Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 57

User:Maurice Flesier deleted categories for no reason.

Can any qualified user comment that user's contributions? Is that behaviors true or aggressive? I think that user has vandalism attitudes. He deleted all contents of "Category:Demonstrations and protests in Şırnak in 2015" and deletes all "Category:2015 in Kurdistan" and "Category:History of Şırnak" in all pictures for no reason. And some of "Category:Demonstrations and protests in Turkey in 2015" too. And he create some "terrorism" categories. In that category seems that: Kurdistan is the name of a geographic and cultural region in Western Asia, inhabited predominantly by the Kurds. What is wrong for that? And are these events not include for a "history category"? --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And same user deleted 10 categories in with no reason too. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Maurice Flesier should either stop or be stopped. Some of his uncategorizations seem to be legitimate cases of addressing COM:OVERCAT, but trying to supress useful chrono-geographic information just to please his fictional worldview that Kurds do no exist is unacceptable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment- First, we should make a correction, these irrelevant and comprehensive categories not deleted just removed. [2015 in Kurdistan] is valid for Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government but files belongs to Southern provinces of Turkey and the Kurdistan term unofficial by Turkish Government. Also culturel and geographic definitions more incompatible to the files. It covers the conflict between the PKK and Turkish security forces. I created 2015-16 Şırnak clashes and photos moved successfully. Best ragards. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it named Category:Iraqi Kurdistan or Category:2015 in Iraqi Kurdistan in sub-category. And Commons is not dependent to any state governments or laws. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And new category (2015-16 Category:Şırnak clashes) have only 3 categories: "Category:2015 terrorism in Turkey" "Category:2016 terrorism in Turkey" and "Category:Operations of the Turkish Armed Forces" It doesn't have neutral point of view. That user had removed 10 categories previously --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The subject waiting to be resolved for add another images in that categories. --Ahmet Turhan (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Personnal attack

Here is a message posted by an unregsitred user : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiraden&diff=186330973&oldid=172212405

Is it possibe to block IP adress ?

Tiraden (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's posting. Blocking a 1-edit IP doesn't make much sense, as tomorrow he/she will have another IP #. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The message was reposted today https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiraden&diff=186412581&oldid=186363713 Tiraden (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Blocked proxy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tiraden (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Globally blocked as open proxy. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ПОКА ТУТ

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

After baseless accusations of vandalism against me, this user refuses to apologize, and instead of that publicly accuses me of political agenda resp. putinism. This user already was blocked several times for harassment, a longer block seems now appropriate, as there is no improvement of their behaviour at all. --A.Savin 14:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I support a block. Per A.Savin and users behavior on VP is is disruptive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done when I blocked him a year ago, then I said him, that his next block will be indefinite, and now I blocked him forever. Taivo (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Duarte

Mass uploading album covers. Significant warnings appear ignored as uploads continue. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Deleted and warned --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fennoscandic

Overwriting a map with substantially different content, containing a self-made map with original research [1]. After revert, does the same again [2]. I left a message on user talk page referring to Commons:Overwriting existing files, but the user does not seem to address this issue in reply. --Jmk (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, apparently the user is already blocked indefinitely. --Jmk (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiEditor905

WikiEditor905 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user is not here to help build a repository of free media, but to whinge about a dispute on a different project. Could you please block them or find some other way to get them to stop bothering me? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nanceen

Nanceen (talk · contributions · Statistics), likely a French, reuploaded a likely copyvio after its deletion. I gave a (bit) more clear explanation on their talk page. It would be convenient to have more watchers for this situation. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RaazaUpreti132

RaazaUpreti132 (talk · contributions · Statistics) has been uploading the same couple of movie posters repeatedly. --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jcb and his recent actions

Jcb has the last month(s) been speedie-deleting files without a valid (or any) rationale in clear violation of out speedy deletion policy and been name-calling and harrassing using block commments, saying things as "Russavia suck". These kind of things are unbecoming for an admin and should not be tolerated. An admin should not circumvent our policies, not fall to harassment, that is just wrong. I think it is time for Jcb to take a step back from this HOUNDing and start being mellow. Josve05a (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF was asked (by more than one party) to interfere in this case. They promised to do so within a few days. So no need to provoke escalation. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This post isn't actually if the files should have been deleted, but that you did so without just cause at the time. Acting out of community established policy in hopes that WMF will find that they should be delelted some time after the file's been deleted,is still breaching our policies for how deletions should be. On top of that there is the clear hounding by you towards this user. Josve05a (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not performed those deletions after a discussion was started about it at the Denniss user talk page, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. Now it's up to the WMF to tell whether my interpretation of their ruling is either correct or incorrect. We will know very soon. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It has never been up to WMF employees to tell the Commons volunteer community how their administrators should behave, or to dictate project policies. --Fæ (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My problem with these actions was that they never should have been done to begin with and certainly not at the rate that was done? I find that to be a problematic use of the admin toolset. Reguyla (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was extensively discussed in many places and now on Commons:Village_pump#Russavia; so just another forum shopping (if I'm lending my friend's words).

"An admin should not circumvent our policies". The fact is that we've not enough or well established policies. Commons is still just a baby project depending EN wiki for guidance. Our admins occasionally quote their policies when they feel suit. What we have are some established practices and use of common sense. Our blocking policy say nothing on how to handle blocked user's edits. It says nothing about topic bans or interaction bans. It says nothing about confidential blocks by checkusers or oversighters. BTW, I'm trying to improve COM:BLOCK now.

I saw some people saying we don't know why that user is blocked; so we can't accept it. Well, I don't know why FDMS4 was interaction banned; I don't know why many users are blocked by CUs/OVs. But still I believe them. (I had seen an IP tried to defame him on his talk and asked oversighters to suppress it. They did it.)

Finally, Josve05a said "[I'm hereby] publicly recuses myself from further comments." Please don't make promises that you can't keep. Jee 01:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Further comments about the FDMS4 interaction ban, which was for him against me. Josve05a (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Every edit requires the contributor to accept the ToU which state that one can no longer edit [or upload content] if they have been banned. The very act of a banned user editing through either socks or IP accounts, post ban enforcement, violates those Terms.

As we've said before, the Wikimedia Foundation will not seek to force administrators to enforce the Terms of Use (just like an admin is rarely 'obligated' to block a vandal), but does appreciate the work of administrators who choose to do so. Admins who do should not be subjected to threats of removal of their admin rights, when their actions are based on a good faith belief that they are merely upholding the Terms of Use (and any action in support of enforcing a WMF or community global ban is, by definition, upholding the Terms of Use). (If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations.)

In regards to the deletion of Russavia's (sock puppets') older files, the Terms of Use has an option for enforcement here where we may "Refuse, disable, or restrict access to the contribution of any user who violates these Terms of Use". In more normal terms, it means we (and, therefore, an admin) can choose to enforce the Terms by reverting or deleting contributions from users violating the Terms. Some sites, such as English Wikipedia, have policies in place already which generally support this, while Commons has, historically, not. When we first started WMF Global Bans we decided initially to try not enforcing that globally with User:WMFOffice, leaving it to the local community to decide. That decision does not, however, mean that it is not a valid tool in the arsenal of a local admin attempting to enforce the ban.

As far as un-deleting content uploaded by banned users (through their sock or IP account), this is considered as an equivalent to assisting the banned user in evading their ban. For this reason, administrators who un-delete such content may be subject to sanctions from the WMF. Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves) as long as it does not turn into a case where they are editing on the request/direction of the banned user. Obviously I know that some of these images were already un-deleted; we realize that we need to better communicate our position on doing this and cannot fault any admins who have acted in good faith to this point in that regards.

We understand that current OTRS policy is that volunteers follow a do-not-respond approach for licensing requests sent by Russavia. However, some OTRS agents do respond directly to the photographers, as the photographers are cc’ed in the communication to begin with, and so his tickets do sometimes get resolved. We are going to talk with the OTRS admins and suggest that that policy get revisited. While no one ever wants to inconvenience innocent photographers, he is, in the end, not welcome on our projects in any form.

On another note, the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. This discussion isn’t the place for that broader conversation; we would address that separately in advance. Of course, even then, no requirement would exist for volunteers to also retroactively delete such content. But if community members want to enforce it, they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves)

@Kalliope (WMF): It is my belief that all undeletions made by an admin is that they take "responsibility for [the undeletion, in turn the edits] themselves" by leaving their username in the deletion logs, but having the "sock" username in the uploaders/history field. Is that a naive assumption, or isn't that what all admins who are undeleting do, assume responsibility that they do it in good faith? Josve05a (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): So just to make sure that everyone, including yourself, is aware of what's going on in here. We're talking about an administrator, @Jcb, deleting in-use, in-scope and highly educational files from Commons because they were uploaded by a user whom you have banned in secret. Are you telling me that if I proceed to enforce the policies of this project, ie. undelete those files, then I might be subject to sanctions from WMF? Do you realize how this sounds? Do you realize that the Foundation has never threatened us volunteers with sanctions for anything other than reverting official office actions? Do you realize that this is highly questionable behaviour that might risk your safe harbour status? Has this even been cleared with the legal team? I still can't believe I'm seeing this. odder (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand this official threat by the WMF to block administrators, they have decided to throw away their safe harbour argument by taking positive responsibility for project content, overruling all volunteers in the process. From here on anyone in taking out a civil case can refer to this WMF policy statement as sufficient to sue the WMF for damages as they can be claimed to facilitate copyright infringement by users of the Wikimedia projects. It's fantastic news for copyright lawyers wanting to get their hands on the WMF's money.

Per odder, Kalliope are you really, really sure you understand the history and legal precedent you are setting here? (I mention history as Kalliope states "I am new to the Wikimedia Foundation projects, as I joined in April 2015" on their profile, and so would have had several years of policies and consensus building discussion to look back over or have others summarise it.) --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): I am also very surprised at this statement and I also noticed that you say the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. I would hope that if the WMF decides to do this, its only part of a broader policy of making the WMF projects more civil and inviting and would not be based on one individual, on one project that the WMF does not like. I also think this statement puts us on a slippery slope. For example, if the WMF deleted some content, say uploads by Russavia and then some other editor innocently imports it back. That editor could then be harassed and accused of editing on behalf of a banned editor. Also as odder said, the WMF banned a high output and fairly well respected admin of this community (although not perfect) in secret with no input or discussion from this community. As long as the individual is contributing positively, on this project, I don't really care who does it or if the WMF banned them in a Council of Elrond. Reguyla (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely Reguyla, the harsher stand on content uploaded by banned users would be in an effort to mitigate disruption and contribute to the projects becoming a more civil place for contributors to spend time in. This is not a personal vendetta - the WMF's actions are not based on personal preference or bias [towards a specific contributor or a project]; they are based on the amount of abuse and disruption one causes, despite being banned. Any policy will also apply to our treatment of all WMF banned users (we do not make policy for one person). Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): I appreciate the response and I recognize that you are trying to do what you believe is the right thing based on WMF policy. Russavia is not perfect, he has his flaws and so does everyone else including me. Unfortunately the harsh truth is that how you describe this situation is not how it is in reality. In this case, banning Russavia did not benefit anyone. Not this project, not the WMF, not him and certainly not us. In many ways, it made things far worse. The thing is, there are a few vocal folks who want him banned including Jimbo, several vocal folks that think the ban was largely BS including me, several folks who don't care either way but think we need to support the ban without question and 98% of the community who doesn't get involved. I would also state that if the WMF wants to take a stand to make the sites a more civil place, and I am not picking on any particular project because each has its own problems, they should start with the admins and functionaries first. There are a lot of admins who are far more problematic both in terms of their use of the admin tools and general civility (like routinely telling people to Fuck off, go the Fuck away, calling people Fucking morons, blocking people to win discussions or as a threat, etc.). I can name some examples if you want.:-). Taking a hard stand against one editor who has such a long and valuable history to the project under dubious reasons is not the right way to ensure civility on the projects. Reguyla (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Reguyla, this isn't the place to go over old issues. There's been a year of some people telling WMF that Russavia should not have been banned and they haven't changed their minds. Indeed, Russavia's post-ban behaviour has hardened their already absolute no-going-back stance. It doesn't serve any purpose to keep arguing about it. Nor do I any purpose in speculating about the reasons for the ban and bringing up old conspiracy theories. It's done. Kalliope, isn't going to say "Well, since you put it like that, here, look, I've unblocked him". If there are other problematic admins then name them in the appropriate forum and see if the community can resolve the issues. I don't see WMF globally blocking anyone merely for being uncivil. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, It serves the purpose of letting the WMF know that the decision they made was a bad one, that not only did it not benefit the project but it made things worse and the WMF is obviously powerless to do anything to stop it. I do not think Kalliope can change anything but I think the community could, if we wanted too and got a consensus to do so. Clearly the block is not effective so we are just pissing into the wind by trying to make good edits into bad ones. If the community told the WMF that Russavia is welcome to edit here, what are they going to do? Block the entire community that supported it? I greatly doubt that. We could also choose not to get involved. Not block him, not delete his content, nothing. If the WMF wants to do it on their own, then that's on them. We could also restore useful and in scope content when they do so. We should not be throwing away useful contributions just because a secret committee that doesn't even contribute here and is outside the community decided they don't want this person to contribute. Communities have changed the WMF's mind on things before when we work together to do so, or at least show them that their decision does not have community consensus. It may even force the WMF to change the way it does global bans to allow exceptions. Who knows what the outcome may be if we work together to achieve it. Russavia's conduct is that of someone with nothing to lose. The WMF globally banned them with no input from this community. It was largely based on the Jimbo incident and what some of the folks at ENWP wanted. I don't deny there are folks here that want him banned too and I agree his conduct hasn't been perfect, but unless the WMF is willing to tell at least the functionaries here some details about what warranted the ban, then I question the reasoning. His conduct is consistent with someone who has devoted a lot of time to something being blocked from it for dubious reasons that are not in the best intersts of the project to satisfy a small group of people that largely don't contribute here and that is something I can empathize with.

But my comments on civility are based on their comments of making the projects more civil. Its easy to block an editor if they are problematic. Its nearly impossible to block an admin, especially if they block anyone that disagree's with them. It has the tendency to eliminate anyone who they don't like, it shows others that they will be blocked if they criticize them and it enforces the us and them mentality...you know, like what happened to me over at ENWP! Reguyla (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Reguyla, it serves no purpose. Do you really think WMF are unaware of your views? There are a handful of vocal people who want russavia back. There's no way the "community" will force WMF on this. Nobody really believes this "Jimbo incident" thing is a factor. It's just something embarrassing to keep mentioning because nobody knows any different. Russavia's conduct is consistent with someone who should never be allowed back on this project. It's not going to happen. Move on. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually Colin I think we both need to move on. You want him blocked and have your perception of things. I would like to see him editing again so all this drama will stop and we will have a high output and dedicated editor back. Neither of us are going to change the others mind and neither your support nor my lack of support for the WMF is going to change their minds one way or the either, nor do I expect it too. I would also clarify its not just my views but clearly the views of a number of individuals commenting here. In fact even most of the ones who agree with supporting the ban are only doing so because the WMF made it and they see no alternative. Its not that they want it, they just don't want to fight it. So no, the "community" is absolutely not in agreement. And when the time comes for you to get banned Colin, I look forward to see if you like it or if you just do what almost every other banned person does and edit anyway. Because bans are not, nor have they ever been, effective. They create and perpetuate drama because they almost always deal with long term contributors and almost always are done for dubious reasons and through the manipulation of one policy or another for the one performing the ban. The only people bans are effective for are the ones that don't really care, and that means that they never really cared about the project at all in the first place...so no loss. Reguyla (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How many people are commenting here? That's your answer to your idea that the "community" might force WMF's hand. I never said the community was in agreement. Let me be quite clear: when the time comes for me to get banned, the only socks will be the ones on my feet as I go off to do something else. Sure I care about the project, and have lots of friends here, but there are always other things in life than some website. It's no different to changing job or moving house, and most people manage to cope with that just fine. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fae is incorrect. Deleting content because it was uploaded by an already banned user is not the same as WMF performing content-based or editorial deletion, which might jeopardise the safe-harbour status. The fact that this content is "in-use, in-scope and highly educational" (or not) is and must be completely beside-the-point. For as soon as WMF decided to keep some content and delete others, based on (for example) whether it is in use on Wikipedia, they are curating the images themselves and taking on board responsibility for their legality (imo, as a not lawyer).

As for whether Russavia's actions are a positive contribution or otherwise, is also completely irrelevant. Banned users do not get to edit/upload. Whenever anyone makes these kind of specious arguments for permitting Russavia to edit, one must consider whether the same argument would be made for other banned/globally-banned users. No they wouldn't. People get banned for crossing a line and the consequences are complete and utter termination. A ban does not mean "from now on, you must only make constructive edits". What a ridiculous argument.

I am glad that admins are permitted to uphold our terms-of-use and protect us from bullies and other unwanted users, and that WMF will stand with them against the sort of harassment we see here. The continued hounding of admins who block russavia socks, etc, needs to stop now. I hope that anyone doing so in the past gets the clear message that further such behaviour may terminate their hobby. -- Colin (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You are mistaken. @Fæ never said anything about the Foundation deleting the files themselves, nor about them keeping some content and deleting other. We're talking about their quite open threat of blocking administrators who undelete content that was deleted in violation of this project's policies.

Which is exactly the case when Jcb proceeded to speedy delete in-use, in-scope and highly educational files uploaded by a Russavia sock without providing any deletion summary — despite the fact that Commons policies require a regular deletion request for used files, and despite the fact that we don't delete in-scope files. And yet, that they were in-use and in-scope is the crux of the matter here, not to be easily dismissed like you just did above.

You can keep on making theories all you want with your people get banned for crossing the line, however the fact of the matter is that at this point, you've got no idea why Russavia was banned, so why keep on embarrassing yourself by taking this stance with no facts to support it? And as for your last point, volunteer Commons administrator have no business upholding the Foundation's Terms of Use; this isn't just part of our job (so far); I expect there would be legal consequences if it was.

And I am glad that administrators and other users keep calling out admins deleting valid content in violation of Commons policies while putting their hatred of Russavia ahead of the project's mission. The continued hounding of users who do keep calling out when this happens needs to stop now. odder (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

odder, there are mainly two arguments people made against WMF's statement. I'm not picking who made which, but they are 1. Deletion of in COM:SCOPE images 2. risk of losing DMCA protection.

For argument 1, my reply is that we've many policies and COM:BLOCK applicable here. People can argue WMF block is different and not applicable here. So what? Does a crat or admin can technically possible to allow a WMF locked user to edit here? No; unless allowing socks what some admins are trying now. Please stop this and protest in proper forum where law allowing. I'm not a fan of protesting through anarchy. That's why tried to add Oversighters' and Checkusers' rights to COM:BLOCK. But no one cares to even look into it than making fuss in drama boards.

For argument 2, I think Colin is right. When Flickr block a user, they delete all his uploads too including past uploads. It is not breaking their DMCA protection. Jee 12:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: These are two separate arguments, as they are addressed to two separate entities: (1) COM:SCOPE being addressed towards actions of volunteer administrators speedy-deleting used educational content, and (2) the potential lose of safe harbour status addressed towards the WMF who appear to have said they reserve the right to take sanctions against volunteer administrators undeleting such content. Mixing these two does not help, we should better discuss them in separate discussions (I think). odder (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Odder, both you and Fae claimed WMF would lose safe-harbour protection. Fae claimed they would be "taking positive responsibility for project content". Ok so both of you are technically arguing it is the "block administrators who undelete" that somehow breaks this protection. But that is merely a mechanism to ensure deleted content stays deleted (otherwise the action is pointless) and the original deletion was done by an admin with WMF's full blessing (see above). Further WMF have stated they may choose to delete content themselves. When the decision to delete (or refuse an undelete to the point of blocking anyone who tries) is based purely on who uploaded it (a globally banned user) this is not a content issue. I don't see how safe-harbour enters into it.

