Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64

Uploads of User:Juncamilo

Could an admin look at the uploads of User:Juncamilo please? There's a string of copyright violations, and the user received a final warning on 1 February [1], but the violations continue. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done The rest of his uploads were blatant copyvios, so I've deleted them. I've blocked the user for a week and will keep him on my watchlist. If he continues uploading copyvios, I'll block him for a longer period. Daphne Lantier 19:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User Vivienord13

Uploads all look like copyvios to me.

• File:Californiaredsidedgartersnake.jpg from https://www.flickr.com/photos/vabbley/4659452478/
• File:Betta-rubra.jpg from http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/betta-rubra/

and I think the rest (with various watermarks) from www.seriouslyfish.com. William Avery (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Dyala0504

Could an admin look at uploads of User:Dyala0504 please ? The user has already received a message about copyright violations and, now, seems to add an erroneous CC0 licence to every black & white picture found on the Web to hide new copyvios.

Example File:Henri Fruchaud (2).jpg copied from http://www.france-libre.net/henri-fruchaud/

Thanks. -- Habertix (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

 Done Most uploads nuked & user blocked. Daphne Lantier 21:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Geotag to geocat

If they have coordinates, why do they not go automatically into geographic categories? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons detailed above: For example, the geographic coordinates would be sufficient to send a file to Category:Venice, instantly making the category unusable (imagine 1000 files landing there), whereas they should be categorized by buildings etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of separating this question from the discussion of a particular Panoramio upload bot. Yes, I too live in a city where thoughtful tourists unfamiliar with our local geography are plentiful, and sometimes a few hundred roughly- or mis-categorized pictures arrive in a week. So, to ease the load, make maintenance subcats as inboxes. Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories has over half a million files, and little hope of attracting the attention of editors familiar with their particular location. Such items having Venice coordinates ought to go to a new Category:Media with geo-coordinates in Venice needing attention or similarly named subcat of Category:Venice. Presumably upload bots would do this for the files they handle, and a maintenance bot would move old ones. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Illegitimate Barrister

• Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs)

The user was previously reported and warned in December 2016 for his attacks. Since then, he continues to make uncivil comments: January 2017, March 2017 (FU remark), March 2017 ("blah blah blah"). --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, Why are you just reporting this now since the last comment was in March? Wikicology (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I couldn't find any other comment from April. Shall I withdraw the report then? --George Ho (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC); ooh... 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology - I don't care that there's nothing newer than March, the behaviour George Ho has reported is problematic, and I'm quite prepared to block Illegitimate Barrister if they continue to reply to people with comments such as "fuck you motherfucker". There is absolutely no place for such behaviour in a friendly, collaborative project such as ours. I look forward to hearing from Illegitimate Barrister on how they intend to modify their behaviour going forwards, to bring it back within the norms we expect from our community here. Nick (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nick, of course Illegitimate Barrister's behavior is troubling and they need to be strongly admonished if not blocked. I'm just wondering why that horrible comment was not reported then, perhaps it was not noticed. Well, I support a week block with the undrstanding that they would tell us how they intend to modify their behaviour going forwards in the unblock appeal. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at his talkpage and found stuff like this (exp) and this. This is absolutely a no-go. I am cinlined to block Illegitimate Barrister if he ignores this AN/U complain. He needs, at least, apologize for his behavior. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked after this statement, and then he continues to edit (ignoring this AN/U case). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My full support, Steinsplitter. Nick (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Masur and Alan, who are involved with this user. --George Ho (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I received an appeal of this block via email, which I declined, as it was based solely on the argument that the block was punitive and against policy. - Revent^talk 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the user was blocked at English Wikipedia for "cross wiki harassment". --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just wow. What got into him I wonder. Natuur12 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Had to be done as to many Wikipedians were getting tired. FYI - User_talk:Alan#Illegitimate_Barrister_-_user_rights. Masur (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate username

I propose an indef block of the new account AdolfHitschler88 (talk · contribs), as this is a totally inappropriate username (containing Adolf Hitler and 88, which is a neonazi code[2]). In addition, his so far only upload, File:Barock Obamena.jpg, doesn't provide any positive expectations. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. Might even be done globally. --Leyo 07:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Shizhao

There is a severe problem with User:Shizhao who is running the Panoramio upload bot. As this user is swiftly hiding his user talk page by pushing it every few days into an archiv, it might have been slipped for a long time out of the administrators board attention, that his constant upload of garbage from panoramio without respecting copyright issues and personalty rights is putting a severe load of grievance to the project and to those other users, who have to deal with that nonsense. The more, this user is showing zero responsivness - a no-go aspect in a community project.

It will be observed, that a very huge amount of his uploads have to be deleted on account of bad categorization, disregarding FoP issues, copyright violations and personality rights problems. A majority of the photos do not have an educational value or are of the lowest quality that can be imagined. This is for sure not, what Commons aims to be.

The whole thing is consuming the valuable time of serious Commons contributors, a time which much more could be used in *serious* work at the Commons project.

Such users, if not stopped in time, have a potential to be the undertakers of the project. The whole thing reminds me to the russavia problem.

My general perception of this user is, that he is not working in the spirit of WikiCommons and that he is abusing his possiblities as bot operator. Hence, my suggestion is, to withdraw his rights as bot operator. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree! --Hubertl 10:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Shizhao is trying to rescue third-party-uploads to Panoramio, which all will be deleted by Google in less than 1 year, per en:Panoramio#Closure. So, overall saving these images is a good thing. On the other hand, it's also a fact that a portion of these uploads are out-of-scope or violating copyright, which produces additional work for our recent-upload patrolers and other users, who care about upload-quality. IMO, in all bot-processed uploads of large image collections, a share of to-be-deleted "garbage" files seems to be unavoidable. In my experience, Shizhao has never complained about uploads which were tagged for deletion by others. To the contrary, Shizhao often[3] deletes nominated Panoramio-files by himself.

However, Shizhao should provide a statement about whether a more effective pre-upload sorting-out of clearly out-of-scope- files might be possible. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree too. There are many photographs with low quality from non Commons user. They aren't preselected and flooding a lot of categories. Too much garbage. All the uploads should be selected and all the images with always the same content should be deleted. To see all the garbage is frustrating and a lot of categories became confusing. --XRay ^talk 10:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My general opinion about Panoramio and flickr photos is, that Commons does not need them. We have so many skilled contributors and Commons should focus on it's own possibilities instead of hoover-like getting questionable photos from somewhere. The principle "first get it all and then throw the grievance of sorting things out to the own personal" is stupid. As a matter of facts, this work is sticking to those experienced user which rather could contribute much better images to Commons. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Do not forget that Panoramio images are usually not properly categorized: They go at best to the general category of the city and wait there for years until someone categorizes them. And most of them we do not need anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. --A.Savin 12:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We get lots of useful images as well from these uploads. But there are also some panoramio photographers whose work tends to be below average or even downright weird, and categories that used to be well maintained get flooded with junk. So my first idea is to create and bot-add user categories for every Panoramio user. (That should be useful in multiple ways, so why don't we start immediately?)

Another idea is to upload all the images to hidden categories exclusively until somebody picks out the files that should be deleted or added to some categories. The user category could already be that hidden cat. We could use Cat-a-lot there for quick re-categorization, without the need to delete tons of nonsensical categories added by the bot. There has been a huge problem with overcategorization, see User_talk:Shizhao/2017-04-05#Please_stop_adding_multiple_categories_for_municipalities_to_bot_uploads. As all the files are geocoded, the next step might be to automatically add the category of the municipality that corresponds with the coordinates (if that's possible), and drop all the tags that belong to different locations or root categories like "Animals" which are far too general. Before we delete too many files that are considered insufficient for illustrating articles, we shouldn't forget the Commons on OSM layer [4], where a rather humble image may still be useful. On the other hand, we can use the OSM layer to find images on the map that require better categorization. --Sitacuisses (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We should consider a policy where every mass upload should be presented first to the community and must not start without the approval of the community, possibly subject to restrictions and rules. Shizhao follows here previous mass uploads which have likewise generated problems. In my opinion, Wikimedia Commons is a curated resource and not an archival site for free pictures that are threatened by a close-down of another site. If we flood our collection with mass uploads of low quality shots with unsufficient descriptions we make Wikimedia Commons harder to use. Look at Category:Valdaysky District which has been flooded with more than 2,000 photographs. Who is expected to sort this out with useless pics like File:Valdaysky District, Novgorod Oblast, Russia - panoramio (1886).jpg or File:Дерево на углу шахты - panoramio.jpg? --AFBorchert (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There are also thousands of cases where this bot places WRONG categories in its uploads. See File:Ayia Napa, Cyprus - panoramio (98).jpg for example, where the photo clearly doesn't belong into the Famagusta category. This rubbish has to stop definitely; if necessary, by indefblocking the Panoramio upload bot. And please stop telling be about potentially useful uploads from Panoramio: the damage for Commons that Shizhao is causing with all this upload mess is very, very much larger than the usefulness of a handful of Panoramio images. This is what should be actually taken into account. --A.Savin 12:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I find it hard to find any useful shots among the crap. And these are entirely lost like many other valuable shots that have been uploaded before. I know what I am talking about as recently I tried to manually clear a category that was misused by another mass upload (this time not by Shizhao). In my opinion (and this is just my opinion) we make Commons less valuable and usable in case of such misguided mass uploads. The real problem is here, however, that we most urgently need a policy for this kind of problem. It is not just a problem of Shizhao's Panoramio uploads but a more general problem that needs to be addressed. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user:CEphoto and User:AFBorchert. In fact, I am no fan of bot uploads at all. We are already years behind categorizing images, not to speak about cleaning up top-level categories. We can't keep up as it is!

