outside of community agreed policies and guidelines. What might seem bullyish behaviour is more often shortness in communication. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fæ: Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content <- I thought that redirection points to this (I think it should be). --Alan (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I read this as meaning that the better document to link to would be Commons:Talk page guidelines. I cannot see the deleted user page, so this is your call. In the light of Scope including "contributors are allowed a certain amount of leeway" on user pages, perhaps you would consider undeleting and talking the page through in more detail with the user before taking action? If Cateartios understands our guidelines a bit better, they can trim their user page themselves to comply with our consensus agreed policies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears to be a biography and advert. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Seen it now. I agree it was problematic. @Cateartios: I suggest you look at other user pages as examples—perhaps have a surf through the user pages at Commons:List of administrators and then try recreating a user page. I'm sure Alan or Mattbuck could give you some feedback when you do. Most user pages focus on wiki-related information, but this does include their interests as far as it pertains to project content. They should not be overly promotional, and as this is not like Facebook, the amount of personal information outside of Wikimedia projects stuff is conventionally limited. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Cateartios -- I don't think that you're being "bullied", but you could claim that there's something of a double standard between you and User:Eugenio Hansen, OFS with respect to uploaded files... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I agree with you that something like User:Eugenio Hansen, OFS/Gallerie is potentially a monumental collection of out of scope images. I would think a DR of these, which would include hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand images, wouldn't be well-received in general. Can you think of a way to discuss deletion of Hansen's creations that would involve only a minimal level of drama? I wonder how many other personal artwork collections like this we have here? INeverCry 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ:Excuse me, but please tell me why the educational content which WAS in there (see this copy of the file as an example https://www.facebook.com/fromdespairtodeliverance/photos/a.1025889067428290.1073741828.1025885794095284/1205244939492701/?type=3&theater) was taken down? There were several files like that. Also, being told I am homemade and putting up vanity material is rude. There has not been any politeness. It is very clear, especially when as soon as I stood up for myself that Motopark began to claim that an image which is my intellectual property wasn't - which was a randomly selected image towards the top of the list - that this is unjust. I have looked through Wikimedia Commons, I use it extensively so I am aware of exactly what is out there. So you guys either need to clean out all files in the categories I listed in to get rid of what displeases you, or attempt more inclusive behaviour. As for me, I had no idea that Wikipedia and Wikimedia were so toxic. Life is too short for this. If someone can delete my entire log in, feel free to do so. Cateartios (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Shake off the dust from your feet... INeverCry 01:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Cateartios: I don't see that the file from Facebook linked above is in Scope as it is entirely a text document and could be reproduced in text if ever needed. The user page which was removed was promotional in nature; the images nominated for deletion are as described "homemade devotionals". Dozens if not hundreds of these are deleted monthly - from all religions. Commons is not Facebook or any form of social media. I also don't see any rudeness from admins and users here to you - and I'd point out that not all your images were nominated for deletion - only the ones which are out of scope - and even of that pile Steinsplitter has suggested one be retained. This is a process not a judgement - please work with us in a spirit of Good Faith (see COM:AGF). As for "Other Stuff Exists", any user should please feel free to file DN's as needed with cause. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cateartios: As above, images which are made of text and very simple graphics (like lines for a table) are normally considered out of scope unless needed to "internally" support an active project or if the original text is historically valuable, such as early manuscripts. Rather than taking images of text, we encourage people to make available the source text on Wikipedia or Wikisource. If you want to create the table you link to on Facebook for a Wikipedia article or similar, then you can do so on that project without having to create it here. The core mission of Commons is as an educational image, video and audio media repository rather than textual. I suggest you take a look at Wikisource or Wikiquote where their missions are to share educational texts.
Some of the communication you feel is rude is just terse. Keep in mind that unlike Wikipedia, Commons is an international project supporting multiple languages rather than one language at a time. Most of the people you interact with here do not have English as their first language, so care should be taken to avoid reading their words in a lawyerish or very literal way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cateartios: No, this was not bullying. Please assume good faith and remember to stay mellow. All users here are volunteers, pleas be kind to other users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cateartios: Victimization is usual in this project and is generally a two-edged weapon. When someone arrives at an unknown project, minimally, it must be assume good faith. Recalling that respect is earned, not a requirement. My talk page is full of people complaining about alleged photos I erased, however, I have never been an administrator. It is important to read the terms of use and commons licenses, it is not a simple matter, but with a title like Bullying of a new user is be buying yourself. If you come to me with respect, humility you will receive the same. Here are all brothers, we share the same interests and assume good faith among us. There are many misunderstandings due to this type of written communication, and this is a good example. --The Photographer (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

impostor-like username

I propose to block the newly created account XXHOPflaumeXx (talk · contribs) due to inappropriate username, as the username suggests an intend to mimick the established user HOPflaume. The latter has confirmed on my request that he has no connection to the new account. On :en, the account XXHOPflaumeXx is already indef-block for vandalism[9]. --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange categories created by Neelix

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

For background, see this thread at the en Wikipedia. (permalink) To make a long story short, Neelix created tens of thousands of puerile and unnecessary redirects, many involving female body parts and nudity of some sort. I took a look at his Commons contribs, and he seems to have also created hundreds, if not thousands, of strange categories here at Commons dealing with nudity. Here is the list, just keep scrolling. Is there anything we should do about this? Kelly (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot say I browsed extensively, but from what I see there’s nothing wrong with Neelix’s categorization work. Categories are properly named, properly categorized themselves, and even somewhat populated — I wish most people who bother to categorize at all were even half this accurate and detail-oriented. As for nudity, well, since we have photos of naked people, we need to have categories to tag them with. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, redirects of the type mentioned in the linked en.wp discussion ("tiny tits" a.s.o. redirecting to "micromastia", e.g.) are indeed puerile, embarassing (for all involved!), borderline trolling and triggering, and should not be allowed in Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for having created the redirects on Wikipedia. I have apologized there as well and offline to editors who have contacted me. I believe that the categories I have created on the Commons are beneficial and should be kept, but I am glad for the community to make whatever decision it thinks best. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Neelix: Will you please now return to the English-language Wikipedia, and engage with the community there to help tidy up your redirects? -- The Anome (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this by any chance part of the matter at hand? It seems inappropriate to single out the visibility of one body part in a photo that is not about that at all. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a really weird edit to make. -- The Anome (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
So it's OK for me to revert it as inappropriate, even though it is not blatantly wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. Kelly (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not that any one edit or category is bad in and of itself. Some of these categories are useful. But the very vast majority of category creations and the thousands of associated edits to files - most of them to images of women - appears to have the effect of organizing these files into what is essentially "Pornography by fetish" categories here. I mean, what else is the point of adding "armpit" to the photo of a female dancer above? And the scale of these edits boggles the mind. Kelly (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Beyond what seems like the intense obsession about doing this activity, and, as Kelly says, the troubling quasi-pornographic aspects, what also gets me from the technical viewpoint is the sheer lack of necessity for the sort of deeply-nested micro-categorization such as creating Category:Nude or partially nude kneeling women looking at viewer. There's really no need for this: category intersection between mutually orthogonal categories would be sufficient to do the job of making these sorts of microscopic distinctions. But, even so, adding Category:Armpits is still a really peculiar thing to do. -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Recent edits: an improvement