As for Russavia, I don't have "hatred of Russavia" and it is rather extending yourself to assume those admins who block his socks or delete his images also "hate" him. I don't know why he was banned. But I have seen what he has written to some users here, both before and after his ban, and have been on the receiving end of his bullying myself. He's a bully and a troll and I have absolutely zero fear of being "embarrassed" that he might somehow be unjustly accused. I repeat my argument that if you feel Russavia has been unjustly banned by the owners of this site, then your only honest response is to leave. Continuing to edit here requires your agreement to the TOU which ultimately let WMF ban people without having to say why or ask your permission. Deal with it. You and I both know (and Jee has already noted) that Commons is rather lacking in policy in many areas. We have no policy to deal with WMF global banned editors. Commons is a wild west and you are among those who wish it to remain such. I see below you you are threatening other admins so it just looks like a game of who has the bigger gun. It would be a shame to see you also WMF blocked because you decide to take a stand alongside a bully like Russavia. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You are getting so predictable and boring it's quite amusing; do you really think that repeatedly telling people they might leave is going to make any difference whatsoever? And as for your last sentence, rest assured that there are no plans to have me banned by the WMF; unlike yourself, the Foundation realise there are very fine distinctions to be made in this situation. Also, I am not threatening admins; I'm threatening one specific admin who appears to have made it his mission in life to destroy valid and used Commons content to prove a point. odder (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well nobody says anything new, so it is boring. Even the WMF post isn't anything new -- we already knew that they regarded those who support Russavia continuing to edit/upload here as liable to face WMF action and we already knew that anyone taking action against an admin who deletes post-ban Russavia edits/uploads also may face WMF action. It is hard to understand how the TOU could mean anything otherwise. I said "blocked" because I rather hope the worst that may happen to you is temporary suspension till you calm down and see sense. You seem very upset and angry. We are talking about content uploaded post-ban. The only people responsible for the mess that deleting that content might cause are Russavia and the handful of vocal supporters. If they had all instead advised Russavia to take up golf then we'd have moved on and other people would have moved into the space he vacated (wrt uploading, hopefully not wrt bullying). -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I just glance through Kalliope's official response. It looks fine, and I see nothing new compared to my previous stand. I had commented earlier that any such edits are not bound by the ToU and should be NUKEd. When edits are removed without any editorial review, no risk of compromising safe harbor provisions.

I had seen some editors commented unrelenting files make the admin responsible for the uploads. I don't think so. Otherwise not much admins will be willing to do it. Re-uploading as Kalliope suggested above will make the uploader responsible and satisfy the ToU. Jee 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): I just want to make sure that the position you've stated is entirely clear. Let's say Russavia (or some other banned user), as a sock, uploads a set of clearly licensed and in scope images (say, a governmental Flickr feed), and they are then deleted because, well, OMG Russavia. You seem to be saying, effectively, that anyone else who then re-uploads those same (freely licensed and in scope) images runs the risk of being banned by the WMF, without possibility of appeal, if someone thinks that Russavia even 'mentioned' that the images should be on Commons to them. More than that, if Russavia even 'suggests' that a set of such images should be on Commons (on Twitter, for example), without himself uploading them, and an editor sees that suggestion, agrees, and uploads them, then that editor runs the risk of being unilaterally banned by the WMF. Even if Russavia suggests to an author that they donate their own works to Commons, and they then do so, they run the risk of being banned by the WMF because he merely suggested it.

If Russavia uploads a set of images to Commons, then he is clearly and obviously 'suggesting' that they should be on Commons. You say that "Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves", but the simple fact is that they can not... if it can be perceived that they became aware of those images because of Russavia uploading them, then by what you have stated they 'run the risk' of a unilateral, unappealable WMF ban, even if that perception is wrong.

I'm very much not saying that editors should edit on the behalf of Russavia. I am saying, emphatically, that no editor should ever run the risk of being blocked for uploading freely licensed, in scope content merely because of how they became aware of that content. Even if you consider the possibility of such a block happening to be unrealistic, even the mere perception on the part of some editors that such a block 'might' happen will have a chilling effect on contributions, in that people will now have to consider not uploading valid content merely because of how they became aware of it.

Let me make it totally clear. If I was Russavia, and wanted to troll the hell out of Commons, all I would have to do is begin publicly 'requesting' that people upload particular instances of legitimate content (say, particular Flickr photostreams from PD sources). Any editor who sees such a 'request', decides that the material does indeed belong on Commons, and then uploads it must now consider the possibility that they will be unilaterally banned by the WMF. What's more, by what you have stated, in such a case that particular editor should be banned, unilaterally, without possibility of appeal, for doing something perfectly legitimate that Russavia merely suggested.

Please don't respond to this by saying something along the lines of 'we would not do that'. There are, quite obviously, a substantial number of editors who do not trust the WMF's discretion or judgement when it comes to the exercise of arbitrary authority. Revent (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To be simple: Don't look at the user. Look at the content and contributions. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Annoying user, good content. :) Jee 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"As far as un-deleting content uploaded by banned users (through their sock or IP account), this is considered as an equivalent to assisting the banned user in evading their ban. For this reason, administrators who un-delete such content may be subject to sanctions from the WMF." <-- Noted. So it is better for admins not to touch anything russavia or locked user related stuff - even if the content is perfectly valid. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Yann reverted my revert, for those who wants to know the consequences of deleting pre-ban content of a banned user, see User talk:Denniss#Deleting content has HUGE ramifications. Regards, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware I did not delete any pre-ban content of Russavia and I am not planning to do that either. But if I come across new Russavia content, I will feel free to delete it. Jcb (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Jcb: Ha, I don't know you're really fully aware that you didn't deleted any pre-ban content of Russavia. Okay, can you say to us the original upload date of each file you deleted? Let's see if they are uploaded after 07:29, 17 January 2015, which is the date Russavia was banned. Regards, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite sure of that, but if you find a deletion of an older file, please notify me and I will have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I am not an admin, I cannot see deleted files, and I didn't saw or not familiar with those deleted files, User:odder, can you look at those files please if they are uploaded after 07:29, 17 January 2015? Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, if I ever see you speedy delete in-use in-scope content, I will feel free to block you account for abusing your privileges. Deal? odder (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's of course not a deal. Such an offense will be reported to WMF immediately. Jcb (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you drunk? What offense would that be? I'm not joking — from this moment onwards, if you ever speedy delete a file in violation of Commons policies, you will find yourself blocked, and I will bring your admin privileges for review on this noticeboard. odder (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is exceeding the civility limits; so going to report at COM:BN. Jee 12:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To delete these files by an admin might not cause any repercussions from the WMF, however as a comunity elected admin, admins should not take it up upon themselves to do so without facing repercussions from the community. If the community do not belive these deletions are right, then the community should be free to enact sanctions on said admin(s), since they are community elected and should only do what the community asks them to do. If the community no longer belive that an admin is acting in the best way for said community then...the mentioned admin should lose those tools, since they are not given by WMF, but by us. WMF can delete the files themselves, since the community believes deleting in-use+in-scope files are not supported by our mission. Josve05a (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you ever read Commons:Administrators/De-adminship? I'm not a fan of that policy as it demands "routine abuse" and "serious offenses". Otherwise I would have rolled many heads. :) Jee 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring our current deletion policy would be "routine abuse" and a "serious offense". Please also desist from opening up additional discussions, as you have done at COM:BN, this is disruptive. Nick (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nick, you know I don't need your advice. You are a provoker and misuser of tools even before you regain your adminship here. You had tried to revert my edits. You said IRC is a pub to me while holding your op rights. Do you think I care you? Jee 14:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: a clever attempt to deflect attention from your problematic behaviour. Please stop trying to change the subject, keep on topic and restrict discussion to one noticeboard. If you have any issues concerning misuse of my sysop permissions, I expect notification from you at my talk page first. Nick (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is self explaining. Good luck on being loyal to the nominator too. Jee 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jkadavoor What part of stop trying to change the subject are you failing to understand ? If you have a concern about my RfA or any aspect of my behaviour here on Commons, please do feel free to swing by my talk page where I'm happy to have a chat with you about anything in particular. This discussion is about Jcb, and the potentially difficult position he finds himself in because of the WMF on one side and the current policies as agreed by the community on the other side. We need to focus our attention here on ensuring that Jcb doesn't get caught in the crossfire here, as that would be very unfair on him. If you are unable to focus on Jcb and to not drift off topic at every possible opportunity raising unclear and poorly thought out thinly veiled attacks on contributors you dislike, I will ask an uninvolved administrator that you be topic banned from further involvement in future threads. Nick (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My reply to you is crystal clear; NEVER come to me with an advice as you're not qualified to do so. I don't care what else you're doing. Jee 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Nick was not acting as an administrator in what he said... he actually pretty explicitly stated that he would not do so, because he felt that he was involved. He is. however, perfectly able to have and express an opinion, or to request action from another administrator, exactly like any other editor, even if it regards you. Your comments to him above were completely out of line. Revent (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Revent, What is disruptive? Calling a colleague drunk? Or reporting it to COM:BN. If latter, you're free to revert it and warn me. If first, I wonder how he become an admin here as he is not competive enough to understand basic things. Jee 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I didn't say Nick was 'right' in what he said (I did not comment on it, or even on Odder's statement). I am, explicitly, telling you that responding to Nick's comment (which was civil, even if you disagree with it) by personally attacking him (and then, effectively, accusing him of bad faith) was completely, grossly, unacceptable. Revent (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Revent, I would have respected you if you made same statements to Odder and Nick. Here you kept your mouth firmly closed against your fellow admins and enjoying the thrill in finding a "small mistake" in me, a rather low-end, powerless user. No wonder. (I've to agree better ignore him as he is known to be rude against me even before acquiring his admin flag.) Jee 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: If anyone wants to come to my talk page and discuss why I said something to you and not Nick or Odder, they can feel free to do so. I'm not going to argue with you, here, especially since now that you have now also accused me of bad faith I am 'involved'. I'll just say this... Nick did not, in this thread, either explicitly insult you or accuse you of bad faith. You repeatedly did both, after being asked to stop. Revent (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): You said If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations.

This is problematic, you won't tell us anything concerning the Russavia global ban, few of us have any trust left in the Wikimedia Foundation, there is a trail of broken promises concerning Russavia's global ban, we were repeatedly told ways were being investigated to release some information about the ban to trusted members of the community, such as the Oversight team, but this hasn't happened. We know, at present, Jcb's deletions fall outside our policies here on Commons, and as such, are actionable, upto and including removing his sysop permission by way of a de-adminship vote. If the ban is appropriate, proportionate and necessary, then clearly Jcb shouldn't ever be put in a position where he could be desysopped for doing something that is appropriate, nor should any other administrator be at risk from WMF retribution for simply upholding the policies agreed by the Commons community.

I can tell you now, with a degree of certainty, the Commons community has such little trust and such intense distrust, dislike, hatred and fear for the Wikimedia Foundation (rightly or wrongly) there's no way to get what you say to match with the policies agreed by the community, so you're going to have to come up with a proper proposal that doesn't override and alienate the community. :I look forward to your next proposals on how to move forward from this relative impasse. Nick (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nick does not speak for the "community" his attempts to frame his personal opinions as "we" and "us" and "The Commons community" are over-reaching. There are about half a dozen people who give a **** about russavia or who have adolescent issues with authority and wish to use russavia as a football with which to attack WMF. They are very vocal and seem to think they speak for the thousands of others who edit here and are happy with the TOU. When I see users talk of good-faith admins "facing repercussions from the community" I see an ignorant mob with torches and pitchforks. I see people saying "content not the user" which is such a wrongheaded approach and explains why so many troublesome users with huge upload logs continue to be exalted like gods. Content is just bytes. If you or I don't upload some file found elsewhere on the internet today, then someone else will do it tomorrow. If someone deletes some files, then can be uploaded by someone else if they wish to take on the legal consequences of file-upload. But people matter and bullies should be shown the door. Commons will not die through lack of images to upload, or lack of people to run bots to upload them, but it will die if it descends to a mob that bullies and that defends bullies. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Of course Nick does not speak for the whole of the community, nor does he pretend to be doing this. However, his description of the situation and his prediction for the future sound very realistic, certainly more realistic than the description you provided above. Has it ever occurred to you that people with whom you differ in opinion might actually not be stuck in adolescence? Has it occurred to you that your continued describing them in these terms (and others) might actually have the opposite effect of what you might hope to achieve? Has it occurred to you that this actually might be exactly what you're talking about—bullying? Just a little bit of food for thought for you. odder (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, leaving aside the fact that some in these various discussions are still technically adolescents, it is quite possible for someone to have immature attitudes towards certain things yet have grown up in other ways. I don't know what "effect" you think I hope to have. I'm certainly not trying to change Nick's mind for example. We have an impasse where minds won't budge. Nor have I threatened or forced anyone to do anything or say anything. I'm rather powerless, and my recent trips to AN/U demonstrate that clearly. So, while you may have issues with what I write, bullying certainly isn't the appropriate complaint. No, this is more like when the UK parliament collectively called-out Donald Trump (well, the more progressive MPs did) for his hate speech. We have a few noisy characters who claim to speak for Commons as Trump claims to speak for America. If nobody says "Hold on a second, I'm not with him, in fact, I oppose everything he's just said, and moreover, much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny" then we might all think that Americans are hateful and stupid like Trump. Nick and others claim to speak for Commons and try to force WMF to comply with their wishes by shouting a lot about policies that don't exist, about legal issues they haven't the first clue on. Claiming "we" have "intense distrust, dislike, hatred and fear" of WMF is a pretty bold statement that should be challenged. Does it sound grown-up to "hate" the owners of a image repository? Is it grown-up to threaten an admin who has been here over 10 years because, because of a bunch of aeroplane pictures? Does that sound like a sensible use of your time and power as a 'crat? It ain't going to bring russavia back. Your threat to Jcb is straightforward bullying. I know you are better than that. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'm going to make this really, really, as simple as possible. Immediately above here, you called Donald Trump, a specific public personality, "hateful and stupid". If that statement amounts to either libel or defamation (and I am not, explicitly, saying it does) then it is a violation of the TOU, and under the interpretation we were given above by Kalliope, any administrator who holds a 'good faith' belief that your statement was either libel or defamation can not only feel free to block you, but they are perfectly entitled to blatantly ignore any and all Commons policies to do so, by just saying they are 'enforcing the TOU'. What's more, Kalliope's statement quite strongly implies that no other administrator, or even the consensus of the community, would not have the right to overrule that action.

To be perfectly honest, I personally hold the 'good faith belief' that you personally violate the TOU on a regular basis, by engaging in harassment of people who disagree with you (through stereotyping them, and then using an association fallacy to effectively insult them as a group). I've never blocked you for it, or threatened to block you for it, and I in fact think that doing so on the grounds of anything other than a clear consensus of the community would be grossly inappropriate. The WMF now, apparently, disagrees... so, should I block you? I would, obviously, be acting both completely outside of Commons policy, and doing so knowing that the community would probably not support the action. Revent (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So you're going to block the entire parliament? Good luck. (I can't quote the entire comment as I don't agree with them.) Jee 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Amusing. Also completely, and blatantly, off topic. Do you have a relevant comment? Revent (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Revent, you think you are more clever than you are. You think you are unbiased when you have clear blinkers on. Starting a comment with "I'm going to make this really, really, as simple as possible." is patronising and no better than claiming someone's comments are adolescent, which seems to be something Odder is upset about. The facts are that both Jcb and Rodhullandemu have been harassed by a small number of commons users because of their actions against a globally banned user and his edits/uploads. I didn't just pop up out of nowhere to "harass" anyone. Everyone could have carried on taking pictures, uploading files, categorising, deleting copyvios or whatever helps the project. But instead a few people chose of their own free will to attack and threaten good-faith users. Users who accept the TOU rather than have problem with it. So when I make a stand and say that those users are wrong and that their comments and attitudes are often juvenile, and especially that they are at times being bullies themselves by making threats to ban or de-admin people they disagree with, I am comfortable with that. The word "harassment" is wrongly used by several people including yourself. I suggest you read up on it before using it again. I have made no threats -- I am completely powerless. I cannot ban or block anyone unlike you and odder and several other people who have made such threats. Nor have I gone to anyone's talk page or public forum to open up a new discussion in which to attack someone over this issue. No, whenever I have commented on this matter it is always in response to my fellow users being attacked. You might want to consider what happens in a world when nobody defends those who are wrongly attacked. I get that you personally have a different style of argument/discussion than me and that you don't like how I express myself. I can be blunt. Deal with it. Don't make out that it is "harassment" just because you don't like my tone or that you disagree with my stance on the russavia situation. There's far worse behaviour going on here and I don't see you tackling that.

As for Trump. Calling a politician stupid never got anyone sued for libel or defamation. It is just opinion rather than a false statement of fact. As for "hate", well 578,436 other people claim Trump was guilty of "hate speech" and should be banned from the UK and many of our politicians agreed with that charge even if they didn't think a ban was justified. If you're going to build an argument for blocking me on some ToU complaint, you're going to have to try harder than that. I'm a bit tired of every other comment on this page being someone threatening to block someone else they disagree with. Yes we all disagree on how to handle russavia. If the solution to that problem is just to block everyone who holds a viewpoint different from oneself then I'm pretty comfortable I know who is doing the harassing and bullying on this project. If you want to block me over the Trump comment, I would be quite honoured. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

People matter so if you could stop being so derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others Colin, that would be really appreciated, just because we disagree is no reason for this sort of behaviour. Nick (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

+1 Colin's use of Commons for nasty personal attacks over the past year has created a hostile environment in many important community discussions. His repeated disruptive allegations about homophobia as we saw yesterday on the village pump were completely uncalled for (diff diff). --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nick, based on this post, you must excuse me if I disregard pretty much anything you write. Fae's use of Commons for nasty personal attacks over the past year has created a hostile environment in many important community discussions. His repeated disruptive allegations about homophobia as we saw yesterday on the village pump were completely uncalled for. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your response to me asking that you stop being derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others, is to continue being derogatory, high handed and unpleasant to others, and finding a reason to dismiss what I have to say. If, as you say, people matter, how about you start being friendlier and nicer to other people, Colin. I know we disagree on many things, and that we all disagree with other members, but it really is no excuse for your conduct Colin, please do try and improve your behaviour, your demeanour around other users. I know you don't see it, but at times, your behaviour, though very different, is just as wrong as any of those you criticise. Nick (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• sigh* Nick, in a polarising issue like this, it is very easy to be blind to faults in oneself and in others who share one's views, while at the same time, finding every fault with those who one disagrees with. This is true of you and me and everyone else here. You (and Revent) might want to read up on Tone argument. It's a logical fallacy used to shut up one's opponents. It is quite obvious to spot when you see such arguments being made from one side to the other, but never within a group. Several people here would like if the only "voice" of the community was the one calling for Russavia's reinstatement, insisting on the reasons for his ban to be made public, treating his edits and uploads like he was an untouchable super user, etc etc. And several people here have made threats to block others rather than accepting the WMF TOU. This dispute is, on one level, just over a bunch of photographs, and it seems people here would rather fire bullets at each other like the wild west than accept the consequences of russavia's ban and find a solution that no longer involves him at any level. I'm more than aware that I don't always express myself as wisely or carefully as I should. You blew your credibility big time with your "I hear that russavia's coming back" comment and your above comments about the community hating WMF don't really inspire me. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I accept you don't find me to be credible, all because I reported truthfully what I've been told by a member of staff at the Wikimedia Foundation "they believe the ban will ultimately be lifted and is essentially temporary in nature". I readily accept that's not correct and my insider was wrong. I had rather hoped they would have owned up to what they told me by now, but never mind, they and in turn I was wrong, something I've freely admitted. I have to say, in light of the discrepancies that exist between Jimmy Wales and James Heilman's accounts of James' removal from the board, and several other discrepancies that have come to light concerning grants from the Knight Foundation, I'm nothing like the only person to have been given woefully inaccurate and downright wrong information by WMF employees. I stand by my comment that people hate the Wikimedia Foundation too, one only needs to look at the discussions concerning James Heilman's removal from the board, the appointment of Arrnon Gershuin and the links to Google, Tesla and Facebook that have been discovered to see evidence of the deep distrust, displeasure, hatred and fear that exists within the wider community. It's all there for you to see, on mailing lists, discussions on Meta and Jimmy's talk page. There's extensive press coverage, the lot. I don't know if you think I was being overdramatic or what, but I consider it to be accurate description of how a part of the community feels towards the Wikimedia Foundation. Nick (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you should have appreciated that it was a highly inflammatory comment that needs double-checked. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that... It seemed to me such an utterly unlikely and damaging proposal that either you were making a false claim to stir things up, or were remarkably gullible in accepting what you were told and completely reckless in repeating it. Ok, let's move on from that mistake. In terms of the community feeling. Well I think you are falling into the trap of thinking that vocal windbags somehow are the voice of the community. It's like the tendency to consider that a country or society's views are represented by a Twitter storm. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who log onto this site and other WMF sites, and do their thing in peace and quiet and are just happy WMF keep the servers running. I don't follow Jimbo's talk page though I glance with horror at it from time to time much as one might glance at a Daily Mail front page and recoil. What on earth makes you think those places represent the community? -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I really hope I wasn't used to stir up trouble by people at the WMF, not just for reasons of personal pride and me being a bit of gullible old twat, but I really hope the Foundation wouldn't pull a stunt like that.