Most comments above do not support this bot upload. But there is some concern on missing out on some useful images (I have been able to add many images to WP articles). As a viable solution I support the idea by User:Sitacuisses to put all bot uploads in a special category. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with A.Savin above. Apart from that: Looks like 70% of Panoramio has been uploaded yet to commons, but there are still hundreds of thousands images not yet uploaded. Do we really want this? Checking/Categorizing all files will take decades. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came here from User talk:Hubertl on my watchlist. I think the Panoramio upload bot is an excellent bot and should definitely be allowed to continue to run as it is. Panoramio is a website that documents what specific geographical locations look like. That is almost always an educational pursuit; such photos are used on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage all the time even when they do not show anything especially remarkable, and it would be short-sighted of us to fail to upload geographic photos that may still have historic value and may be lost if not uploaded before Panoramio closes down. I've categorized many of the bot's uploads in my own hometown, and found most of them very illustrative. Panoramio isn't a website full of selfies and other snapshots of dubious value like Flickr, it's a repository of geotagged photos of specific locations, and I would estimate that over 90% of everything on there is educational enough for COM:SCOPE. Categorizations (clearly now based on Panoramio tags) can always be fixed in the long term, but maybe adding a "cleanup" category in addition to what's now there would be useful? Or even categorization based on the geotag, not just the Panoramio tags, so that at least broad (country or city) categories are always added. darkweasel94 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you really consider 90% of the Panoramio stuff useful, then you definitely misunderstood the goal of Commons. Fortunately, people like you and Shizhao are in minority here. --A.Savin 13:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The bot uploads create a few interesting photos but most bot uploads are just tourist snapshots of well known tourist sites. These spots are already well documented and additional photos of questionable quality are not needed. I very much support a "sweep" of the useful pictures from Flickr and Panoramio, but these pictures must be evaluated before upload. It requires time, but keeping city categories clean from spam takes even more time. --Pugilist (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The bot has uploaded many images of remote rural areas that hadn't been covered yet in the project. It's certainly not just the typical tourist attractions. Thanks to the geotags, I've been able to add the first files to some of the empty nature reserve categories of my region. One of the panoramio photographers is a glider pilot who provided many aerial photographs. Unfortunately, it's the same person who uploaded dozens, if not hundreds of pictures of his Rottweiler dogs. So, yes, we do get lots of useful files, and we also get lots of spam. And I wish we had a way of sorting this out without flooding well-maintained categories. --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would support pulling the plug on this bot. There are most certainly pictures at Panoramia that are worthwhile but we don't need their huge collection off snap shots. Importing those seems to be demotivating for our own photographers. Though I also agree with AFBorchert that we should consider a policy for mass imports. Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion. the bot has filtered some low quality photos and no geotag photos, I also quick checked all the uploaded photos, created a category blacklist, distinct images used 10000+. Because Panoramio is about to close, I had to speed up the progress of the upload. If the community does not need to upload photos from Panoramio, I will stop the bot--shizhao (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the issue to have backlogs of images needing categories (or needing better categories), even if that takes several years to sort the images. In the extend the images are not copyright violation, some of the images are clearly in scope, are free and have geotags, and depict geographic (or urban) areas for which we do not have so many photos. If Panoramio is about to close it will be a pity to lose an occasion to have these images. And for who don't want to work in the categorisation of these images, then...don't do it, that's all. I'm fine with the BOT. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Categories which were flooded by such mass uploads are rendered unusable. And categories are quite important to find images at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As the bot just takes the proposed categories from Panoramio, there is no supervision of OVERCAT. For example, nearly all photos that have gone to the category Sabah also went to the OVERCATS Borneo and Malaysia. Second: No one needs photos which are only some few kilobyte in size. We are encouraging people to provide full size resolutions because Commons not only serves its own sister projects but are accepting tons of unusable small images. How silly is that? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• So they should be added in a specific category (exemple "Media needing category uploaded by Panoramio upload bot"), waiting to be well sorted manually or deleted. Maybe the BOT should not use the Flick tags to put the images in a specific category as for File:Valdaysky District, Novgorod Oblast, Russia - panoramio (1886).jpg in order to avoid potential categorisation issues Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• As it is not upon me to decide how the Foundation is financing the space for several millions in the majority useless files, I would be fine if all files go directly to the Category:Photos from Panoramio without further categorization. If someone is looking for a special photo, he will find it with the search function (given that the photo has a suitable description, which, I have to mention that, is almost not given). --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

May I repeat that a User category for each Panoramio photographer will often help to find images of similar scope or region. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Full ack to those who ascertained the huge mass (or the huge mess...) of bad quality snapshots that are flowing in through the Panoramio bot. What about tackling these quality issues by postponing if not outright blocking the upload of every still image shot by mobile phone, a simple and cheap point-and-shoot-camera or lacking EXIF? It would reduce the amount of bad quality (blurred, noisy...) files and ease in curating the remainder, as I expect that those people offering EXIF and using more dedicated photographic equipment at least care a little bit about meaningful (and bot-readable) descriptions of their images. I think that it wouldn't be such a large task to write down a blacklist of camera entries in EXIF data "to be avoided". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

An elitist answer to a minor problem. Do you know, globally how many people have money to spend on dedicated photographic equipment? This is not Germany were the salaries are compatible with the purchase of a fancy camera and equipment, this is a global project, even in countries were the medium salary is 1/20 1/50 of the german one. Tm (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This answer is at least appropriate to an automated data processing. Of course, there are people interested in photography using their mobile phone camera, and who care about decent quality (composition, clean lens...) But these photographic results aren't accessible to automated filters (save for an IT setup akin of the Google image search...). And even if Commons aims for a global reach, I do not think that one who is fighting to make his everyday living cares much about any free media repository. The uploads from non-industrialised countries will surely come from the respective upper socail class who won't care about any considerations of medium salaries and who ideed do have the money to spend on dedicated photographic equipment (and I do not specifically mean "DSLR", a well made compact digital camera will do well, too. As every device that ranges above the stuff sold for 30-60 EUR at ALDI-type discounters, here, in Germany...) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Cccefalon asked me to comment. I've probably categorized about 300 of these myself (mostly Seattle-related). I'd say about 20% of these are useful, and the bulk of the rest are harmless. That's enough to make it worth doing, but it would be nice if these were put in special categories for sorting instead of dumped into place categories. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment As it seems this is the day to bash at User:Shizhao, and the hard that he does, i´ll also "bash" him. First he created a tool to upload images that, given that Panoramio will close at the end of this year, will be lost forever. As user:darkweasel puts it "Panoramio is a website that documents what specific geographical locations look like. That is almost always an educational pursuit; such photos are used on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage all the time even when they do not show anything especially remarkable, and it would be short-sighted of us to fail to upload geographic photos that may still have historic value and may be lost if not uploaded before Panoramio closes down." As him, I´ve categorized thousands if not tens of thousands of Panoramio uploads without a category, and i say that

1- The medium quality of Panoramio images are reasonable to good, per my experience of categorizing tens of thousands of that images.

2- Most importantly, what none of the bashers seem to know or care, is that User:Shizhao regularly deletes the images of bad quality, out of scope and copyright violations, so he does, in a very systematic and thoroughly job of cleaning his uploads. Given that he already uploaded 1 861 944 images, the problematic ones are a minority. So to the ones opossing him, give a quantitive explanation of your pretensious problem (how many images are problematic, a percentage based in facts and not state or spirits of mind.

To terminate i will say to User:Shizhao, thank you for your hard work, keep it up and uploading and do not care to some users unfounded complaints. Tm (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, me too I sometimes categorize such images and I tend to agree with Tm above, some images looks at first view as "random snapshots" but are in the facts media "that specific documents what specific geographical locations look like". Except the images that shows peoples on vacations or the images with very bad quality, or very big number of similar photos taken by the same person about the same subject, they are IMO fully in scope in the extend the geolocation is correct. Where some persons see flooding, some others see the EV or a potential documentary value. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

About the value of Panoramio images i was just quoting what Darkweasel said :). And the images that are out of scope or of bad quality are delete regularly by User:Shizhao anyways. Tm (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• An exemple, the last one I categorized two days ago from the "media needing categories" File:M.Á.V. temető - panoramio (3).jpg, I'm wonder why this image is not fully in scope, and why we should lost the images not yet uploaded in the extend Panoramio is going to close. I really don't understand. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this types of bots are not the uploads; but dumping files in all possible auto detected categories. The bot can be instructed to avoid it and add them only to maintenance categories. Jee 17:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

But those auto-detected categories have been very useful to me when categorizing! For example, I watch Category:Vienna, so I see on my watchlist when anything gets in there and then I can categorize it. If the bot had only put them into maintenance categories, I would not have found them anywhere near as quickly. Broad auto-detected categories where at least somebody can find them are always preferable to no categories or only maintenance categories that far fewer people will ever look at. (Also, tools like User:OgreBot/gallery will pick up many broadly-categorized files, but not uncategorized ones.) darkweasel94 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is fine, but this category should be different from the actual Category:Vienna and be hidden. You could still watchlist it, but folks who are looking for a nice picture of Vienna for Wikivoyage should not be forced to go through thousands uncategorized images.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

darkweasel, I understand your argument. But we should aware that these main categories (not maintenance and hidden categories) are primarily for viewers and reusers. It is not the place where I maintenance volunteer needs to find files which needs maintenance. The category becomes cluttered and useless if it occupies more junk than good. Jee 02:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the different views, I would like to repeat my proposal to put all further uploads into Category:Photos from Panoramio without further categorization and leave it to the discreation of brave categorizers to pick the suitable ones. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

About photo quality: has filtered out <300k photos (now changed to < 500k size)

About category by user: user name on Panoramio is often used with some strange characters, Commons' category system is difficult to support them all