Having looked at Neelix's recent edits, I believe they've taken at least some of this advice to heart, and are now categorizing images of men to attempt to re-balance the gender bias. I think their energy and attention to detail, focused in the right direction, has been, and can be, very beneficial to this community, and I'd like to invite Neelix to fully take other people's concerns on board, and engage with other editors here to see how we can all work together to improve Commons without over-concentrating on one aspect of categorization or making other people uncomfortable. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've sent Neelix thanks for this on their talk page. Let's see if positive reinforcement works. -- The Anome (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Anome: Neelix has been on a spree all year categorizing photos of nudity (mostly of women by their titties) into what are essentially fetish categories. Since this situation was exposed, Neelix made one comment here stating he had already apologized at WP for the redirects, but made no apology at Commons and defended his category creations on here. (Yes, that's right, he felt the category he made "Category:Nude or partially nude kneeling women" was too broad and needed to be broken down further into "Category:Nude or partially nude kneeling women wearing high-heeled shoes"!) Right after that, Neelix then spent all of 16 minutes moving general images from "Category:Men" into subcategories. I fail to see how that "re-balances the gender bias" in any meaningful way. And he's done nothing else since. I feel your sympathetic thank you was completely inappropriate and misleading to others, because he has not "taken other people's concerns on board" - he insists everything he has done on Commons is correct and has made no effort to rectify the situation. Wikimandia (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping that the edits to male-oriented categories might have implied a recognition that the obsessive focus on images of women might not be either constructive or welcome. If that's not the case, and Neelix cannot see why microcategorizing images of women like this might be a problem, then that's disappointing, to say the least. -- The Anome (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We should probably deal with Wikipedia first before we spread this dispute to Commons. His Commons edits don't seem to be as disruptive as his Wikipedia ones. (That said, this categorization seems to be over-broad as well.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A considerable number of his categories need to be deleted. He needs to be topic banned on categories related to nudity and sexuality, because he has failed to show any maturity, common sense or trustworthiness in this area. Wikimandia (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban might well be a good idea. -- The Anome (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
They aren't as disruptive as the 80,000 redirects on Wikipedia. Honestly, I would say that Neelix's edits here are actually more helpful than harmful, since he is recategorizing pictures from general (e.g. women) to specific (e.g. nude women). No matter how asinine it may seem, these recategorizations are as helpful as, say, recategorizing a photo from "Buses" to "New York City buses." Epic Genius (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue here is the apparent obsessive focus on women as objects to be categorized. Compare the breasts-related theme of a very large number of the Wikipedia redirects. But I think this is a wider issue, and problem with Commons in general, that goes beyond just Neelix's categories. For example, Commons once received a constant stream of huge numbers of dick pics from enthusiastic self-documenters, to the point where Commons eventually stopped accepting non-educational images of penises. Maybe we could do the same -- or at least set a rate throttle -- for the submission of pictures of women in various states of undress, so that it wasn't (just for example) greater than the rate of submission of images of similarly unclad men? -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Anome: According to COM:NUDE, Categories such as male reproductive system, penis and vaginas show that Commons has a large quantity of images and videos relating to human genitalia. So most of these images are pre-existing. It doesn't look like he is disrupting Commons by categorizing the bosom pictures. On the other hand, if he uploaded low-quality bosom pictures, especially low-quality ones, they can be expected to be deleted and he could be restricted from uploading here as well. Epic Genius (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Anome: What amkes you think that "Commons eventually stopped accepting non-educational images of penises"? A small amount of research will show this to be completely untrue. Protopone primigena (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Making helpful edits does not undo harmful edits. That's never been the practice. It's extremely disruptive to create useless categories that will be deleted in the future. Or please tell me how it is helpful to create subcategories like Category:Nude or partially nude women with necklaces in cleavage with further subcategories Category:Nude women with necklaces in cleavage, Category:Nude smiling women with necklaces in cleavage, Category:Nude women with pearl necklaces in cleavage, Category:Topless women with necklaces in cleavage and Category:Topless smiling women with necklaces in cleavage‎ and why you think these categories should be kept? Wikimandia (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Other than how the contents could be offensive? What is offensive to one is an information to another. For example, we don't delete Category:The Holocaust because having a category about that could be offensive to many Jewish people. We keep it because somewhere, someone is probably going to find it useful, whether it is someone doing dirty work or a school project. Epic Genius (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: The photos themselves are not offensive. Nudity and even pornography are not personally offensive to me. That someone is sorting these into unnecessary categories is as stated completely fetishistic and that is sick. We do not need this level of categorization, especially when the parent categories are not even crowded. The category "Nude women with necklaces in cleavage" and its subcategories "Nude smiling women with necklaces in cleavage‎" and "Nude women with pearl necklaces in cleavage‎" consist of all of 14 images! Neelix created not only the category "Hogtied women," but further categories "Nude or partially nude hogtied women," "Topless hogtied women" and "Nude hogtied women." Please til me who exactly is going to find that useful, besides inmates with restricted Internet access and sexually repressed religious fanatics who think fapping to photos on Commons doesn't count as looking at pornography? As for your assertion that we should make things useful as possible for "someone doing dirty work," hell, why not organize photos of children into categories "Children with closed eyes and opened mouth," "Children bending over from behind," "Young girls in bikinis with legs apart," "Children hogtied and crying" etc so pedophiles can find that useful? For that matter, shouldn't we sort photos from the Holocaust into "Nude and partially nude female victims of the Holocaust"?? Useful. Wikimandia (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: While I totally get why people are upset about this, please try to avoid crossing over the line of making personal statements about other editors. Thanks. Revent (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Good point. Maybe the lowest, most specific categories do need to be deleted, but not most of the higher, parent categories that Neelix created. I understand that this is an upsetting topic, and I agree with the Wikipedia redirects being deleted, but Wikipedia redirects have no effect on Commons categories and vice versa. Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix just the tip of the iceberg

  • This problem hardly begins and ends with Neelix. Commons has a systemic problem with overcategorizing of images of women, to a point that seems fetishistic. For example, I recently nominated File:Rebel Chick Confederate Bikini.jpg for deletion, and noted at the time that it is in twenty-one categories, many of which are of questionable value, relating to the random intersection of a bikini and a necklace, earring, or a bracelet. Obviously this girl's ass, not the jewelry of the other young lady in the picture, is the subject. So why all these incidental categories detailing the minutae of what each female is wearing? Frankly this is a disturbing trend and makes this project look pretty bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Consider this: Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock. 196 images, many of them nearly identical, most of them uploaded from Flickr, of a car wash at a "breastaraunt" in Texas. Why? Or how about File:Beach In Mexico.jpg. this is not a picture of a beach, or of Mexico, it is a picture of a drunk woman's boobies, uploaded from Flickr witht he helpful description "goes well with the beer". Why? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(BTW I am asking why rhetorically, I know why, because boobies and butts is why) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Also Category:Women with sunglasses wearing bikinis over 300 photos, most from the same Oakley group shoot. Do we really need 100 pictures of the same ladies in the same bikini and same sunglasses? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we definitely don't. Pictures of women in bikinis are fine, but vast and disproportionate quantities of them like this, no. See above for my suggestion that we should rate-throttle the submission of this sort of image so that the rate of submission of nudey/cheesecake images of women is no greater than that of equivalent pictures of men. -- The Anome (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I think these flickr submissions used Flickr2Commons, and were uploaded as part of a Flickr Album. Maybe the uploader didn't know he/she could uncheck some images, and thus, not upload them. Epic Genius (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Good point Beeblebrox. It looks terrible for the project. That flag bikini one is such a low-quality photo that it's useless. Wikipedia is not a random collection of info and Commons should not be a random collection of photos. Wikimandia (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


I complained 2 and ½ years ago about Category:Women with wristwatches wearing bikinis . To see the resulting discussion, go to User_talk:Michael_Barera/archives/2013#Category:Women_with_wristwatches_wearing_bikinis ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have previously complained that Commons only has a tiny number of good quality glamour photographs of men compared to those of women, regardless of their type of beachwear. Correcting that imbalance would be an interesting "wiki-loves" project. As for "curating" hundreds of similar glamour shots of the same model, there's no harm in creating a batch deletion request based on their minimal educational, historical or cultural value.
Unless someone has some positive proposals for improving Commons content, this thread appears mostly sustained by folks with a large footprint on the English Wikipedia and a much smaller toe on this project (based on sampling a couple of global contribution stats). Please keep in mind that it is bad form to import English Wikipedia dramah to this project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Editors seem to have concerns about the unecessarily large number of titillating images of people and you are suggesting adding more? Is this an attempt at humour? Protopone primigena (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You created this account to write on Jimmy Wales' page about the Lightbreather case as your first edits, and your total of 2 edits on Commons are in this thread. If you expect a serious answer, then use a serious account rather than a throw-away sock. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It isn't me that you owe an explanation to. Protopone primigena (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Among the drama that tends to surround such issues, are serious questions about objectification of women and an apparent attempt to use the classification system to create a poor-man's fetish porn database. It would be helpful for those who are active on Commons to remember that this project was primarily set up as a common resource for Wikipedias (though of course it has a bigger goal than that) and that countless users who edit predominantly on a Wikipedia actively use Commons rather than actively edit on or upload to Commons. That doesn't make their opinions any less important to this project. It might help Common's serious problems attracting/retaining female contributors if it recognised it has a problem here, rather than, as Fæ exemplifies in his ad-hominem analysis/response, engage the typical Commons reaction of "Fuck off back to English Wikipedia" (or words to that effect). Hostility towards others because of what their global stats indicate as a home project should be as unwelcome on Commons as commenting on the gender, race or sexuality of a person in an argument. Can we please try to make "Commons" a place where all editors on Wikimedia projects are welcome. Editors should be free to express concerns about important, difficult and systemic problems without being told that unless they have concrete suggestions for change then we will dismiss those concerns along with those who raise them, and carry on pretending everything is tickety-boo. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin, please do not deride my viewpoint as "Fuck off back to English Wikipedia". I object to what might have been serious Commons discussion getting distorted by importing drama-du-jour directly from the English Wikipedia, and there is no reason to feed someone who is blatantly using sock accounts to manipulate discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the sockpuppet issue. I'm commenting on the fact that you analysed people's global usage stats in order to dispense with them. It would in fact be less offensive if you had simply told them to fuck off, rather than hide your attitude problem behind language that makes it appear you have some kind of valid point -- you don't. Simply dismissing this as "dramah" is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias with "more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder". See, it doesn't sound so nice to be dismissed like that. You know an ad-hominem when you see it, Fae, and this is lame. The bytes on this page cost nothing and if some people want to discuss an issue that doesn't interest you, let them do it in peace. It would be nice, for once, if someone had an intelligent thought on this matter. I don't have a clue how to solve it myself, but that doesn't mean I fail to recognise there's a problem on Commons in this area, or easily dismiss those whose feelings in this area are different/stronger than my own. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin, making apparent jokes or implicitly flaming me about me being gay and interested in LGBT material (a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder) puts you outside of acceptable discourse for Wikimedia projects. Describing any contributor as a "raging gay" is anti-gay language. I suggest you reflect carefully before writing anything like this again. --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Seriously Fae, that's twice in two days that you have completely misunderstood the context of an insult. The first, below in the discussion on Fotoriety, was an IP deliberately being shockingly offensive while pretending to be Fotoriety, yet you interpreted this as a Commons user "normalizing casual use of offensive anti-LGBT language on Wikimedia projects". The second, is the above text in quotes, and is an example of offensive attitude but certainly in no way my own attitude. And at the risk of comparing apples to oranges, your attitude towards Wikipedia editors is also offensive, verging on bigotry, and has no place on this project. This is my point, but you would rather stir up imagined slights than accept you might have a character flaw here. So we have two real offensive people (yourself and an IP) and not-actually offensive people (Fotoriety and myself). I reflect on my use of langauge and sleep well at night, thank you very much. Unlike you, I seem to be able to parse sentences and not come to the completely wrong interpretation half the time. Please take care to fully understand the context of any discussion before flying off the handle and accusing editors of "anti-gay language". Thank you. I suggest this section be closed, as the actual proper discussion seems to have stalled. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I created Category:Back-bend and Category:Kneeling with legs apart, but not any of the currently-existing gender-specific subcategories. Moving images from such subcategories into the gender-neutral parent might be desirable in some cases... AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg

There is a problem currently going on with this file. It is technically not the flag of the Finish Air Force, each squadron uses it as a template with their badge in the upper left corner. @Kwasura: therefore feels it should be marked as a fake and only categories in fictional subcats instead of it's long-standing Air Force Flags of Finland category. Can someone please deal with this? Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I may sound silly but how about discussing this properly with @Kwasura: ? Natuur12 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Natuur12: . With all do respect, reputable @Fry1989: ignored my last message being the one who was advocating keeping deliberately and intentionally incorrect, misleading and fantastic files. Why? And what now? They also will be restored to full the users? I just don't understand this... --Kwasura (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. At last we Talking. I am inviting more users from Finland to take part in this conversation. Not only @Kwasura: , but also @Msaynevirta: , @Motopark: and @Caselius: were participating in cleaning up the Category:Air Force flags of Finland from mistakes and vandalism. Now I am working on creation of the missing Finnish Air Force flags (one can read my talk page). Above mentioned category was perfectly fine until the conflicting file was restored on request of @AnonMoos: , who is blaming me in «refusal to use my knowledge to help fix any terminology problems», despite the fact that the request from him to do so was never occurred. Now some users advocating this file as a «template». Sort of «stars and stripes without the stars» for future artists to add whatever they want. But gentlemen, if you need a template - simply remove the badge from the existing file and you will get it. But what for? To create the missing flag I hope. But existing file is claiming to be the flag. The Finnish Air Force flag. Flag of what exactly, let me ask you? After the file was restored as a «template» I checked up the «flag template» in categories and find this and this and and much more. Forgive me, but I do hope that Category:Air Force flags of Finland will not be trashed this way and will stay militarily net. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This damn flag is driving me to insanity and I'm ready to wash my hands of the entire thing! It has been deleted, restored, fought over several times, and this mess wouldn't even exist if it weren't for some troll (I suspect to be WPK but who knows) created a bunch of fakes and dupes. Just do what you want then! Fry1989 eh? 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Fry1989: . And I am happy to clean this mess. Just need to convince @AnonMoos: and will be moving forward. --Kwasura (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kwasura -- It's very noticeable that you've never yet convinced anybody with knowledge of flags of the correctness of your position. (You seem to have worn Fry1989 down, as opposed to convincing him.) Furthermore, your second deletion attempt was problematic in several respects (not notifying any of the file uploaders to start with, which makes your reply to Natuur12 sound a little hypocritical). Why don't you read Carl Lindberg's comment of 02:51, 8 November 2015 at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive? -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Greetings. As a matter of fact I have read all the comments from all the parties involved. And I do respect the opinion of the reputable @Clindberg: , this is why I completed the search on the "flag templates" as I mentioned previously. The results wasn't pleasing for me as I found a lot of rubbish in the Category:SVG flags of the United States alone and was surprised, I must convince. I wasn't ready for it. However, I've learned that anyone can upload anything here and it will be as good as real thing as long as it's not properly attributed. I hope nobody really thinks that this flag is the real flag of the USA? But it certainly looks like it from the distance. And it takes to have a close look to see the difference, doesn't it? And it is the flag of the USA we are talking about. An internationally noticeable and recognised flag. Now can you say the same about the Finnish Air Force flags? FAF HQ flag(s) existed here for several years without anyone even noticing that something is wrong with them. And it took the combined effort of multiple users to clean the Category:Air Force flags of Finland from rubbish. And there was an opposition to this combined effort, and still is (this is why we are having this conversation here). It was said and voted that it is no reason to delete the fake files despite the very obvious facts. Lion and the roundel instead of the swastika, savage instead of the lynx, Liberty order instead of the Mannerheim cross, wrong colours, wrong borders, things that are missing or too much, what can be more obvious? All of it was pointed to and argumented, but @Kwasura: is still being blamed by the reputable @AnonMoos: for «the conspicuous failure to convince anyone other than himself» and «refusal to use his knowledge to help fix any terminology problems». Forgive me Sir for being naive or stupid, but I do not know what you are talking about. You are not talking to me about it so I can only guess. Yes, you are talking about me here and there, but why don't your participating in the research or failing to accept it's findings, if this case is so important to you? I honestly think you should. I do not think yet that you are trolling me, but I am sure as a daylight that you are misunderstanding my intentions or misinterpreting them. I am remaining calm and happy to start over again. But, please, do not resolve to pity «editing wars» as it will not fix anything. You happen to have all kind of names and blames for me, not inviting you to the deletion request is only one of them (thanks to reputable @Stefan2: for pointing on and fixing this oversight of mine). But be honest. Did you invited me on the undeletion request? It is time for us to start working together, not against each other. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Kwasura, when you nominate a file for deletion, consider clicking on the "nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox. This will largely automate the nomination process and ensures that everyone is notified properly. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Thank you very much. I will use your advice. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Kwasura -- Your attempted analogies with variants of the U.S. flag are completely useless and illuminate nothing with respect to File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg. Since you have played a conspicuously unconstructive and unhelpful role with regards to this image for several months now, my strong advice to you would be just to leave it the heck alone for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I am sensing a great deal of disrespect in all your manner. This indicates that you've lost it. You already lost it a long time ago. You have nothing to say. You don't want to listen. You don't want to see or read either. In fact, you don't even care about the FAF flags altogether. You probably don't know yourself why you still arguing. You have no case, you defending no truth, and you have total luck of enthusiasm towards the subject. It's all «yes, it is»; «no, it's not»; «because I like it» and «I want it this way» with you. These are all your arguments. You simply trolling me. I asked you not to start an «editing war» - and you doing the opposite. I invited you to take a part in the research so you can benefit from it - and you telling me «to leave it the heck alone». And I am a bad guy! :) Wow! How can you do it? Or who are you, Mr. AnonMoos, human or troll? Did someone hijacked your account and using your profile or you always like that? This is an «Administrators' noticeboard», so say something constructive, show as your sources, prove your point, make a contribution. «Leave it the heck alone» and «I like it this way» is not enough here. It is not an academical answer. It is just not enough. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if you hadn't played a strictly and purely negative role with respect to this file for several months -- only causing problems, and refusing to participate in any constructive attempt to find solutions -- then my attitude towards you wouldn't be so cynical at this point. AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Slander again and again. Nothing new. But i am pity you. Perhaps hypocrisy is your main feature. --Kwasura (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kwasura: you're creeping into personal attack territory but you're well and truly being uncivil. Just a shame Commons doesn't have a policy on using the project as a battleground. Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I am only defending myself. You want to take this right away from me? I am not the one who started this battle. But I am the one who want it to end as soon as possible. I don't like arguing, but I don't mind explaining things I know to people. If they care of course. Do you thing it's wrong? --Kwasura (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kwasura: Comments directed at you have been about your editing and combative style, not directed at you personally. Editing on WMF's projects is not a right, it is a privilege. Doesn't matter who started it, what matters is that your uncivil comments have nothing to do with the file in question and you've also edit warred (it's a wonder you haven't been blocked for it) on the file page. Time for you to drop the stick and walk away, or face being blocked from Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Forgive me, but I don't know who are you, how long you are following the conversation, how much are you informed about it's subtleties, nuances, and what makes you think that i am the one who need to be blocked for the assumed wrongdoings? Right or privilege - I have it as much as you I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not the one who started the dispute. I wouldn't call it the editing war yet, but editing the file with the reason as (rv nonsense) or (Nothing fictional about this flag) should not be allowed. This is not an explanation. This is not a proof. This is just a statement. Thus it is not enough. Please, don't be judgmental and take part in improving the category. But I have nothing to drop, and will appeal any discriminating or thoughtless decision. I know how to respect and how to be respected. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Could somebody explain why Finland would be using swastika's on it's military flags? Surely that isn't correct? Surely it is not true that every unit in their air force has it's own variant on a flag with a big fat swastika in the center of it? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is tagged with {{Fictitious flag/svg}}. It's unfortunate that we have to host fictitious flags with nazi symbols here, and there's plenty more. Somehow fictitious flags have gained fictitious educational status here... I guess there's not enough real flags to go around... INeverCry 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, INeverCry -- unfortunately, it is not a fictitious flag. The Finnish Air Force roundel from WW1 until after the end of WW2 was a blue swastika (obviously predating the rise of Nazism in 1933), and this is a relic of that. For another relic, see the yellow lines in File:Presidential Standard of Finland.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: , please, do not try to misinform people here. You well know (at least should by now) that the flag without the badge in the corner is not exist and never existed. All the references are provided for you to read and see for yourself gentlemen. --Kwasura (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow! Forgive me, @Beeblebrox: could somebody explain why something that is found pretty much everywhere on the globe since 10,000 BC is being attributed exclusively to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and it's dear leader Mr. Adolf Hitler? Surely something that existed 12 years can not spoil something that existed 12,000 years? Certainly not for the Hinduists, Buddhists, Latvians or Finns, who was using it long before the NSDAP was even created. Wikipedia's article Swastika is long, but very informative. But, if the are talking about the Finland, I kindly recommend to read this (aslo long, but leaving no more questions about «how can they?!»). @INeverCry: thank you! This is exactly what I am talking about. Different Wiki projects exist for the fictional history. Don't understand why such file need to be kept here? You are so right, «fictitious flags have gained fictitious educational status here...». It's about the time to start making changes, in my honest opinion. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that various other groups have used variations of it it in the past and continue to do so. What I find doubtful is that a European military force would use a swastika that looks exactly like the nazi swastika to represent themselves in the current era. And the references to it as "fictional" seem to back that up. I don't know why made up flags that don't exist need to be hosted anywhere but on a some sort of fansite for people who like making these things up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same as the Nazi swastika is tilted by 45 degrees whereas the Finnish swastika is not. There's an article about the Finnish swastika at sv:Finländsk svastika, but the article only seems to be available in Swedish. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: as I said before, mentioned symbol is European enough. Finns use it from 1918 and quite happy about it. Finnish Air Force flags are relatively new thing. First five were handed on the 4th of June 1958 by the President Urho Kekkonen, last one - on the 4th of October 2005 by the President Tarja Halonen. So the Finnish Air Force flags are quete new and certainly current. Now the "fiction", that I am talking about, is not in depicting a swastika on the FAF flags, but in not depicting the badge in the flag's corner. But without this badge flag can simply not be, because it will represent nothing. --Kwasura (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) @Stefan2: Can someone define me the "Nazi swastika"? Because tilted or not tilted makes not much difference. Germans used both.      . --Kwasura (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we get over the incredulity that a European country would ever dare use swastikas in an official capacity when we have known for years that this is real, and get back to the issue at hand? The Royal Air Force of the UK has 1 flag. The issue here is that the Finnish Air Force does not have 1 flag, each division has their own flag (based on a common template) with a badge on the corner. The question at hand is a incredibly simple one, should that blank template flag be hosted on Commons? Any other comments are irrelevant. Figure it out, but I'm tired of this fight. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm agree with @Fry1989: . Back to the point. Anyone who want to create the flag of the missing FAF subdivision can take this as a template. The file advocated as the Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem is useless and was deleted. --Kwasura (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Kawasura -- I'm entirely serious and quite earnest in recommending that you consider just leaving the file alone for a while. You've already been banging away at the file for several months, and in that time you've played a purely negativistic role, and haven't managed to accomplish anything productive or constructive or useful in the slightest degree. Maybe time for a little vacation? AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You trolling me. OK. Let's assume that I've "played a purely negativistic role, and haven't managed to accomplish anything productive or constructive or useful in the slightest degree", as you say. Fine. What is it that you did to establish the truth and clean up the category from rubbish? Anything? Show me. Because the last piece of nonsense is hanging here solely for you. Just because YOU want it to be there. Save it on your computer and have it then. --Kwasura (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, this is simply NOT a fictious flag according to any reasonable and accepted definition of "fictitious flag" ordinarily used on Commons. Maybe you should finally process this fact and deal with it in some manner which doesn't involve stirring up unneeded turbulence on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I very well know what I'm saying and what I'm doing. This is certainly NOT a "Finnish Air Force flag..." - Finnish Air Force doesn't have a flag (contrary to the RAF or the USAF). YOU want it to be a "Finnish Air Force flag..." thus encouraging an uninformed users to utilize this file as "the Finnish Air Force flag" (that's exactly what happened) misinforming everyone as a result. You don't see it of course, or you just don't care. But it's a time for you to start asking yourself what is it you are trying to achieve? --Kwasura (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Now you're pretty much just lying, since I specifically renamed the file from "Finland Air force.svg" to "File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg" for the express purpose of preventing inadvertent misunderstandings as to what the image represents. What I'm accomplishing is preventing you from deleting or messing up this image based on your strange personal misinterpretation of what a fictitious flag is. Since you've been banging away at this file for several months now, and haven't achieved anything, or really convinced anyone of anything, maybe it's time to step back, step outside, and take a deep breath? AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You are trying my patience again? Some more fresh accusations. No problem. I haven't got the right to warn or block you for such language, but maybe someone would. Let me enlighten you again, since you are the only person who still arguing here. Fact: this is not the "Flag of Finland Air force squadrons" and those are not "squadron emblems". So the question remains the same: what is it you are trying to achieve? 1. you are not creating the flag; 2. you are not creating the template (of either 1st or 2nd type); 3. you are not created the original file; 4. you simple defending someones mistake (note: you, not the creator of the original file). For whatever reason you are doing it - it does'n help at all. Where exactly were you planed to use this file since it represents nothing? Think again or "step back, step outside, and take a deep breath" :D --Kwasura (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