I know what you're saying about windbags and only those who complain write in/speak up, we never hear from the satisfied majority, because they're satisfied, but these people who speak up are a cross-section of the community, if it were polling, they would represent some sort of statistically significant sample set - they are made up of different nationalities, ethnicities, religions, educations, overall backgrounds, political outlooks and so on, so in one way, you're absolutely correct and what they say and do must be taken with a pinch of salt, but they're almost all we've got in the way of feedback and outlook, and whilst it's far from ideal, the people who speak out and post to mailing lists, Jimmy's talk page etc, they're the people who stand for election, shape and re-write policies. They're our current and future board members, administrators and elsewhere, our future arbitrators, if the people who are shaping policy and dictating some of the direction of the projects have issues with the WMF, it does need to be resolved or dealt with in some way, or we're only ever going to reach impasse after impasse, as we're trying to resolve further down the thread, so we don't have a WMF v. Community (or the visible/vocal part of the community) event.

What we probably need (experience users, administrators, crats and functionaries) is to lead the community closer towards the Foundation's position, but we need the Foundation to make some effort to be more accommodating to at least some parts of the community. I guess I've been too ardent in demanding the Foundation align itself more precisely with the community as it stands right now, and that's probably the wrong approach, we're going to need movement from both sides here. I only wish I had a bright idea on what could be done, all I can think of right now is finding some easy and quick way for content uploaded by banned users to be deleted and but made available to others for re-upload, so we don't get this dramatic deletion/un-deletion flash point, perhaps. Nick (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See Self-selection bias. Those who complain don't make up a "cross-section of the community". They may be varied but they aren't in any way "representative". It may be "all we'e got" but it is important with statistics/surveys to accept when one's data does not have the power with which to draw any useful conclusions. Also see False-consensus effect, which we all suffer from. There exist people who are very unhappy with WMF. There may even exist people who are entirely happy with WMF (I don't claim membership of that group). Given the huge number of people who participate on WMF sites every day, and the tiny number who actually make comments on these forums, I think it is fair to see the "community" don't give WMF a second thought. Someone once said "The desire to be a politician should be enough to ban you from ever becoming one" and the same probably goes for admins, 'crats, etc. It doesn't always attract the best sort. I appreciate your comments: more thoughtful, humble and accommodating than most of us have managed so far. Maybe I have misjudged you. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I made no allegation of any kind against anyone. The word "homophobia" was deliberated introduced by Colin, who then made it read as if I was making allegations of homophobia against someone, and used that to make an ad-hominim attack, that was irrelevant to the discussion about the statistics of photographs of nude women vs. nude men on POTD—"Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for." Colin is misusing Commons as a means to harass people based on them as a person, especially myself as a known openly gay man, using this as a tactic to take discussions off topic, to disrupt the Commons community from reaching a collegiate consensus and force his views on everyone else. Colin's behaviour in this discussion and in several other places is unacceptable, and has been for at least 2 years, with the low point of when he made a personal attack using a carefully written description of me as a "raging gay", using the foil that it was an example of a personal attack that could be made against me by others. Allowing and encouraging this type of behaviour on Commons is an embarrassment to the project and makes it appear an unsafe space for future contributors. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion and resetting of approaches if necessary. We are always happy to join in such conversations." - haha, what a lie ^^ . ... Or did WMF after this statement joined this conversation? ...Sicherlich ^talk 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Colin is entirely right (and express the issue much better than I would do, that's why I don't comment as much as I would like to do). All I see here is a bunch of people using Commons, attacking a long term admin in an inacceptable way, just to pursue a personal vendetta against the WMF because they don't agree with Russavia ban. Some of them are also blocked on the English Wikipedia, and use Commons as a platform for vengeance. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ad-hominim attacks are never right. Please do not encourage them as a means to disrupt discussion. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Odder, @Revent, @Reguyla, @Josve05a
When one places content in the Wikis they follow these very basic steps:
1. they first go to the respective page they want to add to, click on 'edit', 'edit source', 'upload file' or any other button that allows on to contribute or alter content on the wikis
2. they select/type/add said content
3. they hit the 'save' button for their contribution to be completed [for lack of a better word] on the wiki.
Policy compliance of content uploaded by a banned user, which can only be based after step three is completed, has no basis as an argument for keeping said content. And, to be clear, I am always referring to content uploaded by a banned user, post-ban. A banned user is no longer allowed to edit or contribute to the projects in the first place. This means that they should essentially be stopping at step one. If they did [stop at step one] in compliance to their ban, the community would never have to determine whether the content abides by policies [in terms of being useful, a positive contribution or anything else] because ….. well, there would be no content.
Now, deletion of content uploaded by a banned user is in line with the ToU. Admins have no obligation to delete said content, but if they do so on the grounds of upholding the ToU, this should not be a punishable action. On the same grounds, such [deleted] content should not be un-deleted because in assuming responsibility for the un-deletion the admin also assumes responsibility for reinstating content that should not be there in the first place, as per ToU. This is why it is the un-deletion of such content that can be seen as assisting the banned user in evading their ban and thus have repercussions, rather than its re-uploading by a contributor who is not banned and assumes responsibility for the upload.
[Sidenote: apologies if my response is not in the right in-line spot. Several people brought valid concerns and felt I'd be repeating myself if responding to each separately]Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kalliope (WMF). I think the position is fairly clear. However, in your previous post you concluded:

On another note, the Wikimedia Foundation may need to take a harder stand on content uploaded by banned users and delete it when we lock the confirmed sock of the user that uploaded it. This discussion isn’t the place for that broader conversation; we would address that separately in advance. Of course, even then, no requirement would exist for volunteers to also retroactively delete such content. But if community members want to enforce it, they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions.

When you say "if community members want to [retroactively delete such content] they will be (as they already are) permitted to do so without repercussions" it isn't clear if you are talking about them deleting content directly (a speedy delete) simply because it was uploaded by an already banned user, of if you mean after a standard community deletion discussion for each image. Because some admins and one 'crat is insisting that these images can only be deleted after community discussion and after following existing Commons deletion rules which would generally not allow the deletion of content that was in scope, in use and legal. I think you mean the former (they can speedy delete) since there seems little point in you making the statement if the latter. But it would be very helpful if you could explicitly state that you mean admins may bypass the normal deletion process for images uploaded by an already banned user.

Secondly, can you clarify that the "permitted to do so without repercussions" refers to repercussions by WMF staff or repercussions by the community. I'm fairly sure you mean both but it would be very helpful to be explicit. Above, Odder (a 'crat) wrote "I'm not joking — from this moment onwards, if you ever speedy delete a file in violation of Commons policies, you will find yourself blocked, and I will bring your admin privileges for review on this noticeboard." Can you clarify whether being blocked and stripped of admin privileges is part of the "repercussions" you refer to.

Lastly, can you indicate when and where you plan to discuss WMF directly deleting content uploaded by banned users, once their socks are discovered. You indicate you didn't want that conversation here. But it is an important conversation to have. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to say (as surprising as this is) I'm in complete agreement with Colin on this. I know what I'm going to say is not going to please everybody, but I think, at least in the short term, we're should try and align our local policies here with WMF's suggested approach, and if that isn't possible, then we should ask that WMF deal with deletions themselves, without involving the local community. Nothing good is going to come from Odder blocking Jcb, Jcb being desysopped, Odder being blocked by WMF and another two or three years of circular arguments. Nick (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin You are correct in both. Because the content should not have been uploaded in the first place as per ToU, its deletion should not be subject to content-related discussion, and as such eligible for a speedy deletion indeed. In terms of repercussions, I refer to actions by the WMF as well as the Community, which may include but is not limited to de-syssoping of an admin (to paraphrase your example). At this point I must, once again, stress that the aforementioned (by me) line of thought here is with the ToU being upheld in mind. Let me have a chat with Jalexander-WMF on the best place and time for this important conversation and I'll post again here to let all know who may be interested in participating. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Kalliope (WMF) thanks. One point: I assume you mean "eligible for a speedy deletion" rather than "illegible" :-) -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Corrected. Apologies for the typo.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well then I guess some folks are going to be busy deleting the half million files that have been uploaded by Russavia since they have been banned. This of course will not stop them from uploading them, what it may very likely do is cause them to start mass importing large amounts of stuff that violates our policies just because all their work gets deleted anyway and causing even more problems. Is the intent of this really to turn positive contributions into just pure vandalism? Because the WMF and even commons are completely incapable of preventing Russavia or anyone else from editing while banned. So all we are going to do, is create unnecessary drama where none needs to be simply to justify deleting good content that would be allowed if it was imported by any other editor. IMO, if the WMF wants to delete this content, since its their ban, then we let them do it and not worry about Russavia uploading useful and in scope images to support a ban that a lot of us neither want, participated in nor is working. My honest suggestion is, we let the WMF deal with Russavia and his content. If they want to delete it to spite Russavia and the community, then let them. That should be a full time job with benefits at the WMF for some out of work Wikimedian! Reguyla (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a note from en.wp and how they deal with stuff like this, or at least some parts of it. In their criteria for speedy deletion, they have G9 as a speedy deletion criteria. "Office actions", which in my opinion is a good thing, since then they have it as a critera for deletion, so the WMF can do their work without the comunity being nasty towards them for not adhearing the the communities policies (albeit that they do not have to). That however does not allow admins on en.wp to claim G9 as a criteria for deletion, it is soley reserved for appropriate WMF-staff. En.wp also have the criteria "G5. Creations by banned or blocked user", meaning that admins could delete such works, however any other user could claim WP:BANREVERT and simply revert the deletion/tagging/removal as long as they claimed responsibility of the edit(s)/material. The banned user's username is still left in the history and the page is not deleted and then later recreated, which is a whole lot of work for nothing. Why should be treat Commons any differently, why not adopt a few policies from projects which are more experienced with trolls, and let us move on from this and start doing stuff that actually matters for our re-users. Uploading+maintaining our images. Josve05a (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be useful to import these G9/G5 speedy criteria but some aspects makes Commons different. Firstly, I hope that action of reverting an image version (for example, and which bizarrely puts the image in my upload log) does not imply I am taking legal responsibility for a file. Similarly, if an admin undeletes an image (perhaps because a deletion review reversed the decision), I hope that does not make them take legal responsibility for the file. So I think for our purposes, revert/undelete is not an option and should be disallowed in any policy text. WMF make it clear also that undelete is not suitable and that a full standard upload of the content is required to demonstrate the uploader is taking responsibility. (I'm not clear myself whether one can upload on top of a deleted file or if it needs a new name?) The second difference is that content on Wikipedia must be original text (else it is a copyvio or plagiarism). So it is quite obvious when someone restores a banned users text (of any quantity) whether by revert or copy/paste. But on Commons, the content is often not original and if it is present already on the internet with a documented free licence, then anyone may upload it. I note, however, that Commons does contain text (talk pages, forums, image descriptions) and so the WP example may hold there. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: What I do to take responsibility for an edit someone else (blocked) made on en.wp, I write that in an edit summary if possible. Can't the same be done for files, but in upload log/deletion log-comments, like "per policy X I herby take full responsibility to this file, as described on policy pagy Y." or something? Josve05a (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think informal techniques like edit summaries is going to work. The images hosted on commons are the legal responsibility of the uploaders and that's a principle that should be kept simple. Further, it isn't WMF's intention that restoring the images should be trivial or automatable on some script or bot. It's meant to be such a PITA that russavia stops and all his friends ask him to stop. -- Colin (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion already has "office actions". I think they are more for DMCA take-downs (which absolutely cannot be undeleted or re-uploaded) rather than the situation here where the content is permitted to be uploaded from source by another user, but not just undeleted by an admin. So possibly the new criteria of "edit/upload by already banned user" criterion would be used for deletions carried out by either WMF or an admin here. The rationale and consequences are identical regardless who who actually performs the deletion. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'd much rather have WMF delete thse than an admin, sicne the WMF seems to be under the belief that such admins hsould get a veto from all form of "reprocussions" to admnins dong such deletions, despite if the community would disgree with that. That woulld put us in a wird place if a disagreement of on deletion would arise, the WMF would most likely say that the admin was enforcing the ToU and that s/he now has a veto form being desyopsed. That's a false premise since the communities should be able to decide for what an admin can or can not be desyopsed, and if they were to put in a veto...that would not be good for relations. Remember superprotect and all? I'd much rather see the WMF delete these files. Sorry for rambling a bit, hadn't had coffee yet. Josve05a (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How would WMF deleting these files pacify those with the authority issues any more than WMF protecting admins who delete the files? There are some who will not be happy with this decision but it is what it is. The admins aren't being given some invincibility shield against any future desysop for any reason. The best way of us dealing with this is what you proposed -- that we adopt the clause in the speedy delete that permits admin/WMF to delete the post-ban edits/uploads of banned users. Then there's no argument over WMF interfering with the desysop process since admin actions would be in line with policy. We might as well document that such deletion is permitted (and undeletion banned) because that's what's going to be enforced anyway. And documenting it makes it clear to everyone where we now stand, rather than having to link back to some archived discussion. And I think doing this for 2016 forwards is likely to cause the least community upset while still achieving the aim of stopping russavia. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think 'post-policy-change' would be a better option, so the policy isn't retroactive in any way. I hope the WMF can agree to this compromise and I suggest restoring these deleted files and start from scratch with policy behind us. Then we can work in harmony with each other, once again :) Josve05a (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think importing those 2 categories is a bad idea. They both have a useful purpose and frankly I see the WMF delete more content here than anywhere else so marking it as an office action, if that's not done already makes a lot of sense.

I can also vouch that there are admins on ENWP standing by to vandalize the work of a blocked user. And that's exactly what it is when someone willingly deletes or reverts a positive contribution, vandalism. Even if some policy is used to justify it. Because even the Arbcom has shown time and time again that policy and even their own Arbcom procedures are worthless to them if they want to do something. All that has done for me is that I now take great care to only do a limited number of edits per account before changing to another in order to contribute but I have to avoid my area of interest which is Medal of Honor recipients which I find extremely disappointing. But all of my edits are positive. That is the key I am trying to convey. The edits being done are positive, as they are in this case.

I recognize however that my situation is different because mine was done through manipulation of policy by a couple users and this is a WMF ban. So as I said before, if the WMF wants Russavia to be banned, regardless of how I or anyone else feels about it, then its their right to do so. Its their responsibility however to enforce it, especially given the fact that the edits being done are positive; they (the WMF) do not want to listen to the communities input nor do they trust the community to discuss the situation (to even the functionaries) about his ban; and Russavia is so capable of creating another account and doing another 10, 000 edits before he is noticed. How many accounts has the WMF blocked now? Like a thousand, not counting the ones blocked locally! And the WMF saying that another editor can upload the file is in complete contrast to policies regarding proxy editing for banned editors, especially WMF banned ones. So they expect some commons contributor to risk getting blocked or desysopped themselves and use their time to restore content that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.

Jimbo and the WMF got what they wanted, they have destroyed Russavia's reputation on the WMF projects for the painting he sent to Jimbo. There is no reason to force more work on us lowly contributors because of their mistakes and lack of respect for this community. Honestly, if Russavia were to contact me (and I know a lot of others feel the same way) and ask to re-upload a group of images that were deleted, as long as they are in scope and useful, I would do it. Not to defy the WMF or to help Russavia but because they improve the projects and that is what we should all be working to do. Not blacklisting an editor because he sent a painting to the founder that was done using anatomical male parts on video. Reguyla (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kalliope (WMF). Could you also clarify "Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves) as long as it does not turn into a case where they are editing on the request/direction of the banned user." ?

Most of the files uploaded by Russavia after his ban are in scope and legal. Some of them are used on sister projects. How will the WMF (or admins) judge if someone reuploding is doing it "on request" of the banned user? He still is on IRC regularly, and has the email address of several contributors. There is absolutly no way to prevent him to contact someone outside Commons. I'm afraid of collateral damages...

Pleclown (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree this needs some clarification. We have many users who are handy with bots for uploading and one could imagine a scenario where Russavia continues to upload at will, and his images are deleted for mere seconds before some bot comes along and restores them in the name of an "innocent" user. But on the other hand, where images are previously published on the internet with a documented free licence, why should there be any fault in transferring them to Commons once again. The priority is to absolutely discourage a banned user from continuing to evade their ban and for Commons to move to a situation where we no longer care about speedy deleting Russavia's sock uploads, as they no longer occur. In the light of that, should we consider grandfathering the pre 2016 content. Deleting it now, in Feburary 2016, would not I suggest have any disincentive for Russavia but would cause a lot of people upset. Deleting the 2015 content is only going to make people write bots to rapidly restore it. Whereas deleting going forward (more-or-less) may permit a tougher stance on anyone who appears to be merely playing delete/restore games. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pleclown: I don’t have answers to all the questions, if I’m being honest. My statements above are not a presentation of a concrete, done-and-dusted policy item. Rather they convey the direction the WMF thinks they should be heading in terms of content of globally banned users [post-ban]. It certainly needs to be fleshed out and discussed further and I am finding this discussion extremely constructive - I see a lot of common sense in many of the suggestions made already. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm vehemently opposed to any sort of automated un-deletion of images for any reason. I also wouldn't want a situation to develop where a banned user can upload an image, it be deleted under a speedy deletion criteria of some description, and for nobody to readily be able to undelete the image to download and then re-upload it (thereby taking responsibility for the content under their own username). This (and I know it's late and I'm a bit tired) seems to lead to two possible outcomes - if we permit administrators to undelete images uploaded by a banned user, then there's really nothing to stop a banned user from doing the work behind the scenes, similarly, if we stop people from undeleting images, it allows a banned user to stop or at least slow down our users from uploading the same content if it requires undeletion or brings into question their involvement with a banned user. How do we minimise collateral damage whilst preventing banned users from editing ? Nick (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think downloading deleted content from Commons, in order to re-upload it, is an option. An admin doing that would almost certainly be breaking the rules. Admins have access to deleted content for proper administrative purposes but there's good legal reasons why deleted content should generally be deemed inaccessible. The image must be re-sourced and uploaded afresh. And this is one reason why I propose this may be better considered for 2016+ uploads as the legacy problem has the potential to unravel any progress. If we rapidly get into a situation where there's no more content being uploaded by Russavia then we can all move on and concerns about re-uploading banned-user files becomes largely irrelevant. -- Colin (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): I have a few questions:

1. If an admin deletes pre-ban content, and another admin restores/undeletes them as a violation of our deletion policy, is that restoration a violation of the Terms of Use?
2. If a banned user files a valid deletion request (for example, FOP issues), should that DR be speedily kept in accordance with the Terms of Use, or continue discussing about the file and decide whether the file will be deleted or kept in accordance with our policies?
3. If a banned user marks a file as a clear copyright violation, should that be reverted in accordance with the Terms of Use, or delete it because it is a clear copyvio?

Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pokéfan95 we could spend all day coming up with scenarios where a banned user makes an edit/upload that would normally be considered helpful/useful and where one may be naturally reluctant to lose that edit/upload. But the fact is continuing with that approach is permitting a banned user from continuing to participate here. We've seen that over the last year, and people are understandably anxious about the possible deletion of a large number of images (I've no idea how large). A banned users edits or uploads will be deleted and the edit must not be restored and the deleted file not undeleted. Regardless of content or perceived usefulness/value. I don't see WMF coming back to you with the sort of "Well, as long as the edit is useful, you can keep it" response you are hoping for. If the banned user has concerns over copyright, they have other means to communicate that either to WMF themselves or to their friends by email and other off-wiki forums. We need to get into a stage where russavia is history and we no longer fret over how to handle his edits. That is why I made the proposal above about letting the pre-2016 uploads be. It seems the best way to move on from this mess. The alternative nuclear option of deleting all his post-ban content is understandably going to cause some grief. For your first question, I didn't think pre-ban content was being discussed at all. So surely that follows existing policy/practice. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: My statements above are in reference to actions related to post-ban content, not pre-ban content. So, un-deletion of pre-ban content would be subject to standard Commons policy.

A banned user should not be doing anything in the projects, full-stop. In my opinion, post-ban activity of the banned user should be reverted, because [whether positive or not] it shouldn’t be happening in the first place. On this basis, a DR placed by the banned contributor [post-ban], would technically warrant deletion. The fact that a banned user places a DR doesn’t mean that the community is incapable of placing it themselves. Instead [of allowing a banned contributor to place DRs], let the community place it or place it yourself. However, I would not be opposed to the idea of grandfathering of old pages. Colin's thought on grandfathering content in general has a lot of merit to avoid more drama than is necessary but that is especially true for administrative pages like this, where deleting administrative history (of an action that was already done) could be problematic. The target here is to prevent users from evading their global bans whilst assisting the community in their efforts to expand and curate the project.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Had the effort been made to work with trusted community members to commute the WMF office action into a community managed block, then you would be able to rely on administrators to work collegiately to enforce the block. It would greatly "assist the community" if you trusted the community, rather than pulling more authority into the WMF when the WMF lacks credible governance processes to ensure transparency or accountability from the top downwards. At this point I have every reason to believe that if the WMF CEO wanted my account blocked because I was troublesome, then "reasons" would be created on the fly and judged sufficient to force me to vanish. Trust has to be earned, just telling people to trust you or else, is not the same thing. --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Valid deletion reasons, especially copyvios or licensing issues, are never ever eligible for blind reverts. It's actually a shame someone from WMF valus this non-comunity ban higher than copyright issues. --Denniss (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): I like Colin's idea of Grandfathering the contributions also, realistically however Russavia is not going to stop contributing unless the WMF locks him in the dungeon's of the WMF headquarters in San Francisco. Maybe Agent 47 is available? So, barring those extreme measures, we either need to accept that this is going to go on forever, we turn positive edits and a positive contributor into negative ones literally just because we can and we all stay busy for a long time to come and look really really stupid and lose credibility by deleting content others are using and linking to here. Otherwise I recommend this. If the WMF does not want him contributing, then they deal with it. We should not get involved with deleting the content as long as its positive. We should not continually be looking for gratification from the WMF on a ban we had no part in and we should not be having discussions about it, literally, every week. As Fae put it above, trust has to be earned and telling the community that we have to support a ban we don't know anything about and a "trust us" attitude, even if under the best of intentions, is pretty meaningless given the WMF's history. If they want the communities help, then I recommend they extend some trust to us and at least talk to the/some of the functionaries about it (assuming that the WMF would even tell us the true story). Otherwise we are all left guessing at the reasoning for the ban and my guess is, were we to find out, it would show that the WMF really had no other reason that political retaliation for the ban and we would likely not be supportive of it. Reguyla (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Let this thead die, and go back to editing, no one is ever getting a consensus to perform an admin action out of this. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect that at least some of the active intervenients in this thread are contributing here and also elsewhere — uploading, categorizing, otherwise improving filepages, commenting in DRs, etc. Well, at least those of us who actually do those things… But granted that even the (nothing-but-)drama-stirrers are able to do their thing at several spots at once… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The administrator who spent the most time worrying about and blocking Russavia's sock accounts was INeverCry (talk · contribs), recently retired from the project. Other administrators passionate about blocking Russavia's accounts, rather than leaving this to the WMF to handle, will benefit from taking some time out to reflect on INeverCry's U-turn on Russavia on 16 December 2015:

"... if we had any disagreement, it likely had to do with my stance on issues regarding Russavia. I over-reacted from the start on that, and I'd certainly do things differently if I could rewind time. I can understand Scott's care for his uploads and why he socks around the ban. I'd probably do the same if I was in his place. I can't revisit the past, but if you speak with him, or if he sees this, I can assure him I won't be interfering with him in any way going forward."

--Fæ (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Related deletion of Aviation files

Taking into consideration of the WMF statement “Contributors can, of course, always feel free to re-upload the image themselves (under their own name and, therefore, taking responsibility for the edits themselves)”, I believe this affects me as I worked in partnership with with Russavia to upload around 100,000 aviation files, some of that volunteer work was supported by funding from the UK chapter. You can find the project page at Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners. I have no intention of this becoming a reason for the WMF to office ban my account at some future time due to the creeping interpretation of the WMF's new policies for office locks which now makes this past project toxic. Unfortunately as WMF legal have denied my request to examine the records or reports they hold about me, but not denied these exist, I have no idea if they are actively building a case to ban me in the future.

I propose that I add these files to a bundle deletion request, and the files are deleted thereby removing any responsibility for myself or Russavia as uploader. If an individual Commons administrator then wishes to undelete them, they can do so at their risk rather than mine. I should have time to put this together over the coming weekend, though a random example file would be File:Aermacchi MB-339PAN, Italy - Air Force JP6366808.jpg.

By the way, I have not discussed this proposal with Russavia, neither do I intend to, as I do not wish any discussion to be used as evidence by WMF employees as 'assisting' a banned user.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better I have been told that there is a case being built to global ban me as well. So we will all be banned together. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If it comes to that, it’s time to fork. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I have been building this for the last 2 years! It only gets between 5000-8000 hits a day, but that has been increasing incrementally and considering its only got about 200, 000 pages, that's really not all that bad IMO. Reguyla (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you. If you don't agree with the ToU, you need to fork, and create your own playground. Good luck with that. Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure who you are replying to. I have no problem with the WMF terms of use. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, I think Yann meant to reply to me, but apparently all this commotion impaired his ability to understand comment reply threading. More tellingly, it seems to have cleft Yann’s worldview (or Commons-view) in twain: chums and foes and looks like I’m among the latter. And all this after a few mild disagreements on filenames and DRs, or so I thought. Well, it sure paints my own Commons-view in clearer shades… (Oh, and I never said I have problems with the ToU, either.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am populating 70,095 R Files uploaded in cooperation with blocked accounts with relevant files. If a WMF employee wants to act on these, I would appreciate being contacted first as this will be slow to complete and may not be limited to the aviation project. Otherwise I will raise a DR as proposed and action can then be taken or discussed by any administrator that wishes to. Deletion of these files may raise questions from the original photographers or organizations, so I request that administrators only act to delete or undelete if they are contactable by email, so that I can pass on any off-wiki inquiries. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think deleting those just because Russavia and you worked on them together is absurd! Reguyla (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem with some of out 'over zealous' admins are and yes; i mean over zealous, is that they get excited when they see a russavia sock because they are targeting not only the user but his contributions too, its a easy way to rack up 10k+ admin actions because every sock of russavia ends up making an average of 10k edits before getting 'locked' by WMF Staff...Again, i reiterate, target the account if you must, not the edits, our silly policies in regards to 'banned' users are limited to 'vandalism' and users forcing COI only (or so we are told to assume) and his socks are doing neither, its infact doing a lot more work than most of us on commons and when admins intentionally deleted good edits just because they were created by a 'banned' user, it makes you wonder, who the real villain is?..I used to report socks all the time in my early days on enwiki but I soon stopped when i realised that even though i was doing what was right according to our ToU, i was involuntarily reporting editors making good and positive edits, again we target the editors, not the contributions (if we must)..Russavia isn't going anywhere, well unless he gets a heart attack and falls dead on his keyboard :P ..but thats unlikely to happen ..--Stemoc 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ:  Question I am wondering, how does Russavia cooperate with you in uploading aviation files? Does he give you a script? Or a list of links, then you built a script for it?

 Info I also moved all files from Category:Files uploaded in cooperation with Russavia to Category:Files uploaded in cooperation with blocked accounts using my alternate and semi-automated account. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The project was written up at Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners. There is no need to specially move files if there is a category redirect, these get swept up by a regular housekeeping bot within a day. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The DR has been raised at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded in cooperation with blocked accounts. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User adding categories for fringe territory

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

We have a user adding categories related to Southern Azerbaijan to various things which have nothing to do with it. Southern Azerbaijan is a territory with an independence movement recognized by no one else.

What can be done about this situation? The categories are plainly inappropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talking to the user first?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Or how about removing the pan-nationalistic category and give the user a warning instead :P? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Denniss

Hi, Denniss's support of Russavia, a user banned by the WMF for harassement is already worrisome. But blocking DellCNNinja because he reverted Russavia's edits is a clear abuse of his admin rights. It is also a violation of WMF terms of use, as acting on Russavia's request. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yann I think you will find that DellCNNinja is a globally banned editor as well (but not Russavia). They created their userpage identifying themselves as Russavia. I think you will also find that they are the same globally banned editor as GoogleRUD. Perhaps it might be wise to ask Jalexander-WMF whom DellCNNinja and GoogleRUD are? They do not appear to be Russavia, but someone else. Denniss was right to indefinitely block DellCNNinja. 186.93.212.182 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

At least, this is not factual. DellCNNinja is not globally banned: m:Special:CentralAuth/DellCNNinja, and I don't see any vandalism in DellCNNinja's contributions. This account may well be a sock, but a proper procedure exists to deal with such cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yann, it would extremely helpful for everyone to understand your request if you would provide a quote from the WMF that makes Denniss' administrator action on a vandal account as reason for a WMF office lock, or alternatively a quote from policy that makes blocking vandals an inappropriate use of admin tools, because the vandal was doing something to Russavia's old edits?

We are running a the risk that administrators will in future refuse to take action on clearly unlawful or abusive edits, just because they are somehow entangled with something Russavia once touched and in theory could be called 'assisting' a WMF office locked account. I doubt that the WMF will want to supply sufficient employees to handle every vandal that discovers this is a fun way to disrupt the project.

It should be noted that a request for action relating to the recent threat by a WMF employee to block administrator accounts should go by email to the WMF. Requests of this type are literally not a request for administrator action according to Wikimedia Commons community agreed project policies and cannot be implemented by administrators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, it would extremely helpful for everyone that you stop supporting Russavia and his friends, in every situation. As Colin told you rightfully, you should restrain yourself to the File: namespace, that's the only area where your contributions are useful. Yann (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Answering the question will make your request more credible than personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Russavia banned for harassment - where did you get this information from? BTW I did not block him upon Russavia request - why should I. It wasn't the first time a LTA was joining the bandwagon and claims to be Russavia. I usually block them on-sight.--Denniss (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Denniss: FYI, Russavia's 'master' account was actually indefinitely blocked on Commons by Yann back in July, for allegedly (though opinions differ) harrassing INeverCry by creating a sock named "Snitches get stitches", or something similar. Revent (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: You're wrong. "Snitches get stitches" was not meant to harass/intimidate INeverCry. See User talk:Pokéfan95#Intimidation of INeverCry. If you will see "Snitches get stitches"'s block log and Russavia's block log, the snitches account was blocked by INeverCry earlier than Russavia's block by INeverCry. Also, he got the idea of "Snitches get stitches" user name when he saw a Facebook account of that name. @Yann: If you can show a diff of Russavia allegedly saying that he harassed/intimidated INeverCry, then show it. Regards, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: I tried to make it specific... I know that Russavia has told the story differently, and so forth... I said 'allegedly' and 'opinions differ'. It was the justification for the block Yann gave, and I was just informing Denniss that Russavia is indeed blocked on Commons, with a block log that indicates 'intimidation/harassment', and trying to do so in a way that didn't 'claim' either side of the argument was correct. Revent (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: OK. I striked out a part of my comment. But my comment against Yann's block of Russavia still stands. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: Okay, so you really don't want to defend your block of Russavia? If you don't want to respond here, then I will bring this issue up to COM:AN/B. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Last chance Yann. It seems you are ignoring my ping. If you don't reply by tomorrow, I will open up a review of your block of Russavia at COM:AN/B. You are the blocking admin, and it is your responsibility when someone questions your block. My two cents... ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not answering your question, as it is, in this place and time, a big troll. Russavia on Commons is History. After a long history of harassment in various places, he was banned by the WMF, which should be good enough for any reasonable users. Now if you like to do archaeology, you are free to dig around. I have better things to do. BTW, while importing whatever files under a free license he could find on Flickr, he has uploaded thousands of copyright violations and out of scope images. That in itself should be a valid reason for blocking him. You should better use your time to clean this mess... Yann (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: "he was banned by the WMF, which should be good enough for any reasonable users" Why do you thing that the ban between four walls is not reasonable for most of the users? I don't support the behaviour of Russvia, but personnal attacks is not the best way to keep your POV against his behaviour and the users that support him. I opposed his block just because most of us don't even know the actual reasons of the ban. Should be this a reason to blindly trust the WMF "Office actions" (not only against Russavia, but the files uploaded by him, including the Picture of the Year 2014)?--Amitie 10g (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: I have another question: Is it right for an involved admin to block a user (for example, User A, which is an admin, is seriously pissed off when User B opposed the URAA thing, and then User C, accuses User B for making death threats, and User A blocked User B for it)? If they harassed someone, isn't it better if you warned him before blocking? And can you explain why you revdel Russavia's comment regarding to his defense against Natuur12's accusation of him for making death threats (other than that ToU)? Because you want to control the discussion? Have you forgotten that accusing someone for making death threats is a serious thing? Actually, just accusing someone as a vandal is a serious thing, then why not death threats?

And can you provide a list of users that he harassed/intimidated? I don't see someone except Jimbo Wales, but that Wales thing was about 2 years ago. If you are not going to answer my question, too bad. You are lucky that I questioned your block, and I gave you a chance to defend yourself and your block. You just put yourself in risk of de-adminship. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I am boldly marking this thread as archived. There has been sufficient discussion over the last week to assess community views on the allegation of "abuse of his admin rights", and there is no administrator action to be taken. The discussion with regard to a desysop is a tangent and can be created as a new thread if more than hypothetical. Yann, as the original requestor, has become uncooperative by refusing to supply further evidence or answer questions relating to the allegation which itself is a good reason to close this thread. If anyone has evidence to present to the WMF with regard to 'assisting' WMF office locked users, they should email the WMF, by definition it is not a matter that requires action or can be considered within the scope of authority of Wikimedia Commons administrators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Fæ: Seeing your involvement here, you should be the last to decide when to close this. Yann (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem committed to keep on fomenting argument about Russavia, month after month, and making offensive and childish attacks on your unpaid volunteer colleagues who dare publicly question your aggressive approach in seeking punishment (there are plenty that express their counter-views in private). I feel embarrassed for you and wash my hands of this petty drama. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Reverting Yann's reopening of this discussion. Please continue the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Reviewing the block of Russavia. Yann seems to be not cooperating in this discussion, although he is the one that originally opened this discussion. There is no reason to make an "admin action" against Denniss. Thanks, --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Safarov shahzod

Safarov shahzod (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user does not seem to be here to contribute constructively. They've previously been blocked at my request for creating out-of-scope pages in spite of warnings. Google translations of their edits to Commons:Village pump/Copyright suggests we're either dealing with a broken SEO spambot or someone helplessly lost trying to use the copyright village pump as a search engine. Their recently created user page appears to be a spam link to an SMS gateway. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Please take care of that and consider inviting them to leave. Safarov shahzod s. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user is a likely sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indefinitely blocked (and autoblocked) both. Your assessment (a malfunctioning spambot) appears correct, and even if not the case there are no useful edits from either account, and much random nonsense. If they regain sanity, they can request unblocking. @LX: Thanks for reporting. Revent (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Raju Sadhula

creates out of scope text to talk page--Motopark (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week due to self-promotion and removing messages. Taivo (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts

This was posted in AN/U before. Since several people saw it as an attack or offense against against the user in question, it was moved to VP.

Help is needed with publishing of translated article

I have completed my translation of the article Inner German border. When I click Publish, publishing starts and it's never been completed.

Continued copyright violations (User talk:HdezDelRey)

User continued to upload obviously copyrighted album covers after final warning on 5 August 2015 at 20:07.