--shizhao (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If the user name contains strange characters, use the ID number instead. The user name can still be added to the category description. If it's too complicated to sort out only some names, then use the ID number to name all Panoramio user categories. It's more important to group the files together than to replicate the user name. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've stopped your bot for the next 7 days now. The reason is, that I find it pretty uncalled for to continue running the bot as nothing would have happened, whereas there is some consensus here that it cannot go on same way as before. --A.Savin 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Btw: AFBorchert kindly requested Shizhao to pause the bot white the issue is being discussed, but Shizhao ignored it completely. The bot was running all the time and stopped only after I blocked it. Do we really need such ignorant sysops here? Shizhao should resign their admin flag voluntarily or a desysop request should be considered. --A.Savin 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, such a desysop would be an overkill to me. Shizhao didn't abused their admin tools, and in fact deletes images uploaded by their bot which are copyvios and out of scope.. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"there is some consensus that it cannot go on same way as before"??? At least 4/5 people are in part or totally in favour of thus uploads continue as is and 7\8 against! Is that a consensus now? Consensus is when there is, at the minimum, a clearly supermajority in one side and i see none. Also blocking a bot just because? In what policy is this block based? Create a maintenance category if needed be like in the Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing category review if such action is needed, but this block is uncalled for and against policies and there is no consensus for such action. Tm (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This bot was never authorized by the Commons community; I don't see any bot request which approves this bot task (correct me if I'm wrong). COM:BP says that unauthorized bots are not allowed to operate without approval. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, @A.Savin: , can you please enable account creation and disable autoblock in your block? Otherwise, Shizhao won't be able to comment here for 1 week due to autoblock, and possibly innocent anonymous users would be complaining at us that they can't create an account nor edit here on Commons. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Search is your friend! Yes it was authorized by the Commons community in Commons:Bots/Requests/Panoramio upload bot. So this is not a valid argument to block. Tm (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shizhao, A.Savin, and Pokéfan95: I've removed the autoblock from the block of User:Panoramio upload bot. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this bot must be stopped now, as it creates a lot of problems, like those in DRs. It would be better if a wiki would be created for this. I already requested at Miraheze to create the wiki. Then after the wiki is created, Shizhao's bot can continue the work there, and we can find some useful images there to be uploaded here on Commons. @Shizhao: Is this solution ok to you? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• All Panoramio uploads should be stopped altogether - If there's images worthy of being here they'll be uploaded by various editors, It's no different to having a "Flickr-bot" that uploads thousands of flickr images a day - In short the bot isn't needed and neither are the 90% of images uploaded so I strongly support the motion of pulling the plug on this bot altogether. –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Source to 90% percent of Panoramio images not being needed? Or are you speaking without knowning, as you only made a few edits related to this images since january 1 2017 (a few moves and less and 50 categorizations). I´ve categorized tens of thousands and not that maybe, in a bad day, are, even before Shizhao cleans the daily uploads (that almost no one mentioned or cared) at most 5/10% are out scope, bad quality, copyright violations, etc. Tm (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Create Category:Photos from Panoramio by tag, then upload the files to [[Category:Vienna (Panoramio tag)]] (or [[Category:Photos from Panoramio tagged 'Vienna'|Vienna]], or just [[Category:Panoramio tag 'Vienna'|Vienna]]) rather than Category:Vienna. --Sitacuisses (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is to say no longer need to upload photos from Panoramio? or Create Category:Photos from Panoramio by tag continue uploading?--shizhao (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fine to continue as far as no main categories are added by the bot. All files should go to a maintenance category or its subcategories (as Sitacuisses suggested). If the bot is already blocked, wait for some more opinions. Jee 03:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should let the bot continue to upload. As has been mentioned, this is a race against time - the photos will soon be gone - whereas categorisation is not. Perhaps some form of "check if A is a parent cat of B, and if so, don't add A" could be included in the category generation? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the light of the above opinion, I think the idea is feasible: create a maintenance category Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories by date, daily uploads of photos into subcategories under this category (Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of 2017-04-18). Bot don't add main categories (The Panoramio tags on the image page can be used for manual categories and searching)--shizhao (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As suggested above, I would also recommend to add a per-Panoramio-user category. We have a similar approach with Geograph images. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You still didn't explain why it was me and not you (after this request) who had to stop your bot. I don't like sysops who treat their colleagues like shit. And: You still didn't explain what to do with all the mess already uploaded, and with categories hopelessly spammed. --A.Savin 12:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can proove that for at least 3-5 monthes it became almost impossible to maintance some categories (for example Category:Moscow). There are not so many active users who would categorize all of the uploaded images. The second problem is that the amout of really poor photos is enormous. I don't know what to do with all of that really useless and bad (IMHO) quality photos of really-hard-to-understand-what-it-is-and-where-it-is. And the third - I have to spent all of the time here only to categorize panoramio images (it's not so interesting, because photos are banal and usually bad). --Stolbovsky (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I did not notice your message. Also, I do not think these photos are mostly spam--shizhao (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not what you think is relevant, but what people think who try to do some maintenance. There were times I managed to keep categories like Russia, Moscow etc. clean, but today no chance due to thousands of your bot's uploads (pinging Stolbovsky who can confirm it).

Btw, when you don't notice messages on your own (!) talk page, I really don't know how to help you any further. --A.Savin 12:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for the many photos from Germany (as I have re-categorized thousands and thousands of them in the past weeks just for my own district). The only really helpful way would be to only add one categroy per picture (a maintenance category "Panoramia images to be categorized from Landkreis...", or even "... from [city/community]", derived from the pretty good geo-localization that comes with the images. The most annoying thing about those uploads of photos from my region is that the Panoramia uploaders didn't just give one tag per photo, but instead tagged their wohle albums and all the photos within with numerous city names if they uploaded photos from a tour that went through numerous cities. That makes it really hard to recategorize, because you have to follow every single geo-tag to find out what is depicted (the descriptions and filenames are mostly totally useless and utter crap), if you don't know what is depicted (and if you do know, those photos are mostly highly redundant...). That said, there are indeed photos well worth preserving among them, and some that are very good additions to the Commons. They just clutter the existing, well groomed, categories too much, in too little time for anyone to cope with tidying up. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• To add my opinion to this discussion:
  • Considering that Panoramio is about to be shut down and its collection of geotagged imagery will not be available elsewhere, uploading its contents to Commons wholesale is advisable. The offscope clutter can be deleted at its own pace with priority for cases of FoP and other copyvios.
  • Using Panoramio tags for categorization is only as good as the tagging itself — therefore it would be better not to convert them directly into categories. (On the subject of categorization of mass uploads, some really good ideas, old and new, were stated above, along with some really bad ones. The matter should be discussed elsewhere though.)
  • I for one would like to thank and congratulate User:Shizhao, even if there’s less-than-perfect aspects to his bot run. Considering this matter an user problem, calling for blocks and desysoping — it’s ludicrous and frightening, although not surprising. There’s indeed two sides in the Commons community and a deep and widening chasm divides us, but it is clear which side has all the big guns and ain’t afraid to use them.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with those requesting that this bot does not automatically add to any normal category, but that there is a special category created for the bot, with sub categories for user and possibly tag. Preserve information on the file page. I think that generally we should not use bots to add images to categories, other than maintenance categories, or "uploads from XXX" categories. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to note that the Internet Archive already has a whole archive of all Panoramio images, so if this bot's purpose is to save photos from Panoramio, then that may no longer make any sense since another website already fulfilled that purpose. We could just download one gz file from that collection and pick acceptable images to be uploaded here. On the other hand however, a gz file may contain thousands of images, and that would be very hard if they would be picked one by one. Also, I am not sure if they have information for each image, so that's another problem. But the best solution I see here is to upload them instead to another wiki willing to host a large archive, since not only the Panoramio images would be saved reliably, it would also preserve information for each image and categorization is possible, which makes reviewing easier than uploading them to Commons and wasting valuable volunteer time. I tried to request a wiki at Miraheze, but they are concerned that their storage might burn out, so I withdrew my request. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  Internet Archive would be interested in such data, but this is just my guess. — regards, Revi 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you meant the information about each image, then yes of course. IA is interested in all data, as long as it is valuable and important. That information of course meets that. The problem here anyway if IA would be used for that purpose is that Shizhao might have no knowledge on how to mass upload such data to the Internet Archive, and doing it manually on the other hand would be tedious. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

comment from a "simple maintenance user": In my opinion the material from panoramio ist average to good, I don't see any problem with the pure number of images BUT the only big issue: categorization! Categorization of these images is very poor and tends to massive overcategorization which has held me busy for weeks now "downcatting" the files. Some groups of files even all share same cats but completely differing in geo-location. If we can solve this, it's fine. --Joschi71 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me summarize. The 7 days block of Panoramio bot is soon expired, but it seems that NOTHING has been done by Shizhao so far to adress the issues. The uttermost participants in this discussion have the opinion that at least something has to be done with the way the bot puts its uploads in categories (only maintenance categories, not topic categories). But it seems to me that after the block is expired, the bot will continue same way as nothing would have happened. Given that, a longer block for the Panoramio bot will be necessary to prevent further damage on Commons. --A.Savin 09:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think he know very well that the bot has no permission to run now. But I propose to give it the permission if he agree that the bot will be programmed to upload files only with maintenance categories (not topic categories). Jee 09:30, 24 April 2017

(UTC)

I have already said above: my bot create a maintenance category Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories by date, daily uploads of photos into subcategories under this category (Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of 2017-04-18), If so feasible. The main category is no longer add--shizhao (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Then A.Savin, AFBorchert, could you approve the bot to run (with these restrictions) as we don't have any serious oppose? We're on a deadline as that site is closing. Jee 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, using just maintenance categories without flooding regular categories would be an important step forward. In addition, I would like to see per-photographer categories as it is done for Geograph images. If the user names appear to be weird (as described above), the suggestion by Sitacuisses should be considered to use the numerical ids instead. Take for example 1, 2, 3 from the most recent uploads which are all copyvios per COM:TOYS and come all from the same user. The most effective way to weed them out would be a per-user-category which would help to mass-delete them. In addition, there were also concerns voiced above regarding copyright issues (like those I just refered to or missing freedom of panorama as, for example, in the most recent uploads 1 or 2), personality rights (recent example: File:Let's take a break now. - panoramio.jpg), and out-of-scope stuff (recent examples: 1, 2). How is this to be sorted out? Is there a team who is willing to check uploaded photographs at least in regard to such issues within a reasonable time frame? --AFBorchert (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. --A.Savin 10:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

already add category by ID--shizhao (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you mean you did this before? I am missing such a category with most recent uploads like this one. Or do you intend to add per-user-categories when the bot resumes its operation? --AFBorchert (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

when the bot resumes its operation, add category by ID and category by date, no main category--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Might I ask for the status of the above mentioned decision? Is the bot running again? I cannot see any new subcategories under Category:Photos_from_Panoramio --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

bot have re-upload begin, see Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories--shizhao (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked a few files. Seems fine. Jee 13:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the "Photos from Panoramio ID" categories, like any category of photographs by user, should be permanent and should also be bot-added to the files uploaded earlier. So they can't be placed below Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories, as they will remain even when the categories have been checked.-- Do we need parallel categories Media needing categories as of 4 May 2017 and Photos from Panoramio needing categories as of 2017-05-04? Shouldn't the latter be a subcategory of the first? -- Is there a way to search files only within Category:Photos from Panoramio needing categories? Otherwise it would be handy to have provisional subcategories there created from the tags. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As I'm working for some months now (since Nov. 2016) on part of the images uploaded by the bot, please allow me to make some more general remarks beyond the bot in question.

• I have found some useful images, even images of protected monuments in Austria & Bavaria, we did not have any image before. But I consider this the needle in the haystack.
• I have a quarry-statement that finds images located in Austria and some kilometers off borders: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/14334 (everyone can use it). It finds uncategorized images and images needing check, most of those are created by the panoramio bot. Results are stored from time to time in this gallery.
  • The quarry-statement can be adopted to different location areas.
• I'm working hard, but the number of files is almost constant (it dropped only last weeks when the bot was blocked). Some others are helping. It is not possible to keep the categorization at same speed as the bot uploads more and more.
• I asked for help on the Bavarian side and the Bratislava side just across the Austrian border, but there was not much response.
• You can check the gallery, this is getting more and more a collection of difficult to identify and difficult to use images. At least it is difficult to find somebody who cares.