pub

someone can look https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giftsbymeetas bye --Chatsam (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done I warned the user two days ago, but Giftsbymeetas uploaded still a copyright violation and I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

El Golli Mohamed

Hi,

I request your intervention to a call to order, possibly with the prohibition of voting power on El Golli Mohamed. After an impartial negative vote of @Cccefalon: a potential image quality, El Golli Mohamed turned against him by opposing all candidates:

Seeing the images we can easily see that this is revenge ... Thank you for the consideration. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  Info Informed user. --★ Poké95 12:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And the FPC-Sockpuppet User:Fotoriety please also. --2003:88:6A13:5644:EC4A:3BE5:7472:6FB6 13:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: It pursues the same actions again just now :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=179463104
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=179463228
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=179463457
We could quickly make a momentary blockage time to discuss these facts? --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact I just realized that it challenges or opposes all those who had a negative opinion on any of these images. These are done totally unacceptable. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Medium69: and @Pokéfan95: and @Cccefalon: Mohamed Gouli is a new user from Tunisia,he hase QI and birds photographers , I think we need to help him and talk with him but block him not the solution he can help in Reviewing QI please let me know, if I should to call him to explain a few points, I think we need to change the policy of reviewing QI, as an example, only users has more than 50 QI review images --Touzrimounir (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not there. He opposed on ALL images Cccefalon revenge, which is unacceptable. From there the air to have calmed down, but for me, I keep an eye on. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Fotoriety

Ellin Beltz, could you please specify why you blocked Fotoriety? OK, an anonymous IP claimed that Fotoriety is a sockpuppet of El Golli Mohamed, but this is in fact neither confirmed by CU nor (as far as I can see) any plausible assumption whatsoever. And I fail to see any policy that prohibits user accounts to participate only in FP candidates. On the other hand, given the fact that Fotoriety is rather harsh reviewer, we perhaps should not discourage them, as we all know that there are also numerous reviewers who are just too lax (especially concerning nominations by their "friends") and so we have the problem that FP is being overflooded by pictures which actually are "some better than average" rather than "the very best of Commons". --A.Savin 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@A.Savin I blocked the account because it was only used to make negative votes and remarks. Any non-trolling reviewer would have had at least a few images about which they could be neutral or even positive. But to be negative all the time shows troll at work. Perhaps my comment "obvious socking" should have read "obvious trolling" instead. I reviewed the account and found that it was only in use for negative voting. I did not analyze those negative votes to see if they influenced any actions or biased in favor or against any particular user. Please see User_talk:Fotoriety's unblock request to see the types of interactions found acceptable by this user. I don't think "harsh" begins to cover it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin, Fotoriety's voting pattern/style was discussed at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 15#May single purpose accounts be allowed for voting?. But I'd say that conversation was more provoked by Wladyslaw being upset rather than that the oppose vote he got was undeserved. At the time I looked at his contribution log and found a handful of supports, a lot of comments-without-votes and a lot of oppose votes. But it must be remembered that FPC at any one time has dozens of nominations and Fotoriety only opposed a few of them. If he'd gone through the list opposing everything, or was particularly unfair in his opposition, then I'd be more worried. Lots of FPC reviewers only ever support (though thankfully they don't support everything) and there's plenty human-nature reasons why people do that even though it isn't nearly as helpful as if people do oppose also from time to time. Fotoriety always gives a rational reason for oppose, and does seem to avoid the worst kind of pixel-peeping opposes we sometimes see with some reviewers. Fotoriety has sometimes made personal attacks and clearly reacted angrily to your block, making remarks that aren't acceptable. I think, though, to be blocked out-of-the-blue after three years of contributing to FPC would provoke a WTF reaction. Fotoriety voted twice this month, so I don't see why an immediate block was justified rather than opening a discussion with the user and/or other FPC-forum regulars. So, while I think his comments in the unblock request deserve an apology, I also think the block seems quite unjustified (unless some other evidence comes to light) and it too deserves an retraction and apology. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I can´t see anything good with the work of Fotoriety, he is obviously here just in times when he has a bad mood looking for a valve. This is destructive, in my view, otherwise you can not rate and understand his contributions. This is not that sort of peaceful cooperation in the project volunteers need an want, it`s rather counterproductive. It's always the same when pressing busybody, this is wellknown from Wikipedia very well. --Hubertl 09:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you two clashed at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hasht Behesht, Detail of the dome by Pascal Coste.jpg. Aside from the insults and speculation about his mood, do you have anything concrete to give as evidence that this user must be banned from the project for opposing a handful of images each month. Is there a pattern of opposing images with reasons that are clearly groundless, or of picking on certain nominators? If the votes are well-grounded, what it is your business how Fotoriety spends his time on Commons? I've opposed more FPCs in one day that Fotoriety generally does in a month. So really, where are the grounds for a block without community discussion. FPC needs oppose votes just as much as it needs support votes. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We can of course be fair and leave Fotoriety blocked, but then also block all the "support-only" FPC protagonists who damage the FP project with their lax reviewing. For example, we have two users there, let's name them R. and H., who are also friends IRL. User R. often nominates his own photos on FPC, and user H. supports every single nomination of him, regardless of the real quality and wow of the nominated picture. So then, in order not to have double standards here, we should also block H. for one month. But I think it is nonetheless better for us not to block anyone in this issue and to unblock Fotoriety. Fotoriety is eligible to vote on FPC and their comments are mostly plausible and do not provide any impression of personally motivated voting. It is their right to participate only in nominations where they have to oppose. Some people may find their reviews too harsh, but it is no problem for the FP project (rather on the contrary). --A.Savin 12:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have carefully observed his contributions. Block this user is absurd, if this user is blocked Colin should also be blocked. The well-founded negative votes are what help to evolve the quality of the section. This user should be rewarded, not blocked. --The Photographer (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with the blocking of Fotoriety. First, for formal reasons: nothing in FPC (or Commons) rules prevents an editor from opposing most nominations. And second because, as The Photographer said above, opposing votes have a positive effect on the overall quality of the nominations, provided they have a rationale (which is usually the case of Fotoriety's votes). I also used to oppose a lot at FPC and I wonder why I wasn't blocked for it! Please correct the obvious mistake and unblock the user with apologies... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I find this very confusing. Is there a single vote by Fotoriety that can be described as unfounded? I only see two votes by him in the current list of FPs, and both are not the first opposes on the respective picture, both include a reason and both seem fair and reasonable (whether or not you agree with them). What he does is not only within the rules, it's actually a positive contribution. In any voting process, reducing the number of promotions cannot be inherently less valuable than increasing it, as both are necessary. — Julian H.✈ 13:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I unblocked Fotoriety as per the opinions of A.Savin, Colin, The Photographer, Alvesgaspar, and Julian H. above. Further issues should be discussed on Fotoriety's talk page, and/or on COM:AN/U. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. I do not disagree with you on the unblock. Please see this diff where an apology was given and also a request for chill time. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators should take care to apply Blocking policy as stated, or to discuss "edge" cases where soft terms like "hostile environment for another user" are being interpreted to apply to votes which are probably not targeted at anyone specifically. If some good new types of block scenario arise, it would be smart to propose these are added to the list in the policy.