• File:Iggy azalea-work single.jpg, (6 Aug 2015, 16:04)
• File:Bounce-Iggz.jpg, (6 Aug 2015, 16:06)
• File:Hozier TMTC-Single.jpg (20 Aug 2015)

Ubcule (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Jacf1857 (talk · contribs)

After this stunt, will there be a mild tut-tut and a slap on the wrist, or will someone draw a B.F.G. on this troll? Or that’s only for valuable contributers who commission Prickassos for their frenemies? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Their only edit was to I admit vandalize the category .... but that was at 5pm (UK time) and they've not returned since ? .... Seems pointless in blocking a one-edit vandal IMHO... –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would point out this is only about this one individual doing this one edit. The fact that Other Stuff Exists, either images or user's behavior, does not have any bearing on this individual's situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a registered account — blocking it has no collateral damages as an IP block would. Not blocking it means only two things: Either that it is expected that this user will develop to become a positive contributor (extreme naivety), or it is felt that the risk of having another instance of this is not worth the hassle of blocking (laziness). Which is it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done 1 month break. Same edit on eswiki btw. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hedwig in Washington - I'm not having a go but what does blocking actually achieve here? ... If he's not edited since the 18th then it's unlikely he'll return therefore there's nothing being achieved.... (If he does return then yeah fair enough but blocking for a month over one edit is a bit heavy handed isn't it ?). –Davey2010^Talk 04:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Answer on your talk page! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I also think that one month block for just one edit is a bit overhanded. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Can you please make the block 1 day instead of 1 month? I agree with Yann and Davey here, it is too much for a new user. That user is not blocked on any wiki other than Commons. Please COM:AGF. You must make your block reason clearer why you block him/her for 1 month. If s/he is a sockpuppet, then say it here. If you won't do any of the options above, I will raise a review of your block at COM:AN/B. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No need for drama. I changed the block. Yann (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yann, I should probably state for the record that I wasn't looking for changes nor was I gonna take it further ... Just wanted a reason really, Anyway thanks to all I guess, Right Ima fuck off from this board now! . –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jasonshortes (talk · contribs) annotations spamming

Jasonshortes has been spamming photographs (his own uploads and also other contributor's uploads) the annotations by adding websites that have advertising on them. They have been told to cease but continue to do so. Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Reverted and blocked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Bobyrr

Hi, This user (Bobyrr (talk · contribs)) has created many DRs without a valid reason. AGF, so it may be a case of a misunderstand of deletion/copyright rules due to language issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indef both for "Bobyr" (which already was blocked two times for vandalism) and for "Bobyrr". There is also an account named "Bobyrrr" which I'm going to indef now as well, to prevent further socking... --A.Savin 13:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dikson

Per their talk page, it appears that this user has a history of uploading a lot of files en masse from Flickr, of the wrong license. Would anyone be willing to look over this and advise on whether we should help the user, or just block them outright? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you notify him at his talk page regarding possible deletions when you don't tagg the files for deletion? Natuur12 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah you where just a bit on the slow side. Anyways. Gave the user a final warning. Natuur12 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it was tagging things a bit out of order today. Thanks for the help though, as it is greatly appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Rinku125

User:Rinku125 is banned on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry but still using the account on Commons to upload selfies for use by ongoing socks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Sockpuppet blocked, two new uploads of the previously deleted selfie deleted, main account warned. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of Sendker

Please take a look at this recent CU case at de:wp that links Sendker to following accounts with uploads at Commons:

• Richaardo (talk · contribs)
• Sperrvermerk (talk · contribs)
• Per aspra (talk · contribs)
• Remsede (talk · contribs)

I've already filed two mass deletion requests for subsets of the uploads (1 and 2). But there is more to be checked, particularly in the case of Per aspra. Some uploads can be saved (like File:Windau 1915.JPG which is signed). I would be grateful for help. As Sendker has already been blocked for abusing multiple accounts and as the CU case at de:wp appears to be trustworthy, I suggest to block all these accounts. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

See here, here, here, and this local CU case for related discussions. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now blocked all four accounts. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Gigantopithecusman

User:Gigantopithecusman is continuing to upload random historical cryptozoology photos as his "own work", despite a user talk page full of copyright warnings. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him for 3 days. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Long patern of uncivil and pushy behaviour

@Elvey: has repeatedly been warned to remain civil but yet again he is pushy, rude and starts caps lock yelling. Also at the top of his talk page there is a personal attack against an unnamed admin. I warned this user in September last year. In November there was more swearing . There is uncvil behaviour against an admin here in September/November. More yelling (though the worst comment has been withdrawn) Comment from “23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)” in the same DR is also aggressive and it bothers another users. The last couple of days there where aggressive comments in this undel request. It already starts with bring the person who nominated the files into discretion, Later on he/she just asks to ignore other people’s arguments instead of countering them. The user opens the undel request without making clear that it already has been closed (another example of this user being pushy) I told him/her that it was rude to leave the closing statement out (and since there are no new arguments given I reclosed it) Instead the user starts attacking me. A third admin closes the undel request again and then Elvey starts swearing ” Wow. @#!$ move“ (replacing the curse with symbols doesn’t mean it isn’t a curse anymore)

The difflinks show that this user gets aggressive, becomes rude and starts attacking people when things don’t go the way he wants them to go. Since it is an ongoing pattern and the edit/drama ratio is more than I would normally expect I would like to ask another admin to take a look. Sorry but you can't just start attacking people every time you disagree with them and continue an debate after it has been closed.

I only made a timeline of events that happened after my warning but before this incident there were also warning like this one. In 2014 this user was already warned to stop being so pushy and rude. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a retaliatory swipe because I wasn't happy that Natuur12 prematurely closed a DR that I opened, twice (about others' uploads), and misrepresented what I'd said. Clearly Natuur12 can't accept that their closes were premature. It was finally closed properly, after a brief discussion here of relevant facts and policy; this close clearly shows that, contrary to Natuur's claims, I do NOT attack people because things haven't gone the way I wanted them to go. Interesting lack of appropriate recent diffs. There are many accusations but few diffs, and they are misrepresented by Natuur — amazingly, this ancient diff that shows me sincerely thanking Revent for some good admin work, is labeled as uncivil and as worthy of admin attention, but was dredged up from last year, and the diff (Take a look!) just shows me saying thanks: ":And thanks for being the administrator who finally resolved that massive copyfraud problem. It took over a year and a half to get it addressed. I faced threats, libel, reverts and hostility from multiple other admins. It was madness. <sig>"! There was indeed a significant w:copyfraud problem, and arguably I had no choice but to be a bit pushy or allow the copyfraud to continue. Despite the threats, libel, reverts and hostility from multiple other admins, I recall I remained rather civil - certainly many disputants are far less civil, but aren't dragged here!

I civilly informed Ellin that she claimed (incorrectly) that {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government. I think that admins should have as a goal to act from a correct understanding, not making incorrect claims. Natuur12 doesn't seem to see that as important; rather he claims that "There is uncvil behaviour against an admin here in September/November." <sic> Do other admins dispute or agree that admins should have as goals to act from a correct understanding, not making incorrect claims? Hope it's the latter. Admins? Please speak up, if you're uninvolved. I welcome a demonstration of a more civil way of informing Ellin that she claimed (incorrectly) that {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government, such that I can emulate it, or an explanation as to why I should not have informed her of that at all. I'm open to good advice and honest, constructive criticism.

Sometimes this non admin has better information about important issues of copyright law than admins do. Far more than twice, on some very important issues. Should I shut up, or are such contributions useful? It took being a bit pushy to get some stubborn admins to see the appropriateness of some of those PD-<state>Gov templates. And help from folks like Carl and Moonriddengirl.

Natuur12 has been uncivil. When I asked him to please be civil (diff) he claims that's me "attacking" him. Please, admins review the diff and discussion and tell me who "attacked" who there. I'm not going to go dredging up ancient history from past years as Natuur12 has done. But, sticking to the present: Making accusations without providing diffs that back them up is disruptive. I think it's a false accusation that I was caps lock yelling at anyone recently (unless you count a individual WORD in caps for emphasis, which hardly seems uncivil to me) or even at any time this year; it's certainly unsubstantiated. Prematurely closing discussions that history shows could clearly have been allowed to run their course (again, see here) is disruptive. I think this clearly shows that reclosing twice without addressing my concerns is what Natuur did, that *that* was rude and pushy, and that it was factually incorrect of Natuur to claim that my concerns has been addressed prior to his closes. Closing DRs with rationales that don't comport with reality, copyright law or policy is disruptive.--Elvey (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: The act you were thanking me for (regarding the CC icons) honestly involved little 'admin' action. It was me just, out of a bit of frustration, acting as a 'regular editor' to actually solve the problem instead of merely complaining about it (the only 'admin bit' to it was editing a few protected pages)....it was incredibly tedious, btw, as it involved over a hundred files. I think your idea of 'copyfraud' (a term that implies bad faith) is overbroad. My impression is, indeed, that you have a tendency to not listen to dissenting viewpoints, and instead insist you are correct... for instance, in that linked case, you were correct, but it had nothing to do with 'copyfraud', and the way you approached the issue pushed it toward being an argument about the term instead of a discussion of the actual problem. You need to be far less confrontational, in my opinion, and discuss the actual issue instead of using loaded terms that heat up the discussion. It's also worth considering that, in some cases, an admin might have information (or experience) that you do not... asking for clarification is far more productive than arguing. Admins are not required to always be correct... they are required to be impartial, when using their bit (we are still allowed to have opinions, when acting as normal editors), and the confirmation of an act by a second admin is a pretty good indication that the 'result' is not in error... there is no need to 'prove' to every involved party that an action is correct, and in many cases some parties will never agree. Even if we (meaning Commons) are occasionally 'wrong' about something, maintaining a civil environment, and agreeing to follow a procedure for disagreements, is far more important than being 'right' in any particular case. Revent (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You are too modest. The bit was needed to edit pages that had been protected because of the dispute over the false copyright claims. So the need for 'admin' action was quite significant. If I'd continued the edits as a regular editor, I'd have been openly defying an admin. [tangent rm'd] If my approach to getting the false copyright claims removed pushed it toward being an argument about the term, that was not my intention, and if I haven't already made that clear, I make it clear now, so please don't insist otherwise. I'm wondering if / skeptical that using "false copyright claims" instead of "copyfraud" would have increased / significantly reduced the madness I faced...and I appreciate the constructive criticism. How/why would not using 'copyfraud' help? I think the final proper close (here) shows that I do listen to dissenting viewpoints. But I do not like it when users insist they are right but aren't willing to discuss law, facts or policy. Because that's rude. If you wish to claim that I do not defer to authority or take kindly to w:arguments from authority, I acknowledge that that is true. If I learn that policy or the consensus here at commons is that users should defer to admins when they make w:arguments from authority then I will do so, but I'm aware of no such consensus or policy! I agree - asking for clarification is far more productive than arguing - and when I ask for my concerns to be addressed, as I very clearly did, repeatedly, in the discussion that precipitated this noticeboard discussion, I think I am asking for clarification. Agreed?

I wrote, "I welcome a demonstration of a more civil way of informing Ellin that she claimed (incorrectly) that {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply to works done as unpaid work for the US Government, such that I can emulate it, or an explanation as to why I should not have informed her of that at all." and I'm wondering if your comment, "Admins are not required to always be correct..." is meant to be "an explanation as to why I should not have informed her of that at all." Is it? FYI: I'm expect to be online rarely, if at all for a while (a few days). --Elvey (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Please don't take my statements as a defense of admins 'in general'... there are admins I am not particularly fond of. In general, however, escalating a debate to a wider community, in a way that presents the issue as impartially as possible, is far more productive than simply arguing... an admin might be incorrect, but should 'absolutely' be willing to explain the rationale they used, and willing to both comply with a consensus and willing to implement that consensus in future decisions. While a presentation of the issue, and your reasoning, to a wider community is acceptable (and should, imo, be encouraged if you are not convinced, as a 'local' consensus might not always reflect the wider community) a tendency to instead merely continue to argue with the same people, after a decision is made, is not only counterproductive but indicates an unwillingness to work in a consensual manner, and that is a huge problem. An administrator is an editor whose 'judgement', as to their understanding of policy, law, and ability to assess stated arguments, has had the endorsement of the community. An admin should always be willing to explain the rationale they used to make a decision...they should, in fact, do so when making the decision. At the same time, any admin, after a while, will end up making a decision that they do not 'personally' agree with because of the local consensus and arguments made, or recusing themself. An admin who is not willing to do that should not be an admin. A willingness to either implement a community consensus or policy that you do not agree with, or to recuse yourself from acting, is probably the most important 'admin trait'.

At the same time, the 'implication' of the term copyfraud (which includes the word 'fraud') is that the person or agency referred to is acting in bad faith, instead of mere factual error, and heats up any conversation in which it is included. It's far better to discuss matters of fact, and opinion where it's a matter of judgement, without using such terms. 'Copyfraud' (such as a claim of copyright in a simple crop) is rampant on Commons, lack of clue does not merit the use of a 'loaded' term that implies bad faith.

My statement that 'admins are not always required to be correct' was not a statement on Elin's actions, at all.. after commenting about my own actions, I digressed to general comments. Revent (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to comment separately, after looking at diffs... post-closure comments are indeed sometimes appropriate. They are useful when there is information about the file, or the closure, that arises after the discussion is closed would be useful to those looking at the page later. They are not for getting in the 'last word' in an argument that you lost. Making such edits is a sign of of an editor who is apparently unwilling to accept consensus. Revent^talk 11:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I took no "actions" to begin the situation. I asked a question of the highly respected Carl Lindberg that was not about any specific images, but instead about a local condition. Carl replied and I was better informed. I do not feel I misunderstood the PD-gov tag, it is obvious I was asking a question. The discussion led to no actions whatsoever, see here. Subsequently, I received a note on my talk page from Elvey demanding I look at this discussion again. This first note was followed by more, see here. I don't remember taking any action other than the question to Carl which led to this confrontational series of notes on my talk page, including bold type challenges and recursive diffs. Now I see that this was only part of a pattern of abusive behavior to others above and beyond the little I had seen before. Thank you for the clarity. I would recommend consideration of words used to avoid unnecessary roughness on others. We are all working on the same project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment From an external point of view, I'd say @Elvey: it's a good moment to reflect on your interactions with other editors, it looks like different administrators have had bad interactions with you and kindly ask you to tone down a bit the harsh words when you disagree. I'd say, it's always a good advice. Personally I have always regreted harsh words, never regreted kind ones. Sincerely --PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment We all need to understand that we are here to put the project as our prime concern, that is the project of delivery of knowledge within our stated scope of Wikimedia and the pivotal part that Commons plays as the universal host of images. That means that as admins we have to toughen up when challenged, and may have to put up with a string of characters to symbolise invective. At the same time users who have multiple conflicts with multiple admins need to reflect on their position and their approach. It is about the argument you bring, not the argument that you have.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo Removed how come?

Hi I was Information Officer at the USEmbassy Bamako Mali in 1988-1999. I took a picture of a boy supposedly getting a vaccination against measles and smallpox at the local office of the Ministry of Health. I flipped the picture and shadowed it by hand in my Embassy shack/darkroom, then sent it to our USIA printing factory in Beirut where 10,000 posters with the boy's picture were distributed in West Africa, including Mali, urging people to be vaccinated. The program was a success paid for by USAID and administered in Mali by Dr. James Pascal Imperato, sent to Mali by the Center for Disease Control. I also used the boy's photo on a 20 page pamphlet in French which described smallpox and measles, told how to report any outbreak and urged everyone to get vaccinated. Dr. Stewart, Director of the CDC came to Mali to help celebrate the program's success in 1989. I sent in a copy of a poster issued by the Malian government using the boy's picture, again urging people to get vaccinated. I thought the picture would be useful in Wikipedia, but got a note stating it was to be removed. How come? Robert J. Baker retired FS Officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorisdaybefore (talk • contribs)

You will have to give the filename you uploaded under. I could not find your account on Wikipedia, so there may be confusion about what happened where. Note that works made for the CDC would be public domain, though it is not necessarily the case that all CDC supported projects will have all their works public domain as a result. --Fæ (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Some searching leads me to guess that this might be about File:Vaccination of Malian children.jpg, uploaded by Kateraz. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@LX: Is the image available anywhere else, so I can look at it? It's hard to judge whether this is UNDEL worthy as a possible CDC publication without ever seeing it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. I didn't find anything cached on Google. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This was given as source. No license template nor any statement about its copyright status was given. This picture would have to be processed through OTRS to restore/keep it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. A Red Cross photograph is far less likely to be public domain than a CDC image. If this user returns, it would be worth talking through the case and probably worth having a deletion request "in the bank" as a reference for any later similar upload attempts. --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The file File:Vaccination of Malian children.jpg cant be the file User:Dorisdaybefore referes too. Its not from <1989 and the backround information the user provides above is different from en:User:Kateraz. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Brum

Despite numerous warnings on his user page, Arthur Brum (talk · contribs) is still uploading non-free images and claiming them as his own. See his talk page for details. DrKay (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked indefinitely. This is his fourth and final block for the same reason. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Búfalo Barreto

User:Búfalo Barreto is re-uploading photos of Peruvian presidential candidates again and again (for example: this and this). Their files were deleted many times before, because there are clear copyvios, and the user insists in uploading them again, with other file names. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a week. All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion by others. Taivo (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

On 27 February, @HJ Mitchell, a Commons administrator, accused a fellow contributor, @The Photographer, of being the source of a leak revealing a closed conversation that took place on the OTRS wiki in February 2015 (Village Pump, discussion on my talk page). Upon seeing this accusation a day later, 28 February, I immediately confronted HJ Mitchell about his post, pointing out several mistruths contained there; in particular, I pointed out that he has got no evidence to support his claim that it was The Photographer who leaked that particular conversation. This position has been supported by The Photographer—who has denied this allegation (diff)—as well as three unvinvoled users (and fellow administrators) @Revent (diff), @AFBorchert (diff) and @natuur12 (diff) who have called for a public apology and a retraction of this accusation.

Since these messages were posted on HJ Mitchell's talk page on Commons (last one on the 3 March, ie. 4 days ago), he has edited the English Wikipedia multiple times on three different occasion, including responding to a message on his talk page there as well as fighting vandalism and blocking users (details). This suggests to me that HJ Mitchell hasn't suddenly lost access to the Internet, and is knowingly ignoring these messages hoping to avoid having to answer my questions and the subsequent calls from the three other administrators.

Given the seriousness and the utterly despicable nature of these baseless accusations against a good-faith long-term Commons contributor and HJ Mitchell's deliberate and disrespectful ignoring of the messages left on his talk page, I feel it's time to bring this issue to the attention of the wider admin corps. I'm hoping that by posting this here, it will be possible to get HJ Mitchell to either back his claim with evidence or withraw it and publicly apologize to The Photographer for this attack against him. Should HJ Mitchell decide to ignore this issue further, I believe we ought to move forward to a de-adminship request as I believe the behaviour he's demonstrated is absolutely unbecoming of a Commons administrator.

Thanks for reading, everyone, and I look forward to hearing your opinions on this matter. odder (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I realize I am not admin and my opinion isn't highly valued but personally I think this is just the latest in a long history of abusive behavior as an admin by HJ. HJ frequently makes decisions that are heavy handed and without thinking them through, he is rare to admit fault and I have never seen them apologize for a mistake...ever. And we all make mistakes. His attitude is one of the worst, "I am an admin and you have to do what I say" of any other I have seen and his conduct at various RFA's has been deplorable. Last year on ENWP for example, when a candidate he submitted wasn't going to pass, he declared the voters in the RFA to be "Fucking morons" here. Reguyla (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If he doesn't react at all within ~5 day he should be instantly de-adminned. If he does react within this timeframe, further actions depend on what he has to say - neither facts nor apology should result in starting the de-admin procedure. --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Denniss. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Denniss as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should not warrant automatically de-adminship, but it does warrant this discussion where we can discuss the users action and if the are becoming or not, and if we still have trust in the admin. Josve05a (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

An immediate desysop should be about a sysop's actions based on the tools, not based on someone's character nor their words. There should not be any immediate desysop without a proper proposal in the proper means, we are not a kangaroo court and we follow due process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And due coure is to dicuss the issue at hand first, and try to resolve whatever problem that might have ocured/are occuring.That's what this is. This is due course. Discussion and conversations of what would be the best wa forward, before nominating for de-syops. Josve05a (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I personally don't think anyone is calling for his head or a desysopping at this point but if HJ doesn't feel it's necessary to explain his actions then we should move forward with the possibility of desysopping. He has been asked to come here and comment, if he chooses not too, then due process has been followed, he just chose not to follow it. Reguyla (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Reguyla: What are you reading? Above statement by Denniss and supported by Taivo clearly indicate immediate deadmin as an action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see that's only if HJ doesn't want to come back and discuss it. It's no different that what Arbcom does on ENWP, if someone brings up a case and the person leaves, they often just desysop without the case and if they return the case resumes. In this case however it's the community functioning with the need for an Arbcom. Besides, he can always resubmit an RFA. The process here isn't nearly as painful as the RFA process on ENWP. It's fairly benign actually. If HJ doesn't want that to happen then it's in his power to stop it by coming back and discussing the action. Otherwise, it's not the community performing the desysop action, it's HJ. He know's what he has to do if he wants to stop it...not ignore the consequences of his action. Reguyla (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Reguyla: What are you reading? Above statement by Denniss and supported by Taivo clearly indicate immediate deadmin as an action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I must takes one step back. Immediate desysopping after five days no-reply was my first thought, but now I think, that this is not good on reasons Billinghurst pointed out. I still think, that throwing such accusations like Mitchell did without bringing any evidence is a very bad thing, but I do not support immediate desysopping now. Taivo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, There is nothing in our policies which would allow automatic de-adminship at this point. I also would like HJ's answer on this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking the logs, it can be seen that though HJ is active on Wikipedia, he has been inactive in terms of using admin tools on Commons over the last month apart from two deletions (on the 10th and 27th February). He may not be interested in holding on to sysop rights if it means having to justify the allegations. As has been observed earlier, there can be no doubt that he is aware of this discussion and the repeated requests on his talk page to respond from four fellow administrators, two being bureaucrats. For those unaware, HJ is both an administrator and a member of oversight on the English Wikipedia. He wears other sysop hats, but less than half the hats that another in this thread has collected, so it's probably considered irrelevant. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On the threat of de-admin

I welcome the fact that users/admins on this site are challenged when they make unproven and damaging statements against other users. An apology/retraction or evidence seems appropriate. However, for all the sticklers on policy among us, I should point out that our polcy on de-adminship only currently permits two criteria: that the user is inactive for a considerable period and that the user is "acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status" -- the so-called "abuse of the tools". This limitation was frequently raised at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship, de-bureaucratship) which failed and where many pointed out the de-adminship was invalid as no admin tools had been abused. I strongly suggest that our de-admin policy first be revised to include an additional criterion on something like "behaviour unbecoming of a Commons administrator" or similar. Possibly this would benefit from some kind of proposer/independent-seconder scheme so that it doesn't become a tool "for individual grievances" (as the de-adminship page already notes). Without such clarification, it looks very much like one rule for the mostly-Wikipedian and another rule for the uber-Commoner.