Problems:

• Except flooding the categories for various locations, the bot also floods various maintenance categories (like All_media_needing_categories_as_of_2017 and Media_needing_category_review_as_of_<date>). This makes it difficult to find rare manual uploads in between such categories that are waiting for proper categorization. The reason why maintenance categories are getting more and more clumsy, is IMHO that we just have this one level process. It would be better if we would consider images having only hidden categories (or certain hidden categories) to be sufficiently categorized and if we could move uncategorized images after some time (=hard to categorize) to some second level maintenance category. Or to a non-hidden category like Category:Uncategorized on purpose.
• Flooding is not only done by this bot, but also by non-bot users, who upload many similar images or many low quality images or many uncategorized images. (the strategy IMHO should be to select at home and upload only the very best few images of a view of an object)
• Flooding is intrinsic to mass uploads. Provided we get some thousands of images properly categorized and well described in multiple languages on a small scope (e.g. a single building), it is quite impossible for the user to select one of those many to illustrate an article.
• In general we do not have an idea on how to stop adding more and more of the same.
• Deletion
  • We do not have a working policy, that allows to get rid of images that do not contribute much to the educational value of commons. COM:SCOPE is a bit to wide. Blurry images can be useful to show blurriness, etc.
    • Best would be not to upload those at all, but this could be difficult for a mass upload like this (how to select?)
  • We do not have a policy, that allows to easily get rid of third party images uploaded by bots (like the panoramio fotos) just because they do not add value, just because we already have a lot of similar images (main tourist attractions) and the like. This is different from images uploaded by the photographer, where the images are uploaded on purpose. Deletion policy should differ between third party uploads and own images.
  • Having said that deletion policy does not work on the low end of the image spectrum (only at the very low end), I'm moving such images to a low quality subcategory like Category:Votivkirche - low quality images, Category:Zentralfriedhof,_Vienna_-_low_quality_images. Images are not deleted, but buried there (hope forever or until deletion).
  • By keeping all those images of less value, at least when a user tries to move them to the right categories this will flood these categories again. Ok, not everything goes to the city, but for main tourist attractions it is quite similar. See de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Österreichische Denkmallisten/Commons Bilder for a count on some of the main tourist attractions in Austria (I know it is depending on the subcategory structure and not precise).

regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh (talk · contribs)

Has vandalized one of my pictures twice, strange edits on other pics, too. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laas_Tschengls_St._Ottilia.jpg --ManfredK (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Strange behaviour. Had already been blocked for the same reason on :en. Account compromised? --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

user Hkronk/editing Kobi Arad article

Hi Wiki admins. I have been working on an article some time now about the artist Kobi Arad. I understand that sockpuppets had previously worked on his page and, after I submitted the article for review, I was also accused of being a sockpuppet. I asked what I could do to prove that I wasn't and heard nothing. In subsequent days, both the article, which I had put a lot of work into, and my user profile were deleted. Is there anything I can do about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkronk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hkronk: Hi,

You are probably on the wrong page. This is for issue about Wikimedia Commons, while articles are on Wikipedia. For help on the English Wikipedia, please see en:WP:TH. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hkronk: No, there is nothing you can do about this directly. Why are you so interested in that artist? Exactly how does it meet en:WP:NMUSIC? How long have you been working on that article? Are there other artist or music articles you could work on until this blows over?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Dlldo777

This user violates a lot of policies: first, violates the username policy by having an inappropriate username; second, this account was created to vandalyze on Spanish Wikipedia (where has been blocked) and here, and all the photos uploaded to Commons by this account are out of scope; third: the user has uploaded only copyrighted photos/screenshots. For that reasons, I ask the permanent block of the user and the deletion of the photos uploaded. Thanks, --Warko (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Nuked and blocked indef. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

ebook-advertisements

Zacharylupita (talk · contribs) has uploaded more than 200 1-page-pdf-files, each of which is merely an advertisement for a commercial ebook. He continued to upload even after receiving a warning not to upload promotional material. Due to the large number of files, I am going to nuke them. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• The files contained advertising links to external website. This is spamming, and IMO, the user can also be indef. blocked right now. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Damn. Though the original account wasn't even blocked, he/she created the sock Harismatys (talk · contribs) and started uploading the same spam. Now, indef'd and uploads nuked. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think me too, I blocked a similar one a few time ago... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The next one: Wighardlorenzo (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The next one: Hansrudolf (talk · contribs). What the hell is going on today? --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The next one: Siegbrecht (talk · contribs). Eventually, a CU should check whether a range-block might help to stop this nonsense. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The next one: Zebadiahwayne (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Block all account used by this user and tag them accordingly. Wikicology (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That was already performed when posting them here. However, as my time is limited and as the spammer is able to upload hundredths of these pdf files within a few minutes, I want to get the recent-upload patrolers on alert. --Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh...That's fine. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zacharylupita and Category:Sockpuppets of Zacharylupita. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now in Category:Sockpuppets of Roycewolf. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:McClellandRA

User has begun uploading radio station logos as own work.

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/McClellandRA) The editor has been blocked in the past. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McClellandRA#Your_account_has_been_blocked Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted several obvious copyvio logos and blocked the user for a month. Daphne Lantier 05:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

disclosure of personal data of a minor on userpage

New user Lanuginous (talk · contribs) has uploaded an image of a 6-year-old, fully identifiable boy (File:Efrayim's 1st day of Pre1A.jpg) and has published personal data of this boy, such as birthdate, the name of his siblings and even the street-address, on his user page User:Lanuginous. Despite of the potentially somewhat suspicious characterisation of the child in his "summary" (User:Lanuginous#Summary), I assume that all this was done out of mere stupidity and/or ignorance. 24 hours ago I strongly recommended (User talk:Lanuginous) the user to remove all personal data from his userpage. As there was no reply/response, I'm inclined to remove the critical by myself. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the userpage and the two images, and warned the user about scope, though this goes a bit beyond that. If he posts that sensitive material again I'll consider blocking him indefinitely. We can't know for sure that the post is really by the children's parent/s. I've also reported the en.wiki page to their OS team so as not to draw attention to it with a CSD. Daphne Lantier 07:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They have already deleted the corresponding page on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rick_Blood

Unless I'm very much mistaken, every single one of this user's contributions has been an image misattributed as "Own Work", mostly obvious copyvios. I'm not really sure what should be done about this to stem the tide, but I hope someone here knows. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Slowking4

This user made an uncivil comment here calling me "asshole". I kindly asked him on his talkpage to be civil but he responded in a similar manner as before. See this comment, too. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Slowking's comments are not nice, but you are part of the problem. You try to enforce your point of view by attacking others (here you are attacking me), and creating non-sense deletion requests (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument morts Servignat 2.jpg). No wonder why people get angry after you. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

i did not call the editor an asshole. i said: "you want to be an asshole, go for it; it is all on you", but i see subtlety is lost on this editor. i once was squeamish about this word, but now it is a technical term - many books are written about this "toxic leadership" phenomenon, i.e.:

The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 9780241980187.

Assholes: A Theory. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-385-53568-7.

Assholes are killing your project

and a self diagnostic humor site from our late WMF board member.

that being said, you set the tone for speech on this website; i will follow the consensus norms.

but when an editor claims the right to suspend the AGF, i will call out that editor, and any admin who would dare to cross that bright line. you want to call that incivility go for it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Although Slowking's comments are indeed not nice, he didn't called you an asshole. And even if you are called one, that's not a reason to call out an admin action against him. I actually called someone an asshole before and they nor anyone didn't reported me to the admin noticeboard. But that's on my enwiki talk page, and the reason why I called them an asshole is because they are pissing me off after their failed LR request here (which I opposed). If Slowking made a personal attack against Mhhossein, then that may warrant an admin action, but this isn't the case here. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Slowking would think first before calling you an asshole. Why? Because he is a Slowking. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I am sorry to learn that you felt insulted by Slowking4 but they never called you an asshole. Slowking4 is aware that nobody deserves to be disrespected on this project and treating each other with respect is an integral part of building a repository of media files. I hope you can accept that Slowking bare you no malice. :Yann, I took part in that discussion. You attacked the user first here by accusing him of having a conflict of interest with the rest of the group. That was a damaging comment and coming here to claimed they attacked you is appalling . Admins are expected to resolve dispute among editors and not to fuel it. I'm not impressed. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest trying the racist test. If you replace "asshole" by "racist", what was written would have been "you want to be a racist, go for it; it is all on you" injected into discussion that had nothing to do with racism. In this discussion Slowking injected "asshole" into a discussion that had nothing to do with assholes or calling people assholes. The excuses for the un-civil language are excuses, the excuses that pretend that using "asshole" to refer to other editors, even obliquely, is respectful are way off-beam. Someone wrote a book with "asshole" in the title, sure, that's not an excuse to drop the a-bomb into discussions. On the English Wikipedia it has become the norm, even lauded as if the project is a lad's locker-room, to be allowed to call people cunts and tell them to fuck off, see en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Editorial. Let's not go down the same route of allowing "free speech" to be an excuse to create and sustain a hostile environment, where nobody who is offended by the misuse of obvious trigger words can feel comfortable taking part in open discussion.

Slowking, grow up please. You don't have to go out of your way to cause upset. --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

ouch. here is the thing, User:Fæ. we argue; we vent, but we get work done. we collaborate with people to get work done. what has this editor done? less than 50 uploads and 300 edits, and i am supposed to entertain his attempt to veto a consensus about a multi-user account? i am tired of thin-skinned factotums who are always right. i suppose you would say he deserves to be an admin, he certainly has the attitude for it.

you want an adult code of conduct go for it. you should expect to be opposed by editors like this one, who want to reserve the right to trash AGF. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig up extensive links here, but Slowking4 has a well-established history of being hostile and accusing others of bad faith... just skimming the recent history of VPC, I see comments such as...