This is not a good case to hang a precedent on for reasons expressed above by others. However I would like to highlight that using "faggy little wanker" (diff) even when not directed at other editors, is not acceptable as it risks normalizing casual use of offensive anti-LGBT language on Wikimedia projects. If further actions are taken on this account, it would be healthy to see that this is made unambiguously clear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ellin, do we have any evidence that the IP editing his page is actually Fotoriety? The comments look very much like someone taking the piss out of both Ellin and Fotoriety. If it really is him, the admission that "I have a shitload of socks here and on Wikipedia" is enough to restore the block permanently. I thought a blocked user could edit their own page unless that was specifically locked down due to abuse. User:RP88, does your protection allow the real Fotoriety user to edit his page? So I'd rather hear directly from this account than some random IP before concluding anything. I totally agree with Fæ that "offensive anti-LGBT language on Wikimedia projects" is unacceptable. If this is Fotoriety, he's got some explaining to do. -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I am certain the IP edits mentioned by Ellin and Fae were not by Fotoriety. Those edits were from some joker editing via IP addresses of open proxies routinely used for forum spam. At no time did I block Fotoriety, he was, and still is, able to edit his talk page using his own account. The only block I applied was a 24-hour block on IP edits to Fotoriety's talk page, since the IP editor was just hopping from one proxy to the next. —RP88 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting the potential for this being a Joe job. For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if Fotoriety could confirm whether the logged out edits were theirs. Joe jobs are highly disruptive, and I sympathize with anyone targeted this way. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I'd like to thank every level-headed, intelligent person above who supported my unblocking , especially Colin, Julian, A.Savin, Alvesgaspar, The Photographer and Yann; i was just as flabbergasted as some of you. Also, i would like an apology from Ellin Beltz, not only to show that she is truly sorry but also to show that she has acknowledged, symbolically, that she accepts and has learnt from her erroneous way. (I too am sorry if my language caused offense.) Lastly, i strongly condemn whoever made those IP edits discussed above. It could be a sore loser involved with this whole blocking saga, or it could just be a troll, but it certainly isn't me. Thanks.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone: @RP88I appreciate the suggestion about the possibility of a "Joe job". Thank you Fæ for pointing out that the language on talk page posts was disturbing and for sympathy for anyone targeted by computer trolling. Thank you Yann again (as above) for the unblock and the caution to Fotoriety about personal remarks/attacks on the unblock on the latter's talk page. The new statement Ellin Beltz should be strongly reprimanded for her reckless, high-handed unilateral action which was made at the very least under severe incompetence and at worst under malicious intent is missingCOM:AGF ,diff. I have no way to know who created the offline message/s, but the foregoing appears to have been created by the user. I do not see confirmation about the logged out posts yet. My concern about harshness continues. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, i have issued an apology; now, will you return the courtesy?--Fotoriety (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Fotoriety, I do not see any apology for the comment quoted above, would you be so kind as to provide a link? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, I worry for the implications of this response; i will be on alert.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

User:SourabhSyal1

Almost all of SourabhSyal1's uploads are picked up from https://mylordshiva.wordpress.com/. The site does not give credit to SourabhSyal1 as creator as claimed. The blog copies copyrighted images like [10]. Request mass deletion of all files uploaded by the user.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gurumayum Arvind

This user didn't learn from blocking and reuploads previously deleted copyvios. Please check. -- Ies (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done by EugeneZelenko. Alan (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Colin's use of anti-LGBT language

Colin's use of anti-LGBT language as an ad hominim attack in the above thread is unacceptable and a breach of the Wikimedia terms of use for the projects. The relevant text was:

diff
"more dramah from an editor who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder"

Anti-LGBT language which turns "gay" into a word of abuse, makes this project a hostile environment for LGBT contributors. The excuse that this was wrapped as a hypothetical personal attack is ridiculous. If this is wiki-lawyered away as acceptable, then any racist, homophobic or misogynist attack can be posted and simply "hidden" as a hypothetical attack. Rather than accepting the opportunity to recognize his language in the thread was a problem, Colin has replied by labelling me a bigot diff.

I ask that administrator action be considered as Colin is unable to meet the Wikimedia terms of use or refrain from using hostile anti-LGBT language.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if Colin’s wording were completely unproblematic, it would still be some sort of criticism against Fæ’s contributions. In that spitit, I suggest that interested parties peruse these two links:
…and remember, to point and laugh is rude and mean. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Although Colin framed this phrase via apophasis, rather than stating it directly, it is still entirely inappropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Clearly a global block is required for breaching "Wikimedia terms of use". Fae is playing games. Tuválkin doesn't seem to understand that Special:Contributions means diddly squat. And Jmabel wants to show off the word "apophasis" doesn't actually understand what it means. The three of you are a good example of bad faith. Tell me, is it acceptable to dismiss a person's argument because their main WMF project is a Wikipedia rather than Commons? I gave an example of an offensive ad hominem attack in order to explain Fae's offensive ad hominem attack. In other news: the people on your TV are not actually tiny and trapped inside the box. Get real folks. -- Colin (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin: I used the word apophasis entirely correctly; it's exactly what you've done. (And, no, I didn't use the word to show off, I used it because it's the right word; anti-intellectualism is a pretty weird attitude to bring to building an encyclopedia.) You framed a nasty personal attack by saying "as if someone responded" thereby distancing yourself from the words. If you didn't mean it as a personal attack yourself, you could have said, "as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias by attacking your sexuality" or some such. But you didn't. You worded it in such a way that you could work in "raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder". If you didn't intend this to insult Fæ, you picked your words terribly. And if you did intend it that way, you are violating the terms of use, though I would by no means advocate any sanctions if you'll just recognize what you did and knock it off. At best, you owe him an apology. At worst... I don't particularly want to go there. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You're making a leap of logic to assume that just because Colin gave an example of a hypothetical ad hominem attack on Fae that was an equivalent attack to what Fae had given to someone else, that therefore it was a nasty personal attack on Fae himself. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with holding a mirror to someone and framing a point in a way that resonates with them. In this case, I honestly don't believe Colin was actually attacking Fae's sexuality at all - it seems to me that he was simply saying "how would you like it if someone used your sexuality as a weapon to attack you?". That's completely different to actually initiating a personal attack on them. Yes, sometimes it's hard to know for sure what the intention was and it is possible to disguise a genuine personal attack in that way, but I know Colin well enough to know he's not homophobic or bigoted and wouldn't stoop as low as to attack someone via their sexuality. I know LGBT issues can be sensitive subjects, but sometimes people are too quick to assume anti-LGBT sentiment when it isn't actually the case. Diliff (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Such issues should never be taken into account. Giving examples of discrimination may be a good smart way to discriminate. Unfortunately this community is fast becoming something toxic. Gays are the majority and we should behave in the best way with us. I know Colin, I know the feelings of Colin and I know how difficult it can be. However, anything that Colin has said, I'm sure he did not want to say that. This environment has been broken from the moment in which an external entity to the community began to create internal mechanisms to separate the community, this is just a result of many things. Colin I invite you to leave the matter aside, and regardless of what you wanted to say to apologize to Fae. Gradually, many here have created a vice to such offenses, a vice to be right, a generator ego vice rings that prevent individual evolution. --The Photographer (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fae: I don't think that this is really something that needs sanctions, though Colin should probably apologize for offending you. He was specifically and explicitly saying "is as unhelpful and insulting as if someone responded to one of your concerns about sexuality-bias with..." ... it was rather obviously a meant as an example of something that would be grossly unacceptable. @Colin: You need, IMO, a hefty trout, for not realizing that it was a rather bad idea to give an 'example' like that... I think a bit of reflection would have shown that it would probably be offensive, and you should probably give Fae an apology. Like Jmabel said above, "If you didn't intend this to insult Fæ, you picked your words terribly." I'm closing this because arguing about it would be nonproductive, and any apology, if given, should be on a personal talk page. Revent (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

94.3.164.161 and bulk category changes

Bulk manual edits to replace the more specific "trucks by year" categories with the less specific "automobiles by year" cats, e.g. [11]. No response when asked to discuss this at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gattolio9998

Despite repeated warnings, Gattolio9998 continues uploading images from many web pages, without the slightest respect for copyright. It is not the first time he does and has received many warnings. I ask the administrator who attend this request to consider the application of a block. Regards, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sort by name of files

 

I need to sort the file list of uploads by a name, not by the date. Who can add a configuration? --Cherus (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cherus, I'm trying to understand this. In other words, a full list of all files in alphabetical order by filename? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
See image. --Cherus (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe the OP is referring to the listing at Special:AllMyUploads, which I don’t believe is sortable. About all I can think of as an on-wiki workaround, @Cherus, is to create a user category for your uploads, which will sort alphabetically, and where you can also use your own system of sort-keys if you wish. If I, too, fail to understand the question, please clarify.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It is sortable, but only by the date column: You can click it to toggl the sorting order: ascending or descending. The OP asks for the same to be implemented in the other columns — which seems to be a reasonable expectation. As said, though, this is something for Mediawiki to consider. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The prefixes in the categoriesǃ

We know that in the categories of downloaded files are placed and sorted alphabetically, but some files at the beginning of names have a prefix (Ru, De, Kz, etc.). We must to add in the settings of that categorization the automatic exclusion consoles for separating files alphabetically without those prefixes. Also, at the tag PAGENAME needs to provide same adds for the removal of that extensions and attachments. For exampleː FileːRu-leave name.ogg --> PAGENAME show all of this name, but(ǃ) if it possible, to program in the PAGENAME|FileːRu-leave name.ogg, it would be great for everyone. --Cherus (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This board isn’t the best place to ask such questions; it’s supposed to be for problems with user conduct. MediaWiki software issues are altogether beyond the purview of this site, although there are knowledgeable users who follow the Village Pump and Help Desk noticeboards, and may have suggestions of how to use the available features or to request improvements at mw:Phabricator, where the developers hang out.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