Is is also, IMO, worth clarifying whether behaviour off-wiki or off-Commons is admissible in such a process. Above, Reguyla links to and comments on HJ's Wikipedia behaviour. I know a number of vocal users on Commons feel strongly that Commons should ignore Wikipedia behaviour/blocks [possibly, it must be said, to their own advantage]. Whenever there are links/actions are made, someone reminds us all that they should be ignored except above, where of course it is convenient. Again, it looks very much like one rule for one clique... Also, before off-wiki behaviour is completely dismissed by those wishing to keep Commons pure, then consider Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship). IMO, I think both should be admissible, with the community allowed to form their own consensus as to whether it is relevant.

Thirdly, I see no claim that such statements are routinely made by HJ on Commons or that this is more than a one-off (bad though it is). Is that the standard that all admins here wish to be held for? That a single damaging but unproven statement will result in your de-adminship? A single case where, perhaps, you get hot under the collar and say something "unbecoming of a Commons administrator"? Zero tolerance? Fine, if you want it that way. You may want to consider that next time you claim Jimbo got Russavia globally banned over the Pricassio incident (== an abuse of board-member power and clearly a damaging statement that has been strongly denied). Can any long-term admin here really claim to have never once crossed over the line of acceptable behaviour? Would you only survive a de-adminship because your friends would miss all the deletions you close or vandals you block? In other words, would you survive because you are part of the uber-Commoner clique, but probably not if were mostly active on other projects?

I am please to see the community and admins/'crats censure a user for "unbecoming" behaviour. Perhaps there are times that is sufficient. But if not, then we should have a policy for what happens next. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

De-adminship straw poll

Given that @HJ Mitchell has been actively ignoring this issue since 28 February—despite multiple messages left to him on his talk page by three different administrators, and a message left on his talk page on the English Wikipedia to which he curtly responded—and given the totally reprehensible character of the baseless and unproven allegations thrown by him at @The Photographer, I am proposing that we move forward to a de-adminship request against HJ Mitchell.

While it is indeed true that HJ Mitchell hasn't abused his admin status in this situation, the behaviour he has shown is unacceptable coming from any member of this community yet alone an administrator; furthermore, HJ Mitchell's continued ignoring of the matter at hand is highly problematic and demonstrates absolute contempt in which he appears to be holding this community and the reasonable requests asked of him by its members. I am proposing that we move forward with a de-adminship request due to a perceived lack of trust in HJ Mitchell's ability to continue serving Commons as an administrator based on a precedent we set in June 2014.

If there is sufficient consensus to do so, I plan to start a formal request for de-adminship in about 24 hours, as I will be off-line for most of tomorrow. Please kindly state your opinion in the straw poll below.

•  Support as original proposer. odder (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Unfortunately I agree. He still has the opportunity to discuss the action but in lieu of that he really leaves the community little choice. Reguyla (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Denniss (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support When an admin is taking so much heat and doesn't reply the least I expect is a short note that he is busy and that he will reply in x days. I wish HJ just responded instead of letting it turn out into a procedure like this. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per Natuur12. Do we need an admin that is not responding to important messages? --★ Poké⁹⁵ 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support A request for de-adminship is the proper forum for this discussion. My support here is not to be taken as support for the de-adminship proposal. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose The High Contrast RFA was no "precedent" as there was claimed persistent serious breach of policy -- sockpuppetry to influence deletion review -- and is consistent with existing de-adminship policy. Natuur12 commented "Clear cut case of the worst sockpuppet abuse possible. Wilfully deceiving the community, wilfully manipulating DR's, damaging the commons stock with his actions, targeting other users and nominating their pictures out of sheer revenge". This is not similar at all. We have here a single instance of unfounded allegations. He made a claim, the user denied it, and many respected users defended him both on the RFA page and on user pages. That to me seems correct and proper and shows Commons functioning correctly. Per my above comments, this Community has no process by which it can de-admin HJ Mitchell. In the Russavia de-admin, five respected users claimed it was unprocedural because there was no abuse of tools (Beria, Mattbuck, A.Savin, Steinsplitter, PierreSelim). It was thus closed by 'crat 99of9 as "inadmissible". While I support the censure of HJ for making such unsupported serious claims against another user, and refusing to retract or back-up the claim, moving to de-adminship in this case seems to me a simply case of applying ad-hoc stricter rules for the mostly-Wikipedian. Fix the policy first -- I'd fully support that -- and have it apply to all admins here, whether they make 100 edits/day on Commons or one. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify that close - the main reason it was inadmissible is because there had not been sufficient prior discussion. --99of9 (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Actually this community does have a process in place. That process is the same thing as everything else we do. We discuss the issue in a public forum, gather comments and feelings from the members who participate, then we decide on the result. We don't need 50 separate venues to discuss every conceivable scenario like other projects do. Reguyla (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is, Reguyla, that is plainly just not true. The community permits "ad-hoc consensus" when it chooses and denies with "not supported by policy" when it chooses. And the reasons for those differences are quite plainly personal bias, antagonism towards Wikipedia/WMF, and cliquish attitudes. None of that is healthy. If there is community consensus that admins may be dethroned for a single instance of writing a bad thing then let that be documented in policy. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Colin, this is a straw pole to determine if there is consensus to move forward with a desysop discussion, this is not a desysop discussion. It's also worth noting that the The community permits "ad-hoc consensus" when it chooses and denies with "not supported by policy" when it chooses. problem you speak of is far more of an issue on other projects like ENWP than here. This is also not about a single instance, if he simply came forth and was willing to discuss the matter none of this would even be happening. The fact that he has decided that his decision is above repeoach and he doesn't need to respond to this community discussion is the matter at hand. So really, that is multiple problems leading to the possible desysop, not just one and all of them are withing HJ's control. Reguyla (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Support the start of a de-admin procedure. Because i belief that it is up to the community to decide if a user schould be admin or not. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral there is no abuse of tool, however I'm rather concerned by the attitude which consist of avoid to answer to problems he started. This seriously damage the trust one can have in HJ. Still I'm not fan of the "If you don't answer we start de-admin" thing: it looks to me as bad as HJ attitude. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Some admins forget that they are just Trusted users with special tools. If an admin lost our (or at least my) trust, then just remove these tools. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I will not do anything as long as he does not contribute here on Commons. Leave this discussion open until he contributes again. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have with that argument is that it's the same old tactic that's been used for years. The admin does something questionable, gets called out and rather than discuss it, they just stop editing for a while to avoid scrutiny until things die down and come back in a couple months. Then repeat the process. If HJ does not want to discuss it after knowing what the result might be, then the community should move forward with a desysop. If HJ comes back later and wants to discuss it, then the community can reinstate the admin tools without prejudice based on the result of the discussion. But the fact that HJ won't even discuss it shows a huge amount of disrespect towards the community and his fellow admins. Reguyla (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Harry is an idiot who craves membership of the boys club and often attempts to claim credit for things he had no part of at all, but I don't think he's actively malicious, just misguided and dumb. If we let stuff like that guide our judgement, well, no admins at all... Begoon - talk 15:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment This "straw poll" is not a proxy for the proper de-adminship review and poll, so please don't vote on HJ's right to be an admin. What is being asked is if a de-adminship request is proper in the circumstances, not whether HJ should have the tools. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

---

•  Info Thanks everyone for your comments; as there appears to be enough support to start a formal de-adminship request, I went ahead and actually opened one. If anyone wants to keep discussing things here, then please do go ahead, however I think comments about HJ Mitchell will be best directed at that page. odder (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hoe verander ik het 'portaal'?

Hallo,

Ik heb een artikel vertaald uit het Engels naar het Nederlands, en het artikel gaat over een comedyclub in Los Angeles (hier is een link: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_Factory). Zojuist heb ik een 'infobox'-met-foto toegevoegd en heeft er iémand, denk ik, 'Portaal Portaalicoon Civiele techniek en bouwkunde' aan toegevoegd... nou wil ik niet de betweter uit gaan hangen hier, maar het lijkt mij eerder thuis te horen in de categorie 'nachtclubs' of 'nachtleven' of 'uitgaansleven' ofzoiets, niet?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Miep2 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(I didn't realize I was on en.wikipedia.org, I thought I was still on nl.wikipedia.org)

I have translated this article ---->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_Factory into this article ---->> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_Factory, and about 15 minutes ago I added an 'infobox'-with-the-picture-from-the-en.wikipedia.org. Now I have *no* idea how it works exactly, but I guess somebody thinks a comedyclub belongs in the category of 'civil engineering'... how do I change the category to 'Nightlife' (or something similar)?

Thank you,

Sascha Noorthoorn

Ik denk het ideee is dat elke gebouw zit ergens verbonden met civiel techniek en bouwkunde. De link naar het portaal zit vast in de template. Vraag maar in Nederlandse Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs) overwriting files

The idle servant, 1655, painting by Nicholaes Maes. Original photograph taken by the National Gallery (UK) on the left, digitally altered version on the right.

Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs) keeps overwriting files. Some recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files. This was pointed out to him several times first time already in 2005, but he keeps doing it. Most of the time he uploads images without properly sourcing them. What shall we do with this user? He clearly thinks Commons:Overwriting existing files is nonsense, would blocking him be the only way to make him respect Commons guidelines? Multichill (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In all cases linked above, the new version is better than the old one. So not only there isn't any violation, but the overwriting is quite justified. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The source information should be updated to give the source of the higher resolution image. At the moment the source information still links to the location of the original lower resolution copy. WJBscribe (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• As well as the sourcing issue, the official guideline states that overwriting a file which has been contested should be avoided. Though increasing the resolution of an image may be considered by many to be a minor infraction, when these are scans of official archive materials, then there are many good reasons to ensure that new versions from different sources are uploaded as separate files. As an example from the list above, the new version here created in 2016 is in grayscale with a credit to Leiden University Libraries embedded in the EXIF data, and is a slight crop of the image, even though it appears to be the same scan, while the original created in 2010, is significantly smaller but a more complete scan of the archive material and in colour (though possibly a faux sepia colouration, hard to tell). If files are being uploaded from Leiden Univ. Libraries then failing to give proper information about sourcing is a serious problem for future work with the library. If Jan Arkesteijn persists after warnings and has been overwriting files for several years then they are being disruptive and serious consideration should be given to blocking their account; it is, after all, very easy to comply with the official guideline.

Analysis of overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn in 2016

File	Date	Comment	Notes (if any)
File:Frans Hals - Captain Michiel de Wael 8.1931.450 TMA.jpg	20160226	higher resolution	Reverted and created as a separate file File:Frans Hals - Captain Michiel de Wael 8.1931.450 TMA - digitally altered by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg
File:Frans_Hals_111_WGA_version.jpg	20160224	higher resolution
File:Woudanus2.jpg	20160224	higher resolution
File:George_Hendrik_Breitner_Girl_in_Red_Kimono_Geesje_Kwak.jpg	20160223	higher resolution
File:Breitner_the_red_kimoni.jpg	20160223	higher resolution
File:Breitner_witte_kimono.jpg	20160223	higher resolution
File:20160211Digna_Sinke.JPG	20160223	adjusted exposure
File:Anton_Mussert.jpg	20160223	higher resolution
File:Breitner_geesje_kwak_2.jpg	20160222	higher resolution
File:De_Grashaven.jpg	20160220	higher resolution
File:Jacob_Waben_Vanity_1622.jpg	20160220	completer crop
File:Jan_Claesz_Rietschoof_View_on_Oostereiland.jpg	20160220	higher resolution
File:Pieter_Koenraad.jpg	20160216	higher resolution	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop
File:Man_opgejaagd_voor_razzia.jpg	20160214	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_011.jpg	20160213	higher resolution
File:Bosch_laatste_oordeel_drieluik.jpg	20160213	higher resolution	This update is.... weird. It claims to just be higher res, it's not, it also removes frames in a weird way.
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_-_Hermit_Saints_Triptych_-_WGA02566.jpg	20160213	higher resolution
File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg	20160213	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_012.jpg	20160213	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_or_follower_-_Adoration_of_the_Magi.jpg	20160213	higher resolution
File:Lou_Bandy_1938.jpg	20160210	removed grid
File:Susan_Oliver_(1971).jpg	20160207	Reverted to version as of 17:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) over exposed
File:André_Hazes(Cropped).jpg	20160207	adjusted hue
File:Degas-_La_classe_de_danse_1874.jpg	20160205	higher resolution
File:15th-century_unknown_painters_-_Portrait_of_Philip_the_Handsome_-_WGA23598.jpg	20160204	higher resolution
File:The_idle_servant.jpg	20160203	higher resolution
File:Raadhuis_5338.jpg	20160130	rotated right
File:AliceHargreaves.png	20160130	detailed version	No source; source clearly not original
File:Jan_ten_Kate.jpg	20160129	more detailed version	No source; source clearly not original
File:RAIMUNDO_DE_MADRAZO_Y_GARRETA_-_Después_del_baño_(Museo_del_Prado,_Madrid,_c._1895).jpg	20160126	adjusted colours	Now reverted to original diff
File:J._Veth_Alexander_Frederik_de_Savornin_Lohman.jpg	20160125	higher resolution
File:Louis_Couperus_als_kind.jpg	20160121	higher resolution
File:De_lakenmarkt_te_’s-Hertogenbosch_circa_1530.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_050.jpg	20160118	+ exif
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_050.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_011.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_003.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:StJohnWildernessBosch.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Bosch_laatste_oordeel_drieluik.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_-_Hermit_Saints_Triptych_-_WGA02566.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_012.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Adoration_of_the_Magi_Hieronymus_Bosch_autograph_ca._1470–75_(NY).jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Poliptyk_Hieronima_Bocha_Visions_of_the_Hereafter.JPG	20160118	higher resolution
File:Jheronimus_Bosch_Scenes_from_the_Passion_(full).jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_089.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_054.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Hieronymus_Bosch_101.jpg	20160118	higher resolution
File:Anefo_1971_Ongeval_Duivendrecht_5.jpg	20160117	higher resolution, adjusted exposure	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop - Source doesn't work.
File:Polish_T-54_modernization.jpg	20160115	redone
File:Gary_robson-1452008165.jpg	20160112	adjusted exposure	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop
File:Jan_Remmelink_(1978).jpg	20160110	higher resolution, cropped	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop
File:BernsteinDamen1950.jpg	20160106	cropped, adjusted exposure, higher resolution	Fairly extreme crop that removes an entire person. Original high-res file not uploaded; I have just fixed this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Dutch_association_football_referee_Siem_Wellinga.jpg	20160104	higher resolution, adjusted exposure	The description of this upload is highly misleading: It's actually an extreme crop Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
File:George_Best_(1976).jpg	20160104	higher resolution, adjusted exposure	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop
File:Clyde_Best_(1977).jpg	20160104	higher resolution, adjusted exposure	Summary misleading: Undocumented crop

From this analysis (http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/7585), there is a long term pattern to be concerned about.

(ec) An example of a terrible overwrite that stood out for me among these, was File:Lou Bandy 1938.jpg which has given an unusable ghastly false-smoothed portrait where the original was a much better reusable quality. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Threatening to block a user who improve Commons IS disruptive. You should refrain from doing that, or YOU may be blocked. Yann (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh give over Yann, I'm not an admin so I am giving a view based on hard verifiable analysis, where your opinions appear based on emotion. The only person making threats around here is you, cease your pathetically transparent baiting and trolling of me. I am not and never have been your hated demonic version of Russavia, so stop trying to punish me as if I were. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest others take a moment to sample the above list and make repairs. The overwrite of a widely used image of a painting File:Van de Velde, Resolution in a Gale.jpg is highly problematic. This introduced a digitally false colour image of the historic object, misrepresenting the official photograph taken from the National Maritime Museum collection (which I know quite well). I have reverted this example, so you will need to examine the file history to see the issue. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the whole list you made above, and this is the only potential issue. So clearly, YOU are the problematic user here. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately your long term personal campaign against me is clouding your judgement. It is easy to see that File:RAIMUNDO DE MADRAZO Y GARRETA - Después del baño (Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1895).jpg is the same type of false colouring of official collection photographs which are actively in use on multiple Wikipedia articles and should be reverted. If you are so desperate to hound me off this project that you cannot resist writing in all-caps, please start a new thread and provide some evidence that supports blocking my account so we can be done with it. Until then, stop behaving like an angry child. --Fæ (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• A guideline is just a guideline, not a rule.
• Every image page contains an invitation Upload a new version of this file which does not lead you through this guideline.
• Images are here for publishing, not for preserving, so they should be optimized for publishing. (If there is one thing Commons is not capable of, it is preservation.)
• If I have a source I include it in the exif data in plain text or (if possible) in hypertext, so it sticks with the file.
• Your complaints do not take into consideration that mediocre uploads like examples 2, 3 are just begging for a re-upload.
• Your complaints about re-uploading images I uploaded myself like examples 4, 5 are peculiar.

Your analysis is very coarse. The overwrites of Nationaal Archief portraits is often based on the exact same image. By the way, if you think decayed varnish and smoke makes a typical Van de Velde you are wrong. Check the style of the painter and you will see this painting needs cleaning. As for the Madrazo, check the source, please. As for the Lou Bandy picture, the original was mediocre, because a scan. I won't say this one is good, but saying the other one was better is nonsense. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Based on the exact same image", yes; but these autocorrected versions are not an improvement. Setting your personal taste above the official archive versions released by the institution is unhelpful and reusers such as Wikipedia article writers are being deliberately misled as these images are not marked as derivatives which are inaccurate representations of the paintings. Reusers are not even given the option of following a link to the archive so they can see the original and verify the derivative version as one they prefer or not. Your persistence in creating these faux images is disruptive and Multichill is correct when asking for enforcement of the official guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the Nationaal Archief portraits are not works of art, but b/w photographs made by photo journalists. Check your list. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The fourth example of a bad overwrite with use on multiple Wikipedia articles is File:The idle servant.jpg, which is a good example of how difficult correcting these unsourced overwrites is. By examining the XMP data within the file, the source was originally http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/nicolaes-maes-the-idle-servant/, however the file date history is suspect, as the NPG images have long since been reorganized, yet the earliest date embedded is in 2016. A bit more research finds the NPG original at http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/nicolaes-maes-the-idle-servant at the identical resolution. A simple check of the image shows that the overwrite version has been digitally 'enhanced' before uploading to Commons, badly misrepresenting the painting compared to the high quality archive version by stretching contrast and colours (the aged browns are black in the overwrite version). I have added a correct source rather than the misleading link to Visipix then uploaded a jpg version I created from the original png file which I have created on Commons under the same name (File:The idle servant.png). This careful unpicking of the history and restoring a true archive quality version to Commons took me about 45 minutes. It would be good if we could stop Jan from damaging Commons with these poor overwrites with missing sources, and get them to invest their volunteer time in correcting their past overwrites, noting that the above table is only for 2016 and the history goes back much further.