• "oh yeah mr. "i'm right and you're wrong"? LOL"
• "if you don't like the negative feedback, go cry on your pillow - snowflake"
• responding to a simple question asked by an IP about 'no known restrictions' licenses (they said "I have to believe I'm just misunderstanding something", and were asking about knowing if they could safely reuse such images) with the statement "you are making up difficulties, where no one cares", then calling them a "faux naif" and a "proto-deletionist"
• "i leave the animus to the commons admins"
• "trying to reason with you is pointless"

At the same time, Slowking criticizes Commons as being "toxic" and claims that it is a battleground. This is, at best, misleading behavior from someone who resorts to insults when talking to people who disagree with him. Here, whether he actually said "you are an asshole" or not, he accused Mhhossein of 'wanting to be an asshole', and he continued the behavior after being asked to stop twice. Such behavior is completely unacceptable, and quite worthy of a block if or when it continues. - Revent^talk 00:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hey that is great - here is the warning to use - just to be official Template:Be civil final. it has never been used, that i can tell. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I don't want to comment on other incidents where Slowking4 commented; but for this particular incident I feel his analysis on Mhhossein is fair. Mhhossein demands AGF from all but he has zero AGF on Mardetanha or the other fellow Wikimedians from the Iranian User Group. I/We tried our best to stay cool; but his repeated, redundant and inconsistent arguments are intolerable. There are 14 Wikimedians granted the permission and license but he still making the argument "Are you endorsing the uploaded photos with unknown authors?" Here no unknown authors or unknown works; the only limitation is authorship of individual works is not disclosed. A professional photographer working with a team can easily understand this is a common thing. I/We had spent too much time to educate Mhhossein; but he is either incapable or unwilling to learn. Anyway he must drop the stick and move on. Jee 01:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Using the word 'asshole' when discussing someone is clearly not the way to accomplish that. Regardless of if Mhhossein was right or wrong, there is a vast difference between discussing someone's behavior and simply being grossly and repeatedly offensive. The claim that 'asshole' is some technical term, or that the consensus norm on Commons is to use profanity when referring to other editors, is complete and total nonsense. - Revent^talk 09:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jee, we should be stopping any misbehaviour of this nature and really making a massive push to try and improve the behaviour of all contributors to Commons. Your assessment of Mhhossein is accurate but it should not be an excuse to avoid warning Slowking that his behaviour in not going to be tolerated. I will, for the avoidance of doubt clarify, that if his behaviour does not show a marked improvement over the next days and weeks, repeats of this behaviour will result in him being blocked until he provides a cast-iron guarantee that his behaviour will improve.

I would also add, this is a multi-national, multi-lingual project, the attempt to use the subtlety of the English language as an excuse is not appropriate, many users with a basic grasp of English as a second or further language simply cannot grasp the very fine line that stops something being an outright personal attack. If something you say or do on Commons offends people, in the spirit of collaboration and ideally friendship, consider modifying whatever it is you said or did. Nick (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Your assessment of Mhhossein is accurate." Thanks Nick; this is only I meant. I'm not a fan of vulgar slang; noway encouraging their use. But Mhhossein tirelessly making inconsistent arguments that testing our patience. I had asked him to stop making such indirect accusations but he continuous. "Are you endorsing the uploaded photos with unknown authors?" is the last one. I didn't get provoked by that; but Slowking4. Jee 12:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I like to +1 Revent and Nick. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

i look forward to your warnings. since you will not institute a code of conduct, we will start here. i will use Template:Be civil. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The brief template relies almost entirely for meaning on the English Wikipedia, I have never personally seen it in use. I suggest using Commons:Staying mellow which is a well established essay and emphasises why Commons is different to other projects, in conjunction with Commons:Blocking policy which is clear about enforcing a non-hostile environment. --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks. the disuse says it all. let's modify the template to link to the essay.

just so everyone is on notice, if this is where you want to draw the civility line, that is great, and we will enforce this standard fairly going forward. commons expects every admin will do their duty to enforce it. and when the free speech argument gets made, i will link to this discussion. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Don't play the system, stop being hostile to other users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

i am not gaming anything. i am not hostile. i note that civility enforcement is virtually non-existent. there is no code of conduct. there are no standards. it is important to realize that decisions you make have consequences. the civility standard you set in this case, will be the standard going forward. i expect you to be consistent in that standard in the future. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This, this and this? I have to say it again, you are obviously playing the system. Your ambiguous comments are confirming that. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

no - playing the system is where you block an editor to delete a file, or sock to delete a file, or admin lock a user talk page. a list of articles on another project is merely lazy filing, should have taken it off line, thanks for the prod. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Jkadavoor: I don't know why you are trying to ignore those quotes which were done by others, NOT me. Which quotes? These ones: the inconsistency in Mardetanha's comments, the story which changed with every edit, "wilfully incorrect information" (@Nick: Check the quotes please, do you still think Jess's comments regarding me were accurate?)--Mhhossein ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your quotes are very old even before this discussion. I don't see any relevance for them now. Jee 08:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That dose not change the point! Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Dr. Rajwinder Singh

Mass uploading of duplicates. See Special:ListDuplicatedFiles /St1995 11:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Nelson 888

User:Nelson 888 is also uploading duplicates.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nelson 888, user warned. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate username

I have indef-blocked the new account Göran the nazi (talk · contribs) due to inappropriate username. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism only account from Swedish Wikipedia. Good riddance. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Pocketthis

This user is reverting edits that i did because overcategorisation. See example. As i can see this user was already blocked twice because he disregarded COM:OVERCAT. --Smooth O (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• This user was blocked "once", and proud of it considering the circumstances, and who did the blocking. Also, it is a Diadasia Bee, no need for changing the category to "unidentified". That's just nonsense. Let's get back to work now please, and stop the needless, endless, category deletions and additions. I've been here long enough to know where my photos belong. P.S. @Smooth O: When you have an issue with me, you can contact me, and we will work it out. You don't have to run here first. This is the last move you make, when others fail.→Pocketthis (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we can ignore this, i explained to you on your talk page. --Smooth O (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• And I explained to you there, exactly where my photo belongs, and it certainly wasn't "unidentified". Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Truffle-vanilla (talk · contribs)

Truffle-vanilla has uploaded a large number of plant pictures from an Azerbaijani government source, and a deletion request was started at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Truffle-vanilla. The problem is that even after the deletion request started, Truffle continues to upload photos.

• I sent him a message in English asking him to pause but he did not acknowledge it and continued with 3 new uploads.
• I asked Interfase (talk · contribs), who speaks Azeri, to post a message in Truffle's language and he did at 19:29 18 may 2017.
• However, Truffle has uploaded 4 new files since then.

Many of the uploads are marked as cross-wiki, meaning his Commons talk page is probably less visible but alas, notifications should still be acknowledged on AZ.wiki. Ultimately I would like him to contribute to the deletion discussion, even if he does not write in English, and he could provide an explanation for some of the questions I have there about the sources, whether or not it is a government text and not copyrighted, etc.

Could an admin take a look and decide what would be the best way to act? I don't get the impression he is willfully spiting us by continuing, but still. We shouldn't keep having them uploaded while there is a debate on.

Cheers, seb26 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to Wikicology for having another crack at notifying the user (here), I was thinking of doing this but expected that template not to have an /az version but alas it does. Will stand by and hope he starts to acknowledge us. seb26 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can somebody please consider blocking this user? Earlier today (~07:00 UTC) they have uploaded 5 new images from this source. The deletion request was closed yesterday 21 May and concluded that there was too much doubt over the copyright status of the source, and it purged all 236 images. Unfortunately, Truffle-vanilla has not taken notice of warnings even those 2 written in Azeri. seb26 (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for a week. I will keep them on watch & go for a longer block if this short block has no effect. Daphne Lantier 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Daphne Lantier, thanks for this, would you be able to delete the five files in Special:Contributions/Truffle-vanilla? In case you are online it would save me tagging them as speedy delete. (If not, in a while I will tag them as such). seb26 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I've nuked them. Daphne Lantier 00:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Antoni Nomen

Just for records: the user created few unfounded DRs, likely as a revenege action. The user was block-warned and the DRs speedy kept. Ankry (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The warning was ignored. The user is re-opening closed discussions using the exact same nonsensical sentence fragment. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ankry: This contains a copyright notice, and is of 2013. Why is it under a free license? Yann (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this account for 3 days. It may be a sock of Comtessadeldia (talk · contribs). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lucas

This user keeps reverting my user talk page. Each time i clear it down he/she reverts it back again. I am not concerned with any of the issues that were on my page, so if others are, they are free to paste them onto their user pages (which i have already done in one example). --Rcclh (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

First, a ping to Ruthven who knows the situation. Second, that page isn't yours: it's released with a Creative Commons license, like every other page here. Furthermore, your blanking action was already reverted by the user Danyele, and you keep reverting with no discussion. The guidelines on every Wikimedia projects generally state that talk pages can be archived (and in some case deleted) provided they do not contain alerts and important elements for administrators. This is the case. Especially considering what you keep wrongly stating about licenses. Please restore your talk page or properly archive it, and stop your edit war. Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rcclh: Simply deleting your talk page (or just the contents that you don't like) is absolutely not recommended: the best procedure is to archive past communications in a talk page. See Commons:Talk page guidelines. --Ruthven (msg) 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Well this page is obviously a complete waste of time as you all know each other! All i'm trying to do is make constructive edits, just because i'm not in an exclusive club that has invented thousands of rules that I can't possibly know about i'm not going to be bullied. --Rcclh (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read COM:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL, thanks. There are rules and guidelines, we all have to follow them, including you. Easy as that. --Lucas (msg) 16:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rcclh: Well, now you know them :) Just stay mellow and follow the guidelines --Ruthven (msg) 10:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment While it can be considered mildly rude to simply remove messages on one's User Talk page, and archiving is "preferred", I think both Lucas and Jeff G. way overstepped the line by restoring multiple times. While Rcclh does not own his talk page, it is there for Rcclh's benefit, and if blanking it might be considered uncivil per Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages (though only if there were messages that needed a response, which there weren't really), I think restoring it multiple times over Rcclh's clear wishes is clearly bordering on the uncivil as well. Storkk (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• +1. I wonder why Lucas and Jeff G. restored the deleted messages including the {{Welcome}}. Does this the way to welcome a user to Commons? We've a precedent that if a user removed a message from their talk, it only means that they saw it. So it is a proof of acknowledgement. Jee 03:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor and Storkk: I restored once. I was conforming the user's userpage with the instructions above by a sitting Administrator, and I referred to this section containing those instructions in my edit summary. We have the following text in our COM:TALK guideline for a reason:

• Archive rather than delete [the text is in bold in the guideline]
• Others [users] delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred)
• Actively erasing personal messages without replying [...] will probably be interpreted as hostile.