̈ Ok. Thanks --Cherus (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OmarJCo sockpuppet of AlezPrinzJC

I propose to indef-block OmarJCo (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of AlezPrinzJC (talk · contribs) for re-uploading previously deleted copyvios. When patroling recent uploads, at first I found only some of OmarJCo's uploads to be clear copyvios, though I wondered about a large number of images showing a (sort of) still-life of fruit/food to which something looking like sperm (cum) had been added. Only thereafter I stumbled over AlezPrinzJC who had previously uploaded the same images, which had been identified and deleted as copyvios by other colleagues. When comparing AlezPrinzJC's upload File:Tomatoes-banana-cream-OJC.jpg with OmarJCo's upload File:Omajuiccoc-tomatoes-w-banana-cream-OJF.jpg I found the reason why Google-images didn't find the latter, the user had simply flipped the image. So, there is clear intend by OmarJCo to ignore copyright. Other opinions or objections? --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done I blocked both users as vandalism only accounts. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

VI criteria not being properly applied

@Charlesjsharp: , @Archaeodontosaurus: , @Ercé: , @Medium69:

I have been trying to persuade a group of editors, four of whom are named above, that they are disregarding Valued image criteria #4.2 when they should be following it. That criteria states "There should be a full and informative description of what the image depicts, along with any relevant auxiliary information. Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification." The editors concerned argue that the links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) are optional. Only one of the editors concerned uses English as a mother tongue so I am prepared to accept that they have misunderstood the word "should".

Since three the editors that I named are French (part of Projet Phoebus) and I do not speak French, I tried the following experiment:

I entered the sentence "Children should go to school" into Google Translate. It gave the French translation "Les enfants doivent aller à l'école". I then used the same program to translate the French sentence back into English and I got " Children must go to school". In my view (as a native English speaker), this is nearly correct. My own explanation of the difference is: "If the word "prohibit scores 0%, the word "optional" scores 50% and the word "mandatory" scores 100%, then the word "should" scores 98%".

Specific areas where this problem has arisen:

Will an administrator whose mother tongue is English please confirm my analysis of the word "should" in the above context is correct, that my interpretation of Valued image criteria #4.2 is correct and caution the editors concerned about misapplying the VI rules and remind them that in misapplying the rules they are devaluing the award. Martinvl (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

4.2. Doit y figurer une description complète et informative de ce que l'image représente, ainsi que toute information additionnelle pertinente. Les descriptions multilingues doivent utiliser le modèle multilingue approprié, par exemple : |description={{da|Denne beskrivelse er på dansk.}}. Une description en anglais est préférée, mais non essentielle.
There is absolutely no mention of the obligation of a wikilink. The links references for images has never been a mandatory requirement.
Martinvl abuse clearly a rule that does not exist. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with the Valued Image policy and customs, so I can't really help resolve this issue. However, I think I've noticed the origin of the policy confusion. The "Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification" sentence in section 4.2 was added to the English policy page with this edit after this this proposal earlier this year. Unfortunately it appears the French version of the policy page was not updated to match the English version. —RP88 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the wrong way round. Mastinvl had no authority to add that edit and it should be reverted. He made the proposal that you refer to above, but there was no discussion on it and no consensus. @Martinvl: Please remove your edit. Charles (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • English is my mother tongue and if Martinvl had had the courtesy to ask me I would have told him that in English we use MUST when it is compulsory, SHOULD when it is only expected. Try looking at the Oxford Dictionary, not Google. We are all trying to improve Wikimedia by nominating images - in my case, photos I have taken myself, researched and carefully categorized. If I don't like another nomination I say so (probably upsetting people along the way - sorry Medium69). I know that some editors (more on QI candidates) just wave through images so they can win friends and get their own stuff promoted. I don't. Wikimedia Commons VI process would work a lot better without an interfering busybody making everyone else's life a misery. In future I intend to ignore Martinvl's contributions as if they weren't there. Charles (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I reverted the changes made by Martinvl on Commons:Valued image criteria, as the regulars have never heard about this change. No answer is not a consensus, no one has approved this change. I advice you @Martinvl: to not make any other change on rules without the approval of the community or it will be considered as vandalism. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Was it your intention to leave the "Links to Wikipedia..." sentence in section 4.2? The reason I ask is that your second undo actually added it back. Also, are you sure you actually want to remove his second change? That proposed change did appear to receive some discussion on the talk page. —RP88 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks indeed, my point was the links. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Though the other change have also not been discussed here by the regulars of the project. I put a notice on this talk page with a link, but maybe it should be better to redirect one with the other. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand better ... so @Martinvl: to change the rules for VI without referring to the community. This is much more serious than just his opposition to the vote. That alone and his current behavior deserves punishment in my opinion. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: You are mistaken - I did consult the community here, but nobody seemed interested. Now will you please undo your changes.
You are the sole author of this. No survey was made. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Or in other words. Argumentum ex silentio. Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Medium69: Will you please now apologize for your improper accusation? Martinvl (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Instead, I will monitor all your contributions and report you to your next actions. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Martinvl You changed the rules without the consent of the community, you now make a trial to the regular folks of the project for a rule they do not have approved, and they are perhaps even unaware. You make lose time to every one. I blocked you for vandalism and disruption for a duration of two weeks. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing against you @DeFacto: but try to change the rules in QI, VI or FP projects without the consent (long discussions, votes...) of the whole community and you will see what is vandalism and how it is solved. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: thanks, I defer to your experience and wisdom here, but the judgement did seem harsh to me. DeFacto (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And your humanity honor yourself, really, but honestly I don't think there is another solution, look at his last comment before the block...no really, no, he would have not understood by discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: The rules were established in April 2008. On January 31, 2015, on page dicsussion of rules, he submits a new rule. 48 hours later, it changes this rule. And there, for several days, he puts forward a rule that arbitrarily created by opposing the community.
If I had been a admin, I can guarantee you that the punishment would have been much heavier. I find instead that the sentence is very lenient given the gravity of these facts. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 21:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Medium69: thanks for the clarification. I have only been interested in VI since the end of August 2015 and did not know the history or the procedures or the multi-lingual rules. I now understand your anger. DeFacto (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Motopark

User User:Motopark has marked my own work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ovido_orange.png for deletion because "Genehmigung des Urhebers bzw. Rechteinhabers fehlt". --DerPetzi (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have answered in your talk page and see history who has started deletion request--Motopark (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerPetzi: File:Ovido orange.png is not your own work, because it is a logo. It is impossible you make that. ★ Poké95 09:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Really? It is impossible? Wow, are you a clairvoyant Why do you refuse my skills? A note for you: This is a registered trademark own by myself. Anyway, you can delete all stuff I've uploaded ever. --DerPetzi (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerPetzi: Then how can you prove that you own that logo? Everyone can say they own Coca-Cola, or maybe Minecraft, but of course I (and also others) will not believe them. Anyway, that is not the issue now, but the issue is that File:Ovido orange.png is unused, and because it is unused, it is non-notable. It may be deleted due to being unnotable. If you want the logo that you are saying yours to be kept, then create an article at Wikipedia and explain there why it is notable. You should also provide sources of it.
Also, I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete images. ★ Poké95 09:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And also please note that you cannot advertise here. See COM:ADVERT. ★ Poké95 09:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Kartiktiwary

Kartiktiwary (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for persistent copyright violations (over 40 incidents since July – see en:User talk:Kartiktiwary). He's now using Commons to upload images deleted as copyvios on Wikipedia, and apparently using a sockpuppet account Kritaksh (talk · contribs) to reinsert them in Wikipedia articles (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kartiktiwary).

Could an administrator please block both accounts here and nuke their recent uploads here? At least File:Rihand Dam.jpg and File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg were both judged copyvios on English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 13#File:Rihand Dam.jpg and en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 18#File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg). —Psychonaut (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  Not done Some uploads have even OTRS-permission. The "sock" has not made any edits. Sockpuppet investigation in en.wiki has not finished. Nevertheless, I delete two mentioned files. Feel free to nominate some other uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: Both accounts are now blocked on English Wikipedia for copyright violations and CU-confirmed sockpuppetry. If you still aren't going to block the accounts here, I suggest you keep a close eye on them. Kartiktiwary's already had at least eleven of his uploads here deleted as copyvios. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked both accounts. As Taivo notes, Kritaksh hasn't edited here, but the CU-confirmed link means that any edits by that account will necessarily be a case of block evasion, which our policies here prohibit. Kartiktiwary has a significant history of copyvio uploads here, so I've given a {{Copyviouploadindefblock}} and deleted all of his uploads except for the ones with OTRS permission. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Overcategorization