I fundamentally disagree with Yann's repeated views that these overwrites are all improvements to Commons and should be ignored. Recolouring archive quality scans of paintings and failing to provide any sources is damaging Commons' educational mission and Jan is creating significant problems for our reusers and contributors who care about accurate representations from our most prestigious GLAM sources. --Fæ (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You use a lot of words, Fæ, but you avoid the hot potatoes: A guideline is just a guideline, not a rule. Every image page contains an invitation Upload a new version of this file, which does not lead you through this guideline. Images are here for publishing, not for preserving, so they should be optimized for publishing. (If there is one thing Commons is not capable of, it is preservation.) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact that you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it, especially if loosing track of accurate essential information (COM:EI) of the file. Proposition by Multichill is the one that makes more sense. If and overwrite is causing trouble, just upload another file. If you can't provide the COM:EI for the new upload then it's a good indication that file should not be overwrite with this version. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fae, this whole piece about the red kimono is full of your fantasies and assumptions. But I don´t want to go into that. The only thing I want to say is, these so called hidden details are not hidden at all; I manually provided them. Now, could you please stop filling up space here? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a link to show where you provided the source information and explained your odd digital changes to the museum quality file for the Breitner painting. The Commons page history diff shows me that you overwrote the file and made zero changes to the text page, leaving the file with a false source and no explanation that this was a derivative image, not based on the reality of how the painting appears in the museum. These example cases were photographs taken by museum contractors/staff, so "manually provided them" does not mean much, nor are you helping the educational mission of this project by uploading misleadingly altered images without a proper explanation of how they have been tampered with. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan, you're upsetting users (including me) by overwriting these files. Let's make this a really simple: Could you please just upload them under a different name? Not because the guideline tells you so, not because someone forces you to do so, but because we're a community project and other members of this community kindly ask you to do so. I would really appreciate that and I'm sure others will too. Multichill (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think uploading these files separately would be an improvement. We would need to change file names where there are used, and create small poor quality duplicates. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that uploading them under a different name will be safer. Overwriting public domain files must only be done if there is a the same (no digital improvements) but higher resolution available. Digital improvements must be uploaded under a different name. We should take caution when overwriting files. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I support Jan Arkesteijn. While Multichill and Pokéfan correctly point out, that overwriting existing files can be problematic, Jan has shown, that he does not make errors here. And Yann said, that uploading better versions as separate files adds work to community, because all occurrences must be replaced. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Taivo, take a closer look at the case studies. Uploading a high resolution file may seem like an improvement, but when it is a deliberate false colour image of a famous painting like File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg by Hieronymus Bosch, used to illustrate articles about the painting in 12 different Wikipedias before Jan's overwrite, and the colours are so bizarrely false that the image is like a cartoon parody of the original, then this is a massive error. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, you are going way to far, Fae. This image came from the restoration department, who cleaned and restored Bosch paintings, amongst others this one, for the Bosch exhibition. Why don't you go there and look before you start muckraking here. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? Provide a working link to an accurate photo there rather than a vague top level one, then add it to the image page here rather than false sources.

Addendum I have wasted half an hour examining the website http://www.bosch500.nl and found many oddly altered "websafe" versions and clips from Bosch paintings, but no evidence that any images of Crucifixion of St. Julia were there. I am forced to doubt Jan's claims. As per Adam's investigation and amendments to the above table of 2016 overwrites, the only information we had from Jan at the time of his recent overwrite of this widely used image was "higher resolution", not "updated photograph post-restoration" with a source to verify it. Jan leaves us with guesswork and asks the community to prove a negative rather than giving any answers to basic questions about these overwrites. These actions damage Commons' educational value and actively damage articles on Wikipedia by making them unreliable representations of the artworks. I am sure that the Wikipedia editors involved will feel let down by Commons as there is no way for them to be flagged that the images used in their articles have been massively changed away from verifiable reality. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You will have to copy paste the link, because it contains characters that interfere with the text formatting of Wikipedia. http://boschproject.org/view.html?layout=horizontal&mode=curtain&pointer=0.336,0.005&i=23_24_25_MCPVIS[l=before%20restoration],23_24_25_MCPVIS-after[l=after%20restoration] Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There appears misdirection here, unless you have forgotten what you did and are guessing. You stated that the image came from http://www.bosch500.nl and now that it came from http://boschproject.org. I have used the link http://boschproject.org/view.html?i=23_24_25_MCPVIS-after%5Bl%3Dafter%20restoration%5D which renders a Seadragon (DZI) tiled image. By comparing images side by side in my browser, this demonstrates that the image you uploaded is not this image. The colours of the image you uploaded are entirely different, and the image uploaded has had the edges trimmed off. Further, the image available by zooming in, shows a level of fine detail which is lost on the Commons uploaded version, possibly because the level to 'dezoom' at was not the finest.

Default dezoomify tools do not grab this image for me, and I do not want to waste an hour configuring a special untiling/stitching programme just for this website. As you have already claimed that is the source you used, you no doubt have the tools to hand to capture the image and fix this yourself, which would save other volunteers a lot more time than you would spend doing it, particularly if individual cases are going to be this difficult to discuss and get to basic original sources.

--Fæ (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I added that link to show you that your words the colours are so bizarrely false that the image is like a cartoon parody of the original, are wrong. Besides, you seem to think that any picture is accessible through the internet. That is a wrong assumption. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I would rather see these suspect images deleted rather than mislead reusers as to what they are. This manipulated image of a Bosch painting you uploaded neither represents the unrestored version you overwrote without explanation, disregarding the work of the original uploader, nor does it correctly represent the work of the Bosch Project restoration. You have made a series of deliberate false claims and misdirection about the sourcing of these images, and you have misled the Commons community and the Wikipedia communities by leaving false claims on the images pages and in the the manipulated EXIF data which claims that they have been sourced from respectable institutions when it now turns out they have been taken covertly from elsewhere. Your behaviour is disruptive to this project, and has been for a decade. Stop wasting everyone's valuable time by fudging the facts, if you have stolen these images without permission, fine that's your risk, but don't pretend they are from other sources. At this point you have given the Commons community every reason to distrust every claim you make about your uploads, and distrust every future upload you make as to its sourcing, accuracy and whether it has been manipulated in undocumented ways that damage the value of the image. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And now you suggest they are stolen.... sigh. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Provide facts, not misdirection and time-wasting falsehoods. You did not take the photograph, so someone else did and you seem incapable of avoiding "touching up" every original file. Photographers and institutions deserve credit for their work and publishers are being misrepresented by false claims that they are the source for an image they never took or published. If all you are prepared to do here is sigh and play the victim, for your 10 years of misleading excuses and argument, then the rest of the community may as well be supported in mass reverting all the overwrites you have done and ever will do from here on as a precaution, as clearly you are prepared to keep on lying and will never answer any direct question with a verifiable truth. --Fæ (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Have you read at COM:OVERWRITE that you cannot overwrite original files with digital restorations? Did you also read about Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Jan Arkesteijn: you can argue semantics about whether COM:OVERWRITE is to be followed or not as much as you like, but your actions are in breach of Commons' policy. Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view states that "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another. Provided that a file falls within Commons scope, and can be legally hosted, we make it available. Whether and under what conditions it is actually used is a matter for the local communities of the individual projects to decide." By overwriting files you are removing previous versions, forcing locally projects to use one version of a file in preference to another, a clear breach. It is Commons' role to host files and local projects role to decide which files to utilise, stop removing their choice. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Stepping back a minute

Okay, let's talk through the pros and cons of uploading over files.

Pros

• Doesn't require changing every single file usage in all Wikipedias.
• In many cases, low-quality copies with no need to keep them have been uploaded (for example, JPEGs from the Library of Congress are identical to (except smaller than) the TIFFs also downloadable from there; there's literally no reason to keep those files if the TIFFs are uploaded.
• For things like removing watermarks, while we should keep the original version, if this is the only edit ever to be made to the image, it's not so bad to upload over.
• Minor changes, like cropping out a bit of a black bar from the side, are also fairly harmless.

• Having lots of copies of an image with no indication which is the best between them is confusing (this can be mitigated using {{Superseded}}

Cons

• More extreme changes, like level adjustments or major crops can make people prefer the original version - which we no longer offer to them
• Changes such as greyscaling an image throw out information in the original.
• Crops that remove elements can be especially problematic if we don't offer the original, e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/44/20160106205845!BernsteinDamen1950.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BernsteinDamen1950.jpg - If someone wants to talk about the man cropped out, they cannot.
• Bad changes can slip in unnoticed as there's no indication to users on the Wikipedia that a change has been made to an image in their article. For example, if a Wikipedia had a caption describing the three men in the previous example, there'd be nothing to warn editors that changes had to be made.
• Uploading crops can utterly break anything that uses things like en:Template:CSS image crop, removing material intended to be kept.
• It's important to keep sourcing accurate, uploading over without documentation is problematic.
• Jan has a slight tendency towards just a little too much contrast. File:20160211Digna_Sinke.JPG for instance. It goes in the right direction, but a bit too far.
• Jan makes changes to the higher-resolution version before uploading them, and does not update the source. We always need access to the unaltered original.
  • Even if the source is updated, we need the original on here. Access is never permanent.
• Jan constantly uploads crops without saying they're a crop, and does so while upping resolution.

Whether pros or cons dominate will depend on how things are done. Some minor, subtle improvements may well be generally acceptable to upload over the image, and I, admittedly, have done so. Replacing an image that is of so bad quality that it's only barely usable is probably always acceptable if you update the documentation. But Jan, while certainly trying to improve the encyclopedia, probably doesn't quite understand the problems, and the last two cons are particularly bad, especially as you can't reverse google image search a heavily modified image. I think I'm going to have to agree Jan needs some (polite) censuring. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

For those interested in a technical solution, Phab:T91192 "Show edits made on WikimediaCommons on the Watchlist" is relevant as edits like Jan's would be flagged to Wikipedia editors, who would then be likely to come to Commons and revert any damaging changes. --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stepping back still further

Nobody realizes that Commons is not able to provide this preservation, that some try to create by referring to guidelines. Wikipedia is not made like that. It allows anyone to adapt, whether it is an article on Wikipedia, or a file in Wikimedia. Every file page on Wikimedia has a link that says Upload a new version of this file and it keeps you far away from the guideline, referred to by some as if it were an irrefutable rule. I don't like to have muck thrown at me, but apparently everyone thinks they will solve this their way by addressing me, and forgetting that Wikipedia/Wikimedia has millions of users, unaware of this policy. Wikimedia is a publishing platform, not a preservation platform. Leave that to the musea.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If possible I add the source to the exif data of the file, so anyone can check that. And yes Fae, I do that myself, it is not hidden. Just click on the link Show extend details. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are failing to comply with the guidelines, this has been said at least ten times above. If your ego is too big to comply with community agreed guidelines, you have to be prepared to keep on defending your actions every single time you go against them. I am quite happy to set up a daily SQL report just for your account to ensure this is watched. (As for your claim about EXIF's I am looking into that now, but it in no way excuses making misleading file history comments and failing to explain that the images you are uploading are false representations of paintings that are covertly forced on multiple pre-existing Wikipedia articles with no consensus ...)

Okay, now checked your claim about EXIFs, it's a lie, which can be tested simply by examining the first file I looked at, File:George Hendrik Breitner Girl in Red Kimono Geesje Kwak.jpg. Please stop creating tangents and misdirection and pull your finger out and answer the questions raised above. Please provide verifiable sources for your uploads rather than vaguely complaining that everyone else that dares ask you a question about your digitally damaged uploads is a trouble maker, or pointing to top level domains of various institutions where the images you have uploaded simply do not exist. --Fæ (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: You talk page shows that your overwrites, and failure to change the source information on the file page, have been repeatedly objected to (the oldest note was in 2009 2005). You have been repeatedly told that you must change the source field if you do overwrite an image (including a discussion with me over a year ago). You are obviously aware of the guideline, and have been so for years. This is, honestly, nearing the point where it would be hard to argue against 'not' blocking you for simply refusing to listen. We do not dictate what version of an image people are able to use on their projects, we give them the choice, and file pages simply must indicate the source of the uploaded image. Just putting it in the EXIF (even if you do so in some cases) is completely unacceptable. Revent (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: , thanks for highlighting how many years this has gone on. Based on your comment, I went back to 2007 records to find another example at random, File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Johan van Oldenbarnevelt.jpg (originally uploaded by another contributor in 2005), overwritten by Jan in 2007 and 2012. This is available as a brilliantly high quality Rijksmuseum photograph of the painting, which I find especially interesting having worked on part of the RM's batch upload project with Europeana. Jan's tampering with the official RM image has misrepresented the painting on 23 different Wikimedia projects and many times that in total number of articles affected. The actual file from the RM had never been uploaded to Commons, I have fixed that by overwriting with the original from source, as was always linked on the image text page. Jan has left us with a terrible legacy problem to fix, as every overwrite case should be carefully reviewed and a revert or overwrite attempted in many instances to restore valid representations of paintings back to Commons, rather than Jan's odd autocorrected and overcompensated derivatives being reused on Wikipedia by accidental default. I'll consider whether it would be effective for me to create a backlog category based on what I can produce using SQL, similar to the way I produced the table on this page. --Fæ (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: Indeed, the potential backlog of history splits makes me cringe. Revent (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have changed Quarry 7585 so that it includes all overwrites of others images by Jan where Jan's image is the current top one in the file history. This gives 3,307 suspect images to examine. Some will be problematic, such as File:Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks - Yorck.jpg which has a false source (the Yorck Project DVD), but the later unsourced image was a featured picture on the English Wikipedia, so it may be the only improvement we can make is to track down the correct highest resolution source and ensure that it gets uploaded separately as the original file.

The files have been added to Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review and there is a report as a gallery at User:Faebot/SandboxJ. --Fæ (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Wikimedia is a publishing platform, not a preservation platform. You're wrong. Commons is not only a publishing platform for everyone, it is intended to be a free repository for all educational and free files. If Commons is not a preservation platform, then why do we have Commons:GLAMwiki Toolset (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums)? We upload old and untouched files from galleries, libraries, archives, and museums to provide free knowledge to everyone.

And if you already saw that there is someone opposing your overwrites, then you should upload your overwrite under a different name, to prevent upload wars. You're the one that is disrupting old files that must not be overwrited, not us. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean Commons is not able to be a preservation platform, no matter how many tools you build around it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a photo I took myself, with my own camera, of a work of art in an interesting frame. This overwritten version is a much better version of the artwork, but the frame is gone. I have no problem with someone uploading a better version, but I would prefer it were done under a different file name. As it is, the work I did to carefully photograph the frame, which is an interesting object in its own right, is hidden. I think there are other examples of this in the overwritten files. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodbye

The pleasure of working here has perished. Not only have I been wrongfully accused of theft, but the proposal calls for me not to overwrite files that are not my original uploads, something I was willing to accept only to find out that the one who yelled the loudest here is exactly infringing that proposal: [4]. And where this user described my upload as ‘’... the colours are so bizarrely false that the image is like a cartoon parody of the original’’ it is now quietly accepted by copying that representation, only extremely larger. Another one who complained here does the very same thing, overwriting here and here. Apparently "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"(Orwell)

From now on you will find me only rarely here. One advise I will leave: adapt the re-upload page so that it is clear to anyone that the community (although it seems rather small) does not accept uploads of improvements. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Putting the record straight rather than starting another dialogue, File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg has been replaced from an unsourced and unverifiable image with a verifiable photograph taken by the restoration team, along with the source that anyone can verify. This image is entirely different from that uploaded by Jan as a simple inspection of colours and detail will demonstrate. The image is complete with previously digitally trimmed off borders and is exactly as provided by the institution, which is much closer to the original upload of the pre-restoration file uploaded to Commons in 2007 by User:Montek. The photograph is a grid of macro photographs taken with a high quality Hasselblad camera, and is the most encyclopaedic image possible of this painting with current technology. The image was transcoded by me before upload, using a one-off programme to interpret the Bosch Research and Conservation Project's custom viewer, which took around 8 hours to process the 8GB of uncompressed image data that gets merged into the final 260MB JPEG. The image is up for Featured Picture on the English Wikipedia here. Per the discussion above, despite being asked several times, Jan has not provided any explanation of where their upload was taken from, nor what digital changes were made before it was uploaded and overwrote the previous version of the file. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn: I hope you don't leave, and I would feel badly if anything I said made you feel that you should. All of your edits that I've seen are valuable, it's just that in some cases I think you should upload new files under unique file names. Please don't regard that as a personal attack. Jonathunder (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

To me, it is clear that while there are some issues, the critics are too harsh, and even inappropriate. Some examples where Jan Arkesteijn's uploads are a net improvement. Pushing to the door an editor because the edits are not one's liking is the worst possible. *sigh* Regards

• File:Frans Hals 111 WGA version.jpg
• File:Breitner the red kimoni.jpg
• File:Breitner witte kimono.jpg
• File:Georg Hendrik Breitner - Staand naakt 1893.jpg
• File:De Grashaven.jpg
• File:Jan Claesz Rietschoof View on Oostereiland.jpg
• File:Adriaen van der Kabel - Stormachtige zee met enkele boten bij rotsen.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 March 2016‎ (UTC)

The list made by Yann, claiming a "net improvement", demonstrate the exact opposite. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but anyone that cannot see the damage done by saturating colours and cranking up the gamma levels on original photographs of artworks taken by their host institution would benefit from taking a look at the guide to adjusting their monitor at en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates. The idea that an amateur playing around with GIMP or photoshop on their laptop so it "looks good" on their monitor can do a better job than museums and galleries who's livelihood depend on accurate and representative displays of their works on their own websites is bizarre; it just does not withstand the most basic scrutiny of the facts.

I believe that the wider Wikimedia Commons community should be alarmed that a user that edits EXIF data to make digitally manipulated images from unknown sources appear as the "official" work and responsibility of well known institutions can continue making false claims for 10 years without anything being done to stop them. This is vandalism and other accounts have been indefinitely blocked for faking EXIF data in the same way. For an example see the EXIF data on File:Breitner the red kimoni - digitally manipulated by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg which I have put up for deletion as a test case at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breitner the red kimoni - digitally manipulated by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: please look carefully what was changed in the above examples before you state such opinions. If you suggest, theese edits should be reverted, that I strongly oppose. Ankry (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Note, edit conflict when I added the second paragraph above. Not sure it's worth refactoring, but Ankry is welcome to shift indents about if they want to. --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yann I'm afraid I disagree with you about the "net improvement" factor. Ok, they are often "higher resolution", but frankly that's the only honest thing I see here. They are not the same file/photo/scan (as though Jan discovered a higher-resolution copy was now available). It is dishonest to claim "higher resolution" in an edit summary when the image has significant colour shifts. It's clearly a completely different photograph/scan. It is dishonest to not update the source information. And, if Fae's claim is correct that the images have been altered by Jan from the new source the EXIF claims, then it is dishonest to claim this is the work of a professional institution. I think perhaps many users here have been guilty of making undocumented "improvements" or lazy substitutions to work-of-art photos/scans so perhaps we need to tighten up policy/guidelines. I would say

• No lazy substitutions: It should be no more acceptable to upload a completely different photo/scan of an artwork over-the-top of an existing one, than it is to upload a better photo of a church over the top of someone else's photo. Let the Wikipedias worry about making use of the new file just the same as for any photo-of-a-subject we have here.
• Accurate explicit sourcing: EXIF data is not a substitute for accurate updated source documentation in the file description.
• Respect the institutions/professionals: If you take your own photo of an artwork then fiddle with it how you like. But if you upload someone else's photo of an artwork then you absolutely must upload their photo, without adjustment. The professionals know how to capture the levels, colours and temperature accurately, but if you disagree then feel free to disagree in your own derivative work.
• Document what you did: Changes to crop (beyond removing white or black borders, say), sharpening, colour balance, levels, contrast, saturation, etc, are all significant alterations that must be uploaded to another file, and with the changes documented in the file-description page (not upload history).