Also, Template:Dont remove warnings has been kept twice. What policies and/or guidelines support your position?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• COM:Talk is only a guideline and people are free to archive or delete old messages. 1. Both of you restored the welcome message and old obsolete messages which are related to closed deletion requests. 2. Note the wordings in the guideline: "personal messages", "will probably" and "In the past". What he removed are mostly not any personal discussions; just deletion warnings. 3. See this too. Jee 04:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Nobody is arguing what best practice is. It is definitely to archive. However, warning templates are not personal messages and removing them is not against any rule. There was a personalized message too, but even removing that is not technically against the rules, just mildly frowned upon. Try to put yourself in a new user's position: you've tried to upload some stuff you thought in good faith might be PD, and then getting (as you might see it) ganged up on by people forcing templated warnings on your user talk page (whether you own it or not, you are repeatedly told you have new messages each time it gets reverted, and they're always the same old messages that you've already seen), rubbing your nose in a mistake you don't even really understand. Then to be told in edit summaries two falsehoods that just make it crystal clear that all they're trying to do is rub your nose in it, namely Lucas: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user, they are part of the wider community's processes" ([6]) and Jeff G. "Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving." ([7]) - both are simply factually incorrect, and making up rules that don't exist just to enforce them is unpleasantly officious. Templated warnings can be removed from ones' own talk page, and no internal process needs them. Removing a warning template doesn't magically expunge it from the record, by removing it you are simply deemed to have read and understood it. Storkk (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Storkk here. Note in particular that Template:Dont remove warnings is not only effectively unused (18 times) but states "Archiving is not demanded by policy and removing warnings is not explicitly discouraged". Users are completely free to archive or delete sections from their user talk page as they wish. I can see only a few reasons to enforce text on a user or user-talk page: for example if the page has been edited to be a misleading representation of a conversation, or contains content that is against policy, has been added by a currently banned/blocked user evading their ban/block, or is grossly uncivil. I have seen this kind of thinking before, from an admin, and it is just wrong. It is very important to know the difference between best practice and required behaviour, to recognise exceptions, and make allowances for newbies. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for accuracy: The template is used +650times. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

These language variants confused me. Anyway, looking at many of them, I suspect the admin dropping that template is wasting their time. It does say "please" and that should be a big hint to any admin. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I thought that the discussion was closed so I didn't reply here but in the talk page of Storkk (who closed it). :-) I'd like to deepen a bit the whole situation. The user was upoloading tons of images covered by copyright, or, rather, outside "PD-Italy" based on the Commons' interpretation of the Italian law. This is dangerous when any other user asks, at the same time, for the deletion in it.wiki of the same image, in which there is a broader interpretation of "PD-Italy". The whole project will lost precious images, because they will be deleted here on Commons (because of the aforementioned interpretation of PD-Italy), and in it.wiki as well, because of the "nowcommons" rule (= when an image is in Commons it can be speedy deleted in it.wiki). Those warning messages were very important to follow that dangerous editing. User:Danyele asked the user to archive their user page instead of deleting it but they didn't. After a while, I did the same, but the user reverted the action direcly deleting my messages without even replying. I explained the problem to the user. Furthermore: I stopped the reverting after the 3rd rollback by Rcclh and asked the opinion of a Commons' sysop, Ruthven, in his talk page (on en.wiki, by mistake), before doing anything else and even if Rcclh blanked the discussion page another time. As I said, the blanking had been reverted by User:Danyele beforehand and, actually, the blanking has been now reverted again by Jeff G. I'd like to stress that I'm definitely a promoter of Wikilove and kindness (I know it doesn't count anything, but because of this I just recently recived from the it.wiki community a barnstar as the "most patient and courteous sysop" :-)) ). Four users (Danyele, myself, Ruthven and Jeff G.) have considered Rcclh's action as hostile and wrong because the messages in that talk page contained important warnings for sysops and patrollers. Dozen of admins, as the template "don't remove warnings" clearly shows, have the same general feeling. Jeff G. already copied above what I wrote in Strokk's talk pages, this is to say:

• Archive rather than delete [the text is in bold in the guidelines]
• Others [users] delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred)
• Actively erasing personal messages without replying [...] will probably be interpreted as hostile.

In reaction to the aforementioned and reiterate actions, I explained the problem to the user, stopped my edit after the 3rd RB, and asked the opinion of a third sysop, without rollbacking anymore. Nevertheless, uploading images in copyvio status, deleting messages, rollbacking edits, avoiding to reply to polite messages and so further, doesn't seems to me as an appropriate action. I am very sorry if anyone perceived my action as "uncivil", and I respect this feeling, I'll try to be even more civil next time. But please consider the whole situation with a more forward-looking approach, which I think really matters in this case. Is it a good think for Commons to upload copyrighted images, delete important warnings for admin and patrollers, avoinding to reply and deleting messages from other users without replying? Thanks. :-) --Lucas (msg) 13:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is denying there is a problem with this user's uploads, or that they could have engaged in discussing the uploads rather than blanking the warnings, but I count three reverts by you before you start trying to discuss, and in both your edits-summaries and the comments you left, you made factually incorrect and over-stated remarks as noted by Storkk. You didn't really "explain the problem to the user", but bullied them with false claims about talk pages. Similarly Danyele made revert edits without discussing and with factually incorrect edit summaries like "what are you doing? You cannot blanked your user talk!". There is a reason BRD (the en:wp practice) only has one R and a big D. I suggest you stick to one R and a bit more D, and where the aims to help a user rather than simply attack them with false demands. -- Colin (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas, Ruthven, Storkk, JKadavoor, Colin, Yann, and Revent: Given the problem with Rcclh's dangerous uploads, I initiated Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files transferred by User:Rcclh from Italian Wikipedia to get them discussed and hopefully Deleted, but it has received little discussion. I don't want these pictured Italian footballers or their photographers coming after us for infringement of privacy in Italy or copyright in the U. S. All are invited to discuss that matter at that DR.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops, pinging @Jkadavoor: instead.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Colin. "Bullied"? I don't see where I used "superior strength or influence to intimidate someone, typically to force them to do something" (Oxford Dictionary), firstly because I do not have any kind of "superior strenght or influence", secondly because I didn't intimidate anyone ("please", "thanks" aren't intimidating words). Maybe my English is not the better, and it could be read as a bit rough or too short, but I do really care about wikilove as much as I care about every users' contributions (the ones that Rcclh was causing to delete as well).

The statements weren't factually incorrect, it can be said that they were incomplete or partly imprecise, I admit it with no problem, but they were based on consolidated practice (as explained above, from here on to the quoted guidelines). Were them a bit rough, too short? I respect and undersand this opinion and I'll try to do better, as I've already said, expecially because English is not my mother language, but the first aim was to stop harmful action and let other patrollers/sysops to understand at the first sight what was happening. I also kindly explained the problem (=those messages are important and should not be deleted) to the user.

Sorry, you counted wrongly, the message was sent after the second RB, even excluding the fast, and avoidable, communication thorugh the edit summary started by the user. If you check twice, the user blanked the page one last time with no reaction from my side: I stopped myself and asked for a third opinion before this request for comments as well.

That said, I fully agree with your personal interpretation of BRD, seriously. :-)

Broadly speaking, I honeslty find a bit bitter that we are discussing a behavior like this and not the one that was actually harming the contributions of many users, but I understand your point. Thanks for your opinion. :-) --Lucas (msg) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting someone's user page three times before discussion is bullying. Telling someone repeatedly "you don't own your page" while displaying behaviour that makes one think that you, Lucas, do own the page instead, is bullying. -- Colin (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I discussed with the user after the second rollback (and also during the first and second, using the edit summary), please do not report false facts, thanks.

Please do not decribe a very personal opinion of yours as a fact, and please do not report false quotes to support it.

1. First message from me (edit summary): "As per WP:BLANKING; a number of important matters may not be removed by the user, they are part of the wider community's processes".
2. Second message (edit summary): "sorry, you don't own this page: those messages are necessary and should stay visible" promply adding a second larger message in the talk page to explain and discuss the problem. This message was simply deleted by the user with no kind of reply.

I've never said "you don't own your page" to anyone, and most of all I've never said it "repeatedly". Telling to someone "this user page is not private and no one own it (it is released with a Creative Commons license). The aforementioned message are important and should stay visible. Thanks", as I did, cannot imply that I or anyone else own it. It just describing a common practice and conveying a correct message, that everyone can always discuss or disagree with, but not delete. So please don't convert your personal opinion in a fact, especially to justify a personal attack (= repeatedly describing as "bulling" a behaviour, even if I am trying to explain it and I said I'll try to do better).

May I be honest? With your behaviour I am starting to feel myself unconfortable and unwelcome, is this appropriate from someone who's trying to explain how to be more polite with other users? Think about it. Thanks. :-) --Lucas (msg) 16:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucas, I miscounted the sequence. You reverted twice (not three times) before leaving a talk-page message, and then after your messages were blanked you reverted a third time which brought Rcclh to this noticeboard. Three reverts is two too many -- that is a widely held view, I suggest you take on board. Leaving hostile notes in an edit summary is not "discussion". Discussion requires an attempt to engage in a two way conversation. Users cannot directly respond to edit summaries and negative comments made within them can thus be perceived as uncivil. Further, when you did leave a message on the talk page, it wasn't "an attempt to engage in a two way conversation" but a lecture. BRD requires both users to treat each other as equals and to civilly come to some mutual understanding that resolves the dispute. I just see two users shouting at each other and reverting. As others have noticed, several of your messages (whether in edit summary or talk page) are incorrect and based on your own over-rigid interpretation of policy. Lucas, the correct thing to do at this point, where basically everyone is telling you that your views on talk pages are wrong, and your handling of the situation by three reverts was wrong, is to go away and think about improving your future behaviour, not to keep arguing over whether it was two reverts or three. I don't want you feel unwelcome, but yes, you should feel uncomfortable. If you don't then the message isn't really getting through. -- Colin (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I truly respect your opinion, trust me. If you undress the teacher's uniform for a second, you will see how many times I said that I happily accept suggestions from everyone and that I will be more polite in the future. But your message above is a pure example of a "lecture" or "life lesson" which you are condemning ("you should", "the correct thing to do", "improving your behaviour"...). If you take a guideline from en.wiki and import it here (like you do with BRD), so we can import blanking guideline as well, and it states that users pages should not be blanked in these cases. So: please be pragmatic, forward-looking, and stay in topic instead of giving lectures that you don't like the first. There are common practices and different views about blanking pages, especially in these kind of cases: a user who violated licences and copyright many times and just deleted warning messages without taking them into account.