I really don't think there's any such thing as Category:Cuisine of Maryland, Virginia, etc. but [12] this contributions list shows some serious overcategorization at work. For another example, I don't see the Mountain Dew in every one these photos at Category:Mountain Dew and these kinds of situations in many other categories. Also the soda is now listed as Southern cuisine when it is a national product. Help please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Tangent about contextualization
Funny how some first impressions turn out to be right. I voted neutral for Ellin Beltz’s adminship (that was before I stopped voting in RfAs, as the process is obviously rigged) on a tentative suspicion that, in spite of her obvious qualities, there might be a tad of US-centrism clouding her outlook. A couple years later and now even upper in the ranks, and yet we still have the same parochiality:
  • Southern? You mean like in Antartica?
  • National? Of which nation?
  • Maryland — which one? The US state or the Liberian province?
…and so on. Please, Ellin, try to think internationally in an international project. The above would be just fine if you titled it "Overcategorization of US food and drinks" instead — context is key. This might seem a petty detail for you, but it is a huge deal for many of us. Thank you. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud Tuvalkin, get off your high horse. You knew damn well what they meant, that's all that matters. How about you actually try to solve the problem? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
When one single country / culture / language is systematicly assumed to be the only one that really counts, the standard default, the measuring rod for all else, “foreing” people (like me and most Common’s users) feel marginalized by the oblivious, previledged minority — and that’s anything but a high horse: A short pony, maybe?… (And thus, no, I cannot help here, I have no idea about US cuisine. That’s why I labelled this a tangent.)
Your reaction, Mattbuck, is typical: You and Ellin are nice, cool, people (you are!), how could you ever be supressive or triggering or unwelcoming? Yet, that’s how it works — priviledge in general (and priviledge is intersectional), and especially language priviledge: It was like that (or even worse) with French till 100 years ago, and it is going to be like that (or even worse) with the next new thing a few decades from now (and you guys will then learn this is something serious, if we live that long).
But while purely language previledge is unavoidable here (we use English for commodity, not for identity, but it works the same exact way in practice), you could ditch aside country / culture previledge, by simply cutting off any assumptions and, at the very least, contextualizing your references. That’s all I ask — and remember that most people who feel this is a real problem are those who are uncapable of expressing it in detail.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, I've taken a quick look at the Maryland one, and I think it's a legitimate attempt to bring all food related topics for Maryland under the same category. It may need renaming, but I don't see a particular problem with its existence. Certain places do have their specific dishes - for instance the Cornish Pastie, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie, Champagne, etc. Maybe exported around the world, but no doubt the cuisine of that particular place.
I did remove "Dumplings of Canada" and "Dumplings of the United States" (what?) from Chicken and dumplings. But generally I don't see a particular problem with the categorisation - the issues seem marginal at best, and I think it's fair to say the South has a distinct cuisine. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well one of the pies I baked in California (USA) from a Pennsylvania/New Jersey (Native American, USA) family recipe which dates back over 250 years, was moved into "Southern Cuisine" and I fail to see how that could happen. There is no lock on "Southern" for old United States foods, many of them were universal in all the original 13 United States (even in colonial times). I think categorizing by U.S. state is way too small of a categorization, especially for the tiny ones back on the Eastern sea board of the U.S. Another problem is that Maryland is not a Southern state (not even in the U.S. Civil War), so I fail to see why its cuisine would be considered "Southern" although this Cuisines of Maryland page leads to Category:Cuisine of the Southern United States. There's a lot of that fine detail gone wrong in this scheme. Same for the various soft-drinks which have now been assigned as "cuisine" of various areas and don't seem like cuisine at all, nor - as national brands - are they "localized" to area at all. I think the biggest problem is that cuisine in the U.S. is a national item and dividing it into southern and northern is not accurate or helpful to the end users. Look at the huge mess in Southern Cuisine category to see what I mean. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, FWIW, the US Census Bureau lists Maryland in the Southern Region (per this). That is grounds for considering it to be southern. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Maryland was a slave state in 1860, and its state song is devoted to hatred of Abraham Lincoln!   It didn't go Confederate in the civil war mainly because that would have been equivalent to the North giving up Washington D.C. and the Chesapeake Bay AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

indefinitely blocked?

I ask one user become indefinitely blocked. Experienced administrators are welcome there. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like QI, FP, and VI attract way more drama than other areas of our work here in Commons. Maybe the matter should be addressed as a whole? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I hope than a 2-weeks block is enough. When not distruptive, Martinvl is able to be a fruitful contributor. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. When someone publicly proposes a change, and nobody offers input, it's entirely reasonable to make the change, and nobody has any business sanctioning the user. This is nowhere close to vandalism, disruption, or anything else problematic, and your indefinite block without warning and without discussion makes me question whether you should be exercising the block button. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: FWIW, Martinvl was not indefinitely blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and I'm sorry. Somehow I thought Christian had indefinitely blocked Martin, and you'd reduced it (i.e. this was a request to re-indef him); I don't know how I misread things. I still hold my opinion about the thorough impropriety of any block in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
But Nyttend, Commons:Blocking_policy#After_blocking demands "Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." Here I didn't see a consensus for your lift which may be a or one of the reason for Christian's move to file a resignation. Anyway, it is withdrawn now. Please double check the polices and practices, especially policing new admin's actions. Earlier I saw one very senior admin call him "newby admin" which is also very bad. Jee 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If you wish me to re-block, I will so do, and immediately afterward begin a Commons:Administrators/De-adminship request for Christian Ferrer. This is a gross abuse of power, worse than anything I have ever seen at Wikipedia and anything else I have ever seen here; if it must stand, the abuser must not retain rights. Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Your behavior here is not okay. Please read COM:AGF and COM:MELLOW. Please be kind to other users - other users are humane beings as well. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: , I can understand; you're mixing EN and Commons policies. They are different in many aspects. This is a common problem for many EN admins here. BTW, a de-admin request here need previous discussion on the user's talk page and later consensus on this ANU page. Do you know this? Jee 16:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right in saying that I shouldn't have made this unblock. I'm sorry, as I hadn't remembered that part; I wouldn't again do it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend for this heartily acknowledgement. Hope this discussion is over and can be closed. Good luck, all of you, in your future activities! Jee 02:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Take it easy. There was support for this block and this is not even close of being one of the worst blocks ever at Commons. The situation can be discussed and there is no need to threaten with a de-admin. The ussage of argumentum ad baculum should be avoided at any time. We are all human and we can resolve this with talking it over and evaluating the arguments provided in the various discussions. Even if the block is bad, everyone makes blocks sooner or later. (My own bad block counter is 2 or 3 depending on who you ask for example). Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, I agree with Natuur12, Steinsplitter and Jkadavoor. We all only humen. Please assume good faith. And, yes Commons blocking policy is very different from wikipedia blocking policy. -- Geagea (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My point of view is always the same, asking for a change rule in an inactive talk page (at least since 2 years), doing the change just after 2 days with no answer (not a even a single ping to the colleagues), 8 month later making a trial (this is the worst), in the user noticeboard problem, regarding the colleagues of the project who are not even aware of this new rule, is rather disturbing. If the reasons (vandalism, falsification) are not good, I'm sorry, but disrupting behavior, there is, at least against the other colleagues of the project. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    My point of view is in line with Nyttend. With all due respect, this was an awful block. No warning? No bringing the issue to the noticeboard? No discussion at all? And no unblock after a request? You've got to be kidding. I have no desire to hate on CF (goodness knows I've had my own issues) but I have to call a spade a spade. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Magog the Ogre, nobody said it is a good block. That's why nobody asked to restore it. But it is not the worst block in Commons (as Natuur12 commented above) for admins to edit-war on it. Glad to see you mentioned the previous incident you involved. :) And we lost Fastily in that case. Jee 02:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think, then, that Nyttend probably should have gotten consensus first before the unblock. But given that we agree the consensus would have been given, it is my opinion that we should just ask Nyttend to seek it in the future and not belabor the point (in line with the spirit of w:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed; that's why I just pointed the prevailing policies to him! :) And he seems acknowledged. Jee 03:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

68.64.170.74

That anonymous user continues to create pages that are out of scope even though they are already warned. Example of the pages this user created is Category talk:1893. I suggest to block that IP for one day. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. Pages deleted. Yann (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bwag

Bwag continues reverting the image description of File:Wien - Westbahnhof, Migranten am 5 Sep 2015.JPG. The words in dispute are "illegal, jedoch von der Staatsgewalt toleriert" (="illegal but tolerated by the government"). This phrase is highly pov and furthermore even wrong (the refugees didn't migrate illegally, they eben can't do this because trying to seek asylum is a human right granted amongst others by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Austrian federal laws). Or in short: These people aren´t illegal immigrants but refugees. I explained this to the user but he still reverts my edit (see [13]). Apart from that, he changes the term "refugees" to "migrants" in the English part of the description. This is a factual error, too, because there is a difference between migration and asylum seeking. In addition he also insists in using the historic term "Völkerwanderung" ("emigration of nations") that scientifically is used for the period in late ancient Europe when Celtic and Germanic tribes migrated into several provinces of the Roman empire. You can´t use this term to describe the current European refugee crisis simply said because it is not an emigration of whole nations. Also the cirumstances and backgrounds are completely different. In connection to the refugee crisis this term is mostly used in a populist far-right meaning. I ask to stop Bwag´s obviously politically intented edit war and to ensure a npov file description.. Chaddy (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Reverted and warned. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"This phrase is highly pov ..." no, compare, see: Dubliner Übereinkommen. -- Bwag (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Your link is wrong. Actually this one is the right one: de:Verordnung (EU) Nr. 604/2013 (Dublin III). But I already told you that Dublin is intergovernmental. It regulates which country is responsible for the application. Single persons can´t infringe this regulation. Chaddy (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Zoltán Kovács: "Erstens sind diese Leute illegale Migranten, ...." und "Weil deutsche und österreichische Meinungsmacher den Eindruck erweckt haben, dass alle Flüchtlinge willkommen sind, lehnen diese Leute zunehmend die Kooperation mit den Behörden ab. Sie verweigern die Registrierung. Also weit haumas broacht. Der ungarische Politiker darf noch sagen, was Sache ist - ich als unentgeltlicher Fotograf bei Commons darf das nicht mehr. -- 194.118.252.143 15:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You cite a member of the nationalist Hungarian Fidesz party?   Chaddy (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the problem with Fidesz? Do you like only Social Democratic Party or Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and have you a problem with democracy? -- Bwag (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as someone from the other side of the world: "illegal" is a pretty strong word. If whether or not something is legal is disputable, a contentious matter almost certainly does not belong in the description on this site. To take an example from my own country: the states of Washington and Colorado (and recently a few others) permit stores that sell cannabis, which remains against a federal law that the federal government has decided not to enforce in this case. It would be very contentious to caption a picture of one of these as an "illegal marijuana store." - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bwag: : I think, that this is not the place to mention some very personel statements about refugees. You address the wrong people. Keep it neutral. Thanks for the picture, I was there at the same day. BTW: du musst nicht auf Pegida machen, ich schätze dein Niveau höher ein. --Hubertl 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jwaller