We need to be in a position that when someone uses one of our images, they know they are using the actual photo from the National Gallery, say, and not just some amateur derivative work. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You have described, precisely, the issue with many of Jan's uploads over the years... image still attributed to one source on the file page, but overwritten with one from a different source, that has often been altered from the version from that source without documentation. Revent^talk 07:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Revent but I suspect he is right to complain of hypocrisy of some. While not guilty of all of these crimes, I think uploading a completely different (though larger, say) photo, of the same subject, over the top of an existing one seems to be relatively common for works-of-art, and I can think of no good reason to do this. We cope fine with having hundreds of copies of the Eiffel tower, so what's the big deal of having several copies of an artwork? And the amateur manipulation of others' works without adequate documentation seems also to be widespread. Jan is far from alone in altering other people's works in a way that makes them no longer true to the original. Perhaps the OVERWRITE guidance is insufficient. And I do think this "Collaborative creative effort" mindset from Wikipedia is not uncommon either. We may be heading for a scandal where either an institution or a professional photographer gets very upset with us for misrepresenting their work. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I will not comment on other editors here, since they are not the subject of discussion, but you are probably correct. The issue with Jan is.. a) that he is not updating the file pages, and b) that people have objected for years, and he did not listen. An overwrite with a substantially different file is essentially a deletion without consensus. I am more than happy (though Jan's backlog is extreme) to split files (and chastise those who overwrite existing works). The problem with Jan's overwrites (more than others) is that sourcing the split file might be impossible, or require reading the EXIF of the split file..... the amount of work needed to fix these is, by far, not trivial.

Noone should overwrite an existing file unless the change is clearly, obviously, and unambiguously an uncontroversial fix (such as removing a watermark, cropping borders, updating an 'updatable' file, or uploading a higher resolution version of the same image), and they should be willing to listen to anyone who objects... any objection to an overwrite, at all, means that it must be uploaded as a new file. Jan was clearly aware of objections to what he as doing, and continued to do so despite them. That it was allowed to go on so long is, indeed, a 'fault' of Commons, but.....the number of uploads every day is overwhelming, and it was fair to assume that such an 'old' editor was listening to complaints, not ignoring them. I, personally, a year ago, assumed exactly that. Revent^talk 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Em? You seem to be arguing with me about what "the issue with Jan is". I have read the discussion and looked at the files and can only agree. But the long-term solution isn't just to chastise or threaten to ban Jan. My guess is that this is simply an extreme example of a widespread problem. We should take this opportunity to improve the guidelines. Merely using the "objectionable" criteria doesn't seem to be working, especially when some editors, in good faith, see nothing objectionable about "improving" a photo by replacing it with a "higher resolution" (though completely different) one. Or see nothing objectionable in "improving" the white-balance of a professionally captured artwork. And I think that the "any objection at all => new file" is not always appropriate: there's a role for consensus discussion and also for the image creator to be given more leeway to significantly alter their work than a third-party. For example, if I upload a 4:3 image but decide on reflection to crop out some sky and make a 16:9 then I shouldn't have to worry about some hypothetical objections. Whereas a third-party deciding to radically crop my photo and overwrite the old one, is kinda rude. -- Colin (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Argument was not my intent, but this isn't the right place for a discussion of how to change COM:OVERWRITE, as most interested people are unlikely to be watching it. A clarification might indeed be needed, but it needs to be brought to the community as a discussion separate from this case. Revent^talk 10:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Jan Arkesteijn: I do not think anyone wants you to leave, or considers that your contributions are not worthwhile. The issue is with your insistence on overwriting files, that you do not update the file pages to reflect the new source, and that you have not listened to people who objected to this. I have not seen a single upload of your that I would consider 'deletable'.....many, however, need split (an annoying job) as a violation of COM:OVERWRITE. Revent^talk

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to say I think Jan does one thing that makes his contributions problematic, and possibly so counterproductive that they aren't worthwhile. Have a look at the last two uploads at File:Breitner witte kimono.jpg. The current is an unchanged original file I found. The second is one from an undocumented source Jan uploaded. Given they're the same size, and I don't see anything resembling Jan's, I suspect both are the same source, with Jan modifying the file to remove yellowness which I presume stems from varnish without any documentation of that fact whatsoever. Undocumented changes and failure to upload originals are so counterproductive that, if Jan is unwilling to stop acting in that manner, we are better without his contributions, unfortunately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Adam. It isn't as though Jan is taking the photos, so the images are out there for someone more conscientious. An image of an artwork has no value to this project unless it is accurate (of more importance than resolution) and of no value to others unless the sourcing is explicit and accurate. A high-resolution art image with inaccurate colours and doubtful provenance is worthless. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What Commons is about

Jonathunder's comment above is important I think. Earlier, Jan wrote "Wikipedia is not made like that. It allows anyone to adapt, whether it is an article on Wikipedia, or a file in Wikimedia. Every file page on Wikimedia has a link that says Upload a new version of this file". The slip of referring to "Wikipedia" is telling, because I think perhaps a problem is that Jan thinks Commons works like Wikipedia. I wrote the following two paragraphs to someone else a month ago, and perhaps worth repeating here:

• "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of openly editable content....Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers" (Wikipedia:About)
• "Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free images, videos, sounds and other multimedia files." (Commons Help:Contents)

Commons is just a repository of images and other media files, each of which typically has one author but occasionally more. This project's purpose is to host those along with suitable descriptions, categories and licence details that help them be re-used by Wikimedia projects and by others. Wikipedia requires editors not WP:OWN articles, and at one point the text below the [Save Page] button warned "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." But Commons is not a collaborative image-making project (though of course some users collaborate by choice, and the page descriptions and categories are collaboratively edited). When people create freely-licensed works (either on Flickr or directly uploading them here) they retain complete ownership of those works. They are still copyright of the author and a CC licence doesn't change that. Whereas on Wikipedia it is really really important that you don't get attached to your edits, on Commons ones images are absolutely attached to their authors for ever. That is why one should take care when editing other people's images because they really really are other people's images. If you like an image, but wish it was more contrasty then that's your artistic choice, not the original photographer's, and you are entitled per the licence to modify it and save that clearly as a separate work of both authors.

When Commons invites one to "upload a new version of this file" it really does mean "a new version of this file". A completely different photograph/scan of the same subject is not "a new version of this file". Just as I wouldn't expect someone to replace my photograph of Paisley Abbey with their own, even if they stand in the same place and use the same lens, why should our images of artworks be different? (I know there's the fact that photographing a painting isn't considered a new work of copyright in some countries). I think respecting image-creators (whether the painter or the photographer/scanner) involves being very honest about sourcing and very honest about what is theirs and what is perhaps one's own creative alteration. It is suggested above that Jan sometimes edits an image so that the original is not actually uploaded, but a cropped or more contrasty version. This is not what we should be about and is not respectful to the image creators. A mindset that thinks Commons is a collaborative / cumulative image-making process like on Wikipedia articles is wrong. The edits/uploads to File:ZurbaranFrancisAssisi.jpg are wrong. It is dishonest to claim User:Jonathunder is the author of the current image, as the text currently does (not fault of him, of course). The comments about permission are no longer accurate. The source really should be in the file-description page, not buried in EXIF where it is too easily lost by clumsy edits made by others. The source doesn't seem accurate anyway, since it only points to a low-resolution copy. Jonathunder's version should be restored and an honestly-sourced new file created. -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Colin's points above are spot on. I have reverted the file discussed. I note that Fae has created Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review, which will need to be considered individually. Regrettably the category contains over 3,000 images. WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan Arkesteijn's blue period

If Jan Arkesteijn didn't have such a tendency to "color balance" to such a too-blue state, his overwrites would have been more often an improvement. Probably he's a fan of certain Photoshop auto-levels or level adjust tools, which tend to be too heavy-handed. And I agree that sometimes his cropping, frame removal, and omission of source details are problematic. But we had 10 years to handle this, and did so poorly, and now he says he is gone. Too bad.

I also do adjustments, enhancements, crops, and overwrites, and would be happy to have someone review my contribs and let me know if some of them are not considered to be improvements. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

COM:Overwrite is fairly helpful in describing when overwriting is non-controversial. Overwriting 'official' well sourced photographs or scans of artworks by the institutions that curate them, will always be controversial unless they are trivial crops, like removing a measurement bar, modern frame, or baseline colour grid. Generally if in doubt, then always create a derivative as a new file, that way nobody can possibly complain about your upload. If you have a lot of files you would like to have double checked, then I suggest creating a user category with 'check needed' in it as a maintenance category, for example mine is Category:Images uploaded by Fæ (check needed), this means that a check will only happen once. --Fæ (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in having them checked, since I think they were improvements; they were generally cropping, sharpening, lightening, color balancing, or otherwise enhancing some really poor photos, and I usually tried to be pretty gentle and conservative with my changes. I'm not sure I agree that the "official" pix are so worth our respect, however, like in the one you used as example at en WPP; if their intent was to make it look really poorly lit, they succeeded, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable intent. And the one he replaced in that case was not the official one anyway. The official one is a giant leap backward in that case; see the file history at File:The_idle_servant.jpg. Jan's higher-res update is too blue, and official one is way too dark. The original one uploaded, which does not derive from the official one, is probably best in that case. Just saying that things are complicated, Jan had good intentions but poor taste, and we probably should have a better way to deal with such things. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of having conversations in two places, I think Dicklyon you should show some more respect for the original, especially if taken from a professional respected source. Professional art photographers use colour calibration charts (like this). So if the photo is a bit warm/yellow then I guess that's how the painting is. You might prefer a more "neutral" colour balance and you might prefer a brighter photo but then it's no longer the photo taken by the National Gallery. It's your derivative work. Upload to a new file. Convince Wikipedia editors to use your variant if you like, but please respect the professional work. Whether you think your work is an improvement is beside the point. Claiming that a version with "sharpening, lightening, colour balancing or other enhancements" is the same as the one take by e.g. the National Gallery, is simply dishonest. Noting the changes in the upload history log isn't sufficient -- reusers don't look there -- it needs to be made absolutely clear this is no longer the photo from the National Gallery. If we expect these institutions to work with us, and willingly release their images for free, then we have to respect the content they produce. Otherwise I suspect some galleries might end up putting non-free license or copyright claims simply to discourage the amateurs on Commons from fiddling with their photos. If you were a serious artwork photographer and carefully calibrated your equipment and lighting to accurately capture a notable painting, you'd want to see that version used and reproduced widely. Now imagine you open a book and see a brightened and temperature-neutralised version of what you know to be a darkened and yellowed painting, and below the photo it says "Source: National Gallery". You'd be livid. In fact the Source is more likely someone using uncalibrated consumer desktop monitor or laptop display, who thought they were "improving" it.

Why is this "overwriting the original" more common for photos/scans of artworks than photos of churches and people, etc? If I take a better photo of Paisley Abbey then I upload a new file and then modify the Wikipedia page. And perhaps the other Wikipedias will notice and update theirs. But that's an editorial decisions for all those Wikipedia editors to make. I shouldn't foist my work on others by simply overwriting the Commons file that is being used. That's lazy and disrespectful both to the creators of the original file, and to the Wikipedia editors who have a right to choose what to display. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I, honestly, suspect that 'forcing' the use of a particular version is exactly why it is more common. An overwrite is effectively an undiscussed deletion of the previous version, and transparent to the projects that use the image (and thus unlikely to be noticed). Revent^talk 11:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Revent the same argument would hold for "forcing" a new version of the lead photo of London Bridge onto Wikipedia articles without the editors knowing, which doesn't tend to happen. Why has a culture developed where it is more acceptable to do this for art rather than for other images (though amateur adjustments still occur to other people's photos)? I think it comes down to the fact that the artist is likely long dead and the photos belong to a faceless institution. Combine that with a Wikipedia mentality that the images are "ours to do what we like with". They're not: even the PD ones morally belong to someone and the CC ones legally do. Further above you write that this is not the place to discuss how to change OVERWRITE policy. I agree, but in order for that change to occur, there needs to be an acceptance we have an endemic problem, rather than an outlier. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there some basis for this conjecture that overwrites are more common for artwork photos? This seems unlikely to me. Most of my overwrites certainly are not that; there are tons of amateur snaps that benefit from a little attention. Some of the pro photos, too, but not as commonly, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for action to stop Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs) from overwriting and reverting corrections

Jan is making it impossible to correct their false attributions and false representations of the work of others by edit warring. In the process of fixing File:Susan Oliver (1971).jpg, Jan reverted my overwrite to replace an artificially smoothed crop of a Nationaal Archief scanned photograph with an accurate crop of the original, and has twice reverted my attempts accurately to describe their reverted version as not just crop of the original, and so should be described as a manipulated derivative of the work of the photographer, along with highlighting that the faked on EXIF data is misleading. To avoid edit-warring over this one file (keep in mind there are over 3,200 others like this yet to be checked), I have uploaded the full archive original and a representative crop as alternative files, however even then Jan is reverting corrections to the image page so that reusers are not advised that the image they see is not the same as can be found at the official source linked.

Jan's uploads and overwrites over the last few years has left us with a huge problem to split or correct the files, especially as the EXIF data is read by most people as original, yet Jan has faked on this data to make the images look "official", behaviour that the Commons community normally treats as blatant vandalism. Jan is not only reverting the images and their descriptions on Commons, but has pursued this image on the Dutch Wikipedia, reverting my change to the article there to use their falsely smoothed digitally changed image, rather than leaving the crop of the official archive version .

For the avoidance of doubt about the nature of the smoothing and other digital changes, please compare Jan's version side by side with the official archive version.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As far i can see, here is consensus that Jan Arkesteij edits are controversial and therefore pursuant to COM:OVERWRITE not okay. I blocked Jan_Arkesteij for one day, next time the block will be longer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm putting this aside for now, dealing with Jan takes too much energy. I have chipped away at correcting several other images in the last few days, such as this war-time photograph of a man being harassed by Nazis, where everyone should find it easy to agree that historical accuracy and correct representation of the sources is critical to our mission. Frankly the closer I examine Jan's manipulation of images and EXIF data, the more distastefully egotistic I find their actions. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I closed the #Proposal now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: Where did you get that image for this war-time photograph of a man being harassed by Nazis? Why is it cropped relative to the one that Jan had uploaded before? I wonder where he got that one. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The source I used is on the image page per "Original file, no cropping, no digital adjustments" in the file history. I believe Jan used the same source but changed the official version by cropping and greyscaling to their personal tastes. Jan has a history of editing the original EXIF data, making their changed images look 'official', in this case the EXIF included a credit to "Nationaal Archief". --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Closure and long term clean up

I suggest this thread is considered closed and can be archived, but the clean-up is likely to take many months, or perhaps will never be correctly completed due to the effort involved and Jan's resistance to explaining the true sources they used. I have taken several hours to re-load and correctly source a handful of images by guesswork and analysis and it just feels like a terrible waste of volunteer time.

If anyone wishes to help out, they can use Category:Image_overwrites_by_Jan_Arkesteijn_for_independent_review for candidate images to investigate and double check if the sourced image linked matches the image uploaded to Commons by Jan. If you can work out what the true source is, then please add it to the image page description and reupload an unchanged version (all the images I have checked so far have a strong blue-shift in the colours or have been smoothed using an undeclared filter). If more information is discovered about sources, then I suggest sharing it on the category talk page for future analysis.

Now I understand what has gone on in more detail, I would like to highlight the following historical artwork by Bosch, one of many from the same source, where manipulation of both the image and the EXIF data has resulted in both a badly changed representation being claimed as official work of an institution, and with the wrong attributions in the EXIF data displayed. Changes which would mislead any reuser and are highly likely to irritate professionals at the source institution investing their time and funds making photographs available for public education:

• The example artwork is John the Evangelist by Hieronymus Bosch, widely used to illustrate Wikipedia articles.
• The image: if you compare Jan's upload and the confirmed original you can easily see the blue-shift in colouring, turning a light rusty-brown background into a colder grey-blue. The image is a high resolution excellent quality photograph using a Hasselblad H4D-60, a camera which costs over $20,000 and ideal for authentic archive and research quality images.
• The EXIF data: Jan's version of the EXIF was changed from the original, giving credit to "Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie" (the host museum) but no other details about photographer. The original EXIF on the file gives the copyright holder as "Bosch Research and Conservation Project" and specifically names the photographer as "BRCP - Rik Klein Gotink". It is my belief that these careful and deliberate changes were made to obscure the true image source, and make it almost impossible for other Commons contributors to check Jan's changed version against the archive quality original.

Jan's legacy of over 3,200 uploads which need to be checked to this level of detail, have provided the Commons community with a reason to revisit COM:Overwrite. As seen by the debate in this thread, including at least one administrator arguing that there was no problem, the policy does not make it clear enough for all uploaders that obscuring sources, or giving false credit, damages the good-will that exists with the majority of museums and research projects working for the benefit of public open knowledge. These are ideal institutions that are interested in sharing work on Wikimedia Commons to be used in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere to increase their public impact and public benefit. Covertly changing high quality photographs of artworks and especially changing EXIF data in a way to mislead reusers should be taken at least as seriously as schoolboy vandalism. The fact that photographs like that of the Bosch work are considered by Wikimedia as public domain, is no excuse for deliberate misrepresentation of the creating institution or photographer.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fae, could you please stop this menace.

• The image belongs to the Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Gemaldegalerie, so they should be given credit.
• The author is not Rik Klein Gotink, it is Hieronymus Bosch.
• The copyrightholder is not Bosch Research and Conservation Project, the image is public domain, so that is why we can publish it here.
• The EXIF data is not a token of originality, it is an editable documentation block.
• It is not the COM:Overwrite page that should be adapted, it is te re-upload page that should refer to COM:Overwrite.

I am sick and tired of your accusations. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on long enough, that's why I suggested it's considered at an end, please raise your complaints about me in another thread if that's how you want to spend your time. The host museum is not the photographer, the photographer in this case was Rik Klein Gotink and their employer claimed copyright of the photograph at the time you took it from their website, not the website of the host museum. EXIF data is taken as "factual" by the vast majority of users and reusers who are insufficiently technical to know better. EXIF data is editable for anyone with the right tools, that does not give you a right to obscure sources and blank out the name of the paid photographer given in the official EXIF data, in order to deliberately mislead reusers and other contributors to this project as to what you are doing.

If you want to work collegiately on this project, then go back through your 3,200+ uploads under review and start adding the sources you took the images from rather than leaving it up to the rest of us unpaid volunteers to guess and pick through the disruptive egotistic mess you have left behind you over the last ten years when overwriting the work of others. If you don't want to work collegiately, then you should reconsider why you are here, collegiate practices are fundamental to the way this project works. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: The excuse that the reupload page does not point at COM:OVERWRITE has long since grown thin. You have been aware of the policy, and ignoring it, for years. Revent^talk 23:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Image Copyright violation

The image of File:Pectoral Cross of St Cuthbert.svg by AlexD was designed by myself in 2008. The image he has on his site may be used if proper credit is given to its author. If further proof is required please let me know. This image was developed on Microsoft Publisher as an outline to a tattoo and uploaded to an artist for further illustration, where I assume it was stolen. -- Anthony Cuthbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.62.194 (talk • contribs) 10:59, March 18, 2016 (UTC)

• Wikiformat of the above discussion was modified by Riley Huntley (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)