This has been a particular case. Things are not always "black or white" ("wrong or right") like you are trying to suggest. Sometimes they are grey, like in this case. The user was not replying to important messages and was harming Commons and Wikipedia by importing (and pontentially/consequentially deleting) many images, cross-wiki. He/she was also blanking his talk page preventing users from understanding the problem and deleting messages instead of replying to them (some of them were very kind: saying "sorry", "thanks", is not "shouting"). As many others have noticed, this behaviour was controversial and in fact reverted/criticized by many. This has to be taken into account, like the opinions of the users who don't agree with you.

Lastly, if you are really trying to make a comunicative user feel uncomfortable in a Wikimedian project, well, then I think you are incredibly wrong. I say it with a smile, but sadly. :-) I haven't ever wanted to make a Wikimedian feel unconfortable like you hope to, and I was wrong if I did it with Rcclh or anyone else. I just wanted to communicate important things to a user who was harming Commons/Wikipedia, and to protect the projects. I could always have done it in the wrong way, like you are doing now with me, but I explained why I did it and why I think it wasn't wrong. But if it was, I will try to do better and I am sorry for this. You are probably not. --Lucas (msg) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've put a lot of words in my mouth here, and make a lot of wrong statements about what I'm trying to suggest. Really, at this point it seems you are just interested in arguing for its own sake. It still doesn't seem to me that you appreciate what other people are criticising about your words/actions. When this person blanked their user page they were not "harming Commons". Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(After (Edit conflict) I think Colin well explained what the problem here. In short, a user page and it's talk is usually handled by the user how they feels fit. No need to police it unless there is a serious issue. Back to topic, I made a comment here. Please stick on it and help the user if any further help is in need. (Lucas, we're not blaming you; but we've better ways to handle it.) Jee 16:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jee, thanks for your kind messsage. Yep, there is always a better way to handle a problem. :-) I tried to do my best. As we say in Italy, if you don't do anything, you'll never make mistakes. :-) --Lucas (msg) 16:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

MehrdadFR

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

This user should be blocked for edit war and repeated offensive behavior (see here - "says who? A pedophile activist who presented child molesters as "gays""). This account already has a history of this type of behavior (see here and here). Chronus (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Yann. Daphne Lantier 22:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Block request User:Huge genital

• Huge genital (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has already been indef'd on English Wikipedia as a vandalism only account, and their user name indef'd from creation as offensive. Request the same on Commons, since the only Commons upload this user ever did was a (now deleted) hoax. Maile66 (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:TCC00313

TCC00313 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user had copyvios issues first. Now I think he continues the same. This time it is uploading images of a women who is a Japanese and claims that the work is its own. I have tagged a image as no permission for which I said to give the declaration through OTRS but the user doesn't wants to follow the procedure as per COM:OTRS, For which I have tagged it's upload for deletion. The user is uploading more images as the same and I think administrator must check the images inorder to prevent vandalism. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS says this is the case "I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." so OTRS can do nothing.

poor work and poor reason.--TCC00313 (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

See [Ticket#2017061010009993]--TCC00313 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In the [Ticket#2017061010009993], permissions-ja@wikimedia.org replied me '（"I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." に相当することになります）'--TCC00313 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I upload more image because these are series of photos in same time,same place. so these are the evidence i own these pictures.--TCC00313 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This one might be previously published as it is linked here. Or it's replaced afterwards, don't know the mechanisms on twitter. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you read [Ticket#2017061010009993]? it tells "この写真を他の場所で公開したことがおありですか？ そうでない場合、当窓口としてはお手伝いできることはありません。","今回は、削除依頼でコミュニティを説得していただくしかないのではないかと思います。トリミング前の画像や連続して前後に撮影された写真をアップロードして提示すると説得に役立つかもしれません。". And it hasn't been previously published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCC00313 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)--TCC00313 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

if i want you to give me declaration, i say "give me declaration". but you say "no permission". No way! i can't understand your english. Speak easy english.--TCC00313 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Yasu. ★Poyekhali 00:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As for File:Tomosaki madoka.jpg, the one TCC00313 uploaded at the Commons on 16 December 2016, the identical image was uploaded without a free license at Twitter on 27 July 2016. I have just tagged it as a copyright violation. 153.164.180.78 16:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yamla2

• Yamla2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user is set up to impersonate me. See for example, this edit. I am an admin over on en.wiki, though have no special powers here on commons. I request the user be blocked and, if appropriate, any alternate accounts blocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a classical case of impersonation. Pinging Daphne Lantier and Yann. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. An RFCU would be needed to check for alternates, or perhaps an SPI at WP. Daphne Lantier 20:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Віктор Іванович

Віктор Іванович (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Personal attack. See: Revision #247374367 and Revision #247413156.--Mykola Vasylechko 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't read Ukrainian but Google Translator does not come up with any expletives or attacks. So where is the attack at Jcb? De728631 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This report was posted by Микола Василечко, a native speaker of Ukrainian. Perhaps @Ahonc: or @NickK: could help us with this? Daphne Lantier 06:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"манією величі" (in Revision #247374367) apparently means "megalomaniac", but the text is so mangled by Google that there is no context. - Revent^talk 06:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"недобросовісному патрульному" — "unfair patrol", "манією величі" — "Grandiose delusions". Accusation after Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Віктор Іванович, that violated rules and copyright, though the user warned about problems. --Mykola Vasylechko 08:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Sorry, I am on holiday and cannot work on it. User claims that he is the Мигович Віктор Іванович who is the author of deleted files and rather impolitely claims that Микола Василечко is wrong and is a source of the problem — NickK (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I left a {{Be civil}} note at Віктор Іванович's talk page. The template has a Ukrainian version so he should be able to read it. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Appears that I can read Ukrainian and I confirm, that the situation was resolved correctly. "Be civil" template is enough for now. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Image information ( Add Category of image )

recently i had uploaded my 1st image, Some how i had mentioned the category as ( flowers of westen Ghats of india ), But the category is not visible and also , I can edit and put the category now. Can I get some help on the Topic. Specially i have to Add like more 15-20 images on same category .. so i want to add that category if its not existing and List my work under that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattastar (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Here we are: Category:Fimbristylis lawiana. I've put your image into that new created category. There is no Category:Western Ghats of India. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

how to deal with antisemitic posting?

If Google translates the current content of File talk:Smog Moscow August 2010.jpg correctly, this posting by IP 109.252.61.70 seems to be a classical antisemitic attack. I wonder whether we should simply delete it or also report it to WMF-legal? --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You blocked the IP indefinitely. In my opinion IPs should generally not be blocked indefinitely. I'd block it for a year. This was IP's only contribution. I deleted the talkpage, but you can report it to WMF-legal anyway, because this was really nasty attack. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

kann nicht schaden zu informieren, unsere anwaelte sollten selber entscheiden was sie verfolgen wollen. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WMF-legal notified and IP-block reduced to 1 year. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexually Explicit language

Not sure that what the Commons policy is on civility, but we have a user who has past form on English Wikipedia writing politically charged rants and making reference to sexual acts to get his point across. He's done the same on File talk:UK House of Commons Elxn 17 Results.svg. Is this kind of language permissible? Doesn't seem especially civil to me. Cnbrb (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Any language intended to create a hostile environment for others is covered under Blocking policy under harassment. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - good to know. So should I remove his comments from File talk:UK House of Commons Elxn 17 Results.svg? Can someone warn him? Cnbrb (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave it to an administrator, it should be less confrontational. As this is an IP address with just 6 edits, it's not worth worrying too much about the account.

The admin action requested is to delete the offensive and mainly off-topic talk page at File talk:UK House of Commons Elxn 17 Results.svg and consider warning the IP account. --Fæ (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OK that's fine by me, I'll leave that to Admins. I should mention that, while this IP address has just 6 edits on Commons, it's been more active on EN:WP with evidence of a history of controversial and hostile editing - one to watch. Cnbrb (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the page and warned the IP user. Daphne Lantier 20:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Califpaint

The user Califpaint (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of works of art, summarily marking them as "own work" and under CC-BY-SA license. I have checked all the uploaded files; a majority of the paintings are in public domain (the painter died more than 70 years ago), but about one third are not or there is another problem.

Perhaps the user is acting on behalf of some art gallery/collection? (He has marked several images on Wikipedia as "Courtesy of Steven Stern Collection".) Even then, unless the artists have in fact transferred their copyright to the gallery, it is not possible for the user to publish the images under the CC-BY-SA license solely because the gallery owns the painting itself.

The description pages for almost all images should be edited to correct the author/date of publication information.

• Painting is in public domain, should crop the frame

File:Payne1a.jpg

File:Wufer.jpg

File:Paynealtadena.jpg

• Paintings by Joseph Henry Sharp - died 1953

File:Josephhenrysharp.jpg

File:Sharp1TAOS.jpg

File:Jhsharp.jpg

• Roger Edward Kuntz - died 1975

File:Kuntz Painting Processed.jpg

• Hanson Puthuff - died 1972

File:Puthuff1LIGHT.jpg

• Alson Clark - died 1949

File:ClarkALSON.jpg

• Paul Wonner - died 2008

File:PAULWONNER.jpg

• Henrietta Berk - died 1990

File:BERKPICNIC.jpg

File:BERKVACAVILLE.jpg

• Unknown photographer (for newspaper?), photo taken ca 1960

File:Henriettaberk.jpg

Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft: The last one was deleted by Taivo. I cropped the group that needed cropping. The uploader appears to have a special interest in Californians who paint.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted the copyvios, added them to the appropriate to be restored in 20XX categories, except Henriettaberk.jpg . --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sankalp advertiser

Sankalp advertiser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is spamming here, has a username issue, and uploaded in violation of COM:ADVERT.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Daphne Lantier 18:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yann and Daphne Lantier: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 18:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Vespertunes