I think, that no one has to put up with such personal insults as this. Particularly the expression "terrorism" is outrageous.--Correlatio (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Personal insults" - you're serious ? The expression is clearly aimed at your disgusting ideology. You have to admit that your only "contribution" to Commons is to destroy systematically the work of other Users. So you don't have to complain if someone reacts. The "User problem", that's you. --Jwaller (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jwaller: I reverted your message. I don't know if the DR is justified or not, but your words are inappropriate and out of place. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think so, I accept your edit. --Jwaller (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, I had to revert User:Jwaller's comments([14] and [15]) again, as they contained even legally problematic personal attacks on other users and referred to copyright in general (which he seems to reject). I have warned the user in his native language that such behaviour is not acceptable and that next time he might get blocked. The aggressiveness of his comments in this DR discussion hampers a constructive evaluation of the nominated files. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is trying to cover up what's really happening, i.e. your support to a dubios user who has the only aim to damage Commons. So you are suppressing the truth because it is much too embarassing to you and you denounce a clear language as "insulting", that is really ridiculous. If you were really interested in preventing damages, you would ban "Correlatio" for lifetime. --Jwaller (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the "real agenda" of your counterparts may be is not the subject of the discussion here. We (admins) have to decide whether your (JWaller) comments are inappropriate and demand sanctions. IMO an apology for using offensive wording would it. Further, I'd suggest that JWaller and Correltatio try not to work in the same area for some time. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This would mean that Correlatio has to withdraw his deletion request. An apology by him and Turélio for their inappropriate actions, why not ? --Jwaller (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jwaller: We request an apology from you. Yann (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Yann, but an apology for saying the truth is absurd. --Jwaller (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jwaller: But accusing someone as a vandal without any valid reason is not good. You should really apologize not only to the administrators, but also to Correlatio. You must assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokéfan95 (talk • contribs)
  Comment If Jwaller will continue in accusing and insulting Correlatio as a vandal, I suggest an interaction ban between Jwaller and Correlatio for atleast 3 weeks.
@Jwaller: Please be mellow. ★ Poké95 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, seeing the above, I blocked Jwaller for one week. Yann (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Charlesjsharp

User:Charlesjsharp Modifying an old presentation VI to make it look new. This is wrong for judges of the VI. This is unacceptable, you can not change a vote like that! 

--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably even more ... should see his contributions. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#Behaviour_of_User:Medium69 too. Jee 15:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
So much drama last days because of a pretty useless project, congratulations. Do we really need it? --A.Savin 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
VI may or may not be a useless project, but that does not entitle Medium69 (talk · contribs) to accuse me of vandalism, just because I don't happen to promote his images. He should apologise. Please read the discussion on the VI discussion page referenced above. Charles (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley

Hi, This is unacceptable personal attack. Yann (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Then I sincerely apologise to Eric for having used his name as a placeholder here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI I blocked 82.132.221.233 for insult/harassment. Yann (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is also a problem. It seems to me that Andy D. sole purpose is useless criticism, not helping in anyway. Yann (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading content of Tasnim News Agency

Hi. An Iranian news agency, has changed it's license to Cc-by-4.0. I ask your idea about uploading the content to commons. I am waiting for your permit. thank you.Saman-1984 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have my doubts if the material shown at main http://www.tasnimnews.com/en is really all CC by tasnimnews.com, because I found some photos already published on other sites and attributed to other agencies. Example: http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2015/11/30/931037/christians-muslims-are-brothers-pope-says-in-flashpoint-c-african-district (30.11.2015) versus http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/pennsylvania-democrat-bob-brady-steals-popes-water-glass-souvenir/ (25.09.2015), credit: "Al Drago/CQ Roll Call via AP Images".
But the photo section accessible via http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/photos appears to be more suitable, as photos in these galleries are credited with photographer's name and are equipped with tasnimnews.com's watermark. Example: http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/media/2015/11/23/925051/russian-president-putin-arrives-in-iran-to-attend-gecf-summit and http://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1394/09/02/139409021530081576566984.jpg.
In all cases: please tag all uploads from this site with {{LicenseReview}}, a review process for verifying the copyright status of images uploaded from this (and other) external site which enables the verification of freely licensed images by trusted user (admins and community approved users) and identification of images where the Commons license is different. Details at Commons:License review. Gunnex (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Gunnex: . Your answer is best. I'll do it. Thanx.Saman-1984 (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

MrsCZmarlin

MrsCZmarlin (talk · contribs) has posted statements about pedofilia all over a number of automobile pictures uploaded by CZmarlin. I think that ought to be reverted. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision deletion seems advisable. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
As a first step I've reverted all edits of MrsCZmarlin and indef'd the account. IMO, we should consider to contact WMF-legal. --Túrelio (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If this is anything more than childish vandalism, then contacting a member of Oversight would be more useful; just going from past experiences. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
IMO this is beyond "childish vandalism". Anyway, I've asked for oversight, with CC to legal. --Túrelio (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For future reference, this has now been taken care of. odder (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying here.   --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
My wholehearted appreciation for all the Commons contributors and administrators for cleaning up the mess created by this vandal. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like four of the offensive edits are still around. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I hided 2 more versions. The user is indefinitely blocked, and this is good. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User keeps deleting other users' comments.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louvre_Museum_Inverted_pyramid_01.JPG&action=history shows an involved user has, four times, removed other users attempts to re-open a deletion discussion, AND the four edits that are marked minor AND have no edit summary. As I understand it, our deletion policies do require this be deleted. The pyramid has been used as an example in our discussions of FOP - noting that it cannot be included unless de minimis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Louvre_Pyramid-related_deletion_requests shows 80% of discussion result in a delete. I see this behavior as inappropriate. --Elvey (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: Can you explain to us why you keep removing the second deletion request? Everyone has a right to nominate a file for deletion. If you disagree, then vote for keep and explain, not removing it. Thank you. ★ Poké95 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No new arguments have been brought up + there's nothing copyrightable in this image thus I will close it as keep some time next week. --Denniss (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Medium69

I have been preparing a re-submission of three undecided VI candidates. The process, as I understand it, is to remove the previous 'undecided' text and update the date. My edit, before it has even been re-submitted, has been reverted as copied below and I have been accused of vandalism. Other editors may be aware that Medium69 has said (in French) he cannot stand me, but he should not accuse me of vandalism. This editor is upset because I oppose nearly all his wildlife QI nominations. I do this because I genuinely believe they are not QI quality and am happy to have a third opinion from any wildlife photography specialist. I also oppose some of his VI nominations where I believe the scope is not worthy of a VI (animals in a specific zoo for instance). William opposes many of my VI nominations on spurious grounds (a few are fair opposes) as he does not seem to understand that live specimens have different scopes from museum specimens and that sub-species can have their own scope. Are there any sanctions that can be imposed, please, to moderate this editor's behaviour? Charles (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One of three File:Female Galápagos medium ground finch.jpg Latest revision as of 12:20, 30 November 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Medium69 (talk | contribs) m (Undo revision 180638822 by Charlesjsharp (talk) This is vandalism ...)

  • I denounced your vandalism of several votes completed or in progress ... So find my own acts of vandalism? I can not stand you, certainly, but I remain impartial unlike you. Juste read this! There is a procedure to rename an image ... and it is certainly not by erasing a previous vote is vandalism. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I realise you do not have a good command of English, William. I did not accuse you of 'acts of vandalism'. I have been accused of vandalism by you (see above) which is a serious accusation. Also, you are not impartial. You close my nominations earlier than you close anyone else's. Legally for sure, but not impartial. Charles (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It takes little for everyone to understand. It is true that User: Medium69 closes the images quickly, sometimes even when the discussion is ongoing. But it has the right he made no mistake. Charles took a bit too many pictures in competition. He understood and corrected this. Many undecided images can be replaced. But for that we must respect the process and wait until the vote is closed to restore the image in competition with the incumbent. He was wrong by changing the dates of the current appointment which is not allowed. I think he will easily understand this point. There are blunders but not vandalism. We would do so many useful things if all trying to take a step towards each other. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I waited 'until the vote is closed to restore the image in competition' i.e. to resubmit. I did not change the date of the current nomination. Here is the renomination process:

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination. Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in. On one of the images file:Fridericus spreadwing (Ouleus fridericus).JPG where I solely changed the date, and William reverted it, I had never even nominated it! What is his justification for doing that? This is the process I have followed. Please tell me where I blundered. Charles (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He missed very little: recover the image at the bottom of the list, and report the results of the previous vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I moved this debate where it should be. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 23:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The behavior of Medium69 has deteriorated further and he is disrupting the VI nomination process with a vendetta against me based on either a lack of knowledge or wilful behavior. Please check out his opposes on the VI candidate page. Please also feel free to analyse my opposes of any of his nominations. I would be very grateful for a third party to intervene please. Charles (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I hoped that someone would help resolve the issue of User: Medium69's behaviour on this Administrators' noticeboard - which is where he moved it from the Valued Imaged Candidates discussion page. If this is not going to happen, would someone be kind enough to explain how I can escalate this issue so that someone examines the facts and can form an opinion. Medium69's unreasonable opposes of my VI candidates can be examined on Commons:Valued image candidates and on Category:Undecided valued image candidates Charles (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand ... The goal is not to remove judges who oppose you arguing, but having valuable pictures that are really valuable pictures .. . And it is no use asking others to vote. For 10 years I've Commons, you are the first who dares to ask the judges of the note (understood positively)! --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
William, it does not appear that anyone else in the Commons community is interested in intervening in our dispute. I assume they consider it too trivial. In an attempt to resolve this waste of time for both of us, I intend to stop making any edits on your VI, FP, VI submissions or on any other submissions where you have made comments or voted. Charles (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, That's a sensible thing to do, and I ask Medium69 to do the same. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I do not waste time to participate in the VI projects, QI and FP. As nothing compels me to vote or abstain, so I continue my participation in these three projects. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Medium69: Yann is right, I think you should do the same and ignore Charles' submissions for a while. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55&oldid=596225140"