Today I stumbled over image-uploads by the account Vespertunes (talk · contribs), which were claimed as own work, but could be sourced to Flickr, where I found them to be "All rights reserved" or, few, under a CC-NC license. As this account was created already in 2014 and as the userpage gives an impression of an earnest user, I was a bit astonished about my findings. Therefore, I checked most of his other uploads and the results left me even more bewildered.
While his earlier uploads (starting end of 2016) seem to be mostly own work, shot with a Samsung SM-G360H (per the EXIF data), from May 2017 on many — if not most — of his uploads could be sourced to different Flickr-photographers, such as The foreign photographer, Dietmar Temps, Astrid van Veen, Steve @ the alligator farm, shai levi and Henny Brouwers, who had put their works under "ARR" or CC-BY-NC license. Nevertheless, in many, but not in all cases, Vespertunes had claimed these uploads to be own work. When considering the amount of uploads affected (see User_talk:Vespertunes), I wonder whether this is real (or I got something wrong) and how to proceed with this user (currently blocked for 3 days). --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see Vespertunes as a user who is rather naive about copyright. They probably do not understand that "Own work" on Wikimedia Common means works they explicitly created themselves. i.e self-made wok. They also probably do not understand that CC-NC and CC-ND are forbidden on Commons. It seems this user still do not understand the problem, so the block is fine to prevent further uploads. Wikicology (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In between, I've communicated with Vespertunes directly (User_talk:Vespertunes#your_recent_uploads). He seems to have gotten the message. So, for now no further admin-action is required IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to unblock. Although, it might be a good idea to keep eyes on the user for some time. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally think they should be reblocked and obvious files from "copyrighted" sources should be deleted. They've removed the permission tag from their uploads (e.g. [8], [9]) after I warned them not to. They either have no understanding of copyright or just being ignorant, which isn't a good look for Commons. Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a couple weeks and deleted some obvious copyvios. Considering the number of cameras used, there may be more copyvios that would be turned up by having a detailed look through his uploads. I'm going to bed soon, so I wouldn't have time to do anything for another 12+ hours or so. Daphne Lantier 05:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Grabado

User:Grabado made extensive disruptive idiosyncratic changes, against standing consensus, to the category hierarchy involving Roman Catholic churches, and steadfastly refuses to do anything to revert them. (They are so extensive and convoluted that other editors are at a disadvantage in trying to revert them.) Discussion of this situation can be found here. I feel strongly rhat if Grabado continues to refuse to clean up his mess, a sanction -- probably an indef block -- is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the underlying arguments, this edit among others shows a troubling lack of collegiality and civility. I for one don't really have an opinion on the underlying question, but thought this was discussed and decided relatively convincingly before. Storkk (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The 1st of May I wrote a comment reporting a problem here and here.

2. After four days without any response, I start making a few changes to solve the problem I had previously pointed out. [10]

3. User Jmabel asked me about this [11]. After I answered him he told me to hold on until further discussion in the VP, so I did. [12]

4. He started this discussion in the VP. From my point of view, he missed my point when explaining the problem and I tried to explain better myself.

5. We discuss about the whole thing. At least we more or less agreed that there was a problem to solve.

6. I was asked to make a proposal to solve the problem.

7. I did, but some users opposed to it and made some requirements that a proposal should have to solve the problem.

8. The 15th of May I made a new proposal, based on the requirements previously made by other users.

9. Two weeks after, no one has opposed to it, so I explained all the steps I was going to make.

9. The 6th of June, no one has opposed to it, so I start making the changed I had previously explained.

10. I've been changing things for a week, but only when I started with the United States User:Beyond My Ken leaved a message in my User talk saying "You need to stop, period".

12. I ask Beyond My Ken to read the previous discussion [13].

13. He replied to me "undo your errant categorization or I shall do it for you" [14]

14. My response: "If you consider my edits are wrong, please explain it first in the Village pump. I'll stop making any changes until further discussion if you want, but please don't undo my edits until you explain why are they wrong" [15]

15. His response: "Sorry, but no. I'm not going to get involved in your insanity" [16]

16. I ask him to wait a minute [17] because I wanted to discuss it on the Village Pump. I started a new discussion [18] and I ask him only a question, because I think he is has not understood what I was actually trying to solve.

17. He diden't answer my question but wrote this [19].

18. I try to show him why one of his arguments I believe it is wrong (because it goes agains what is stated in Wikipedia) [20]

19. He proposed blocked me unless I revert my changes and forbid me to collaborate in any area related to religion (basically, all my work in Commons).

20. I ask him again to answer the only question I've made to him because he keeps to accuse me of things I haven't done.

[21]

21. He told me: "Your pedantic and unnecessary questions will continue to go unanswered, because you simply are not getting the point: change the categories back to what they were."[22]

Until this moment, he has accused me of being insane and pedant, but he hasn't still made any effort to understand me or at least answer my question. Why should I revert my changes? Because he has said me to do it? I don't oppose to undo what I've made, but I want at least to be heard. Actually, I've just reverted one of my edits because User:Jmabel has taken his time to explain to me his point of view, which I've acknowledged it is perfectly valid. [23]

:I'll revert all my changes if:

• An admin or bureaucrat ask me formally to do it before continuing the discussion.
• The community ask me to do it (see [24]). (As far as I know, User:Beyond My Ken doesn't represent the community).

Thank you. --10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment 1. Link to previous discussion 2. Link to current discussion 3. Available references which consider "Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + Eastern Catholic Churches": 1. Britannica 2. en:Catholic Church 3. DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE - ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM 4. The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches 5.wikidata:Q9592. So Beyond My Ken or somebody else arguing differently should provide a trustable reference than simply arguing that we think so. We are encouraging facts; not misunderstandings even if several people have that for a long time. The best thing is to correct it whenever we found it. It is exactly what Grabado is doing now. Jee 09:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any need for admin action against any user at this time. However, Grabado should not make further edits of this nature while there is an active discussion.

To avoid any conflict in future, I think the current VP discussion should be allowed to run until it reaches a clear conclusion (instead of fizzling out and getting archived without closure, like the previous discussion). It could then be formally closed by an uninvolved admin, with a clear closure statement. That will make it much easier to link to the discussion relevant talk pages and quoted in the edit summary of any change, as evidence for the consensus being followed.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nilfanion. Since the first message of User:Beyond My Ken, I stopped doing any changes and I'll keep that way until a clear consensus is reached. --Grabado (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

But, if I understand correctly, Grabado is now referring from that conversation on the VP to this one, saying issues of reversion should be discussed here. [25]: "I've already made clear my position in the Administrators' noticeboard regarding whether I should revert any changes or not. I'm not going to discuss the same thing in two places at the same time. You've already opened a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard and I've said there all I had to say about that." So we are at a bit of a standoff. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the only requested thing is that "Grabado should not make further edits of this nature while there is an active discussion". This is what I'm doing. "To avoid any conflict in future, I think the current VP discussion should be allowed to run until it reaches a clear conclusion (instead of fizzling out and getting archived without closure, like the previous discussion)" I think Nilfanion talks about discussing and reaching a consensus on what finally do regarding the topic of this and the previous discussion: what to do with the Catholic Church; not what to do about me, which was the "proposal" of Beyond My Ken.

I reported an error and I want it to be solved. This is the only thing I want to discuss. I'm not here to waste my time discussing administrative tasks. I've said here all I had to say about that. If an admin formally ask me to revert my changes, I'll do. If the community ask me to do so, I'll do. But I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with a user that previously didn't give me any explanation when I tried to talk with him because he "don't want to get involved in my insanity". [26]. --Grabado (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you saw a situation you did not agree with and you went and changed it, making extensive disruptive edits without a consensus to do so. That's not "reporting an error and wanting it to be solved," you took personal action without a community consensus to do so, and now you refuse to take responsibility for your actions and undo them when the community -- the people here, on the Village Pump, and on your user talk page -- has told you that you acted improperly. Whether your theory that our categorization must reflect the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is accepted or not cannot be determined until the status quo is restored, and you continue to refuse to do that, despite the fact that you and you alone are responsible for altering it without permission to do so. That is why you have been reported as a user problem, and that is why I've suggested that you be indefinitely blocked unless promise to revert your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think this is even normal? Finally you get it. I've started to revert my changes, without even been formally requested to do so. I wish an admin would say you something about your behaviour. --Grabado (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I said right at the beginning of this discussion that I found Beyond My Ken's edits to have crossed the line of civility and collegiality. However since that time, the argument on COM:VP and elsewhere has continued forcefully but not uncivilly or otherwise sanction-worthy. I consider my first reply adequate warning, considering Beyond My Ken started this discussion here, and would strongly consider blocking if Beyond My Ken continued insulting and bullying, but he hasn't and blocks are not punitive measures. Storkk (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was talking about this behaviour. --Grabado (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that breaks any rules. Storkk (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. --Grabado (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Z440Xeon

Another sock of indefblocked sockpuppeter Biopics /St1995 16:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Daphne Lantier 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor: Soupforone

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

No administrative action against Soupforone is necessary here. I am closing this discussion with the understanding that Soupforone will behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors in the future. Wikicology (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Editor Soupforone (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to disruptively edit images that I upload (previous examples include [27]). Most recently they requested the renaming and removal of categories here [28]. They requested the change seemingly because "The file source does not specify which ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to. It just indicates in the original Hausa that it is kasusuwan mutum [29], which translates as "the bones of a man". They have used a translation service to arrive at this yet somehow missed the remainder of the article which states place of exhumation to be Berbera, Somaliland [30] (per Google translate) "The research team of science have used the shovel to evacuate the tomb and buried many people in the town of Barbera in Somaliland.", as for the ethnicity/clan it states they were Isaaq "But these people are ethnic Isaaq."

Particularly troublesome is their removal of the categories and replacement with 'fossils'. I have already requested AlvaroMolina to undo the move [31], is there anything else that could be done to stop Soupforone from disruptive editing of images? Many thanks. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional information: Behaviour not limited to Commons, same story on the English WikiPedia [32]. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Support, pinging @AlvaroMolina: .   — Jeff G. ツ 18:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• I see a pattern of editing I would considered disruptive, but would take a closer look tomorrow. It's 11:00 pm in my country now. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Steinsplitter was already in charge of undo the move file. I am support of establishing some measure with this user since its behavior has been disruptive in several aspects as indicated Kzl55. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 18:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• @AlvaroMolina: , any idea for what sort of measures could be established to stop them from disruptive editing? From the discussion below, they also blanked their talk page shortly after replying to this report [33], to render one of the links used in this report dead. Also pinging @Wikicology: and @Jeff G.: since they have contributed to this discussion. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• @AlvaroMolina, Wikicology, Kzl55, and Steinsplitter: I still support having an Admin do what is usually done to users who are reported on this page: block. Obviously, I can't !vote again in this section.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeff G., I proposed that this user be blocked for a week. See my proposal below. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, the problem with your rationale above is that it does not take into consideration that news outlets often use stock photography for their stories. When a piece requires a particular skull image, they will therefore frequently turn to their stock files. The fact is, the caption on this photo is kasusuwan mutum [34], which apparently translates as "the bones of a man" [35]. Beyond that rather generic description, nothing on the file itself is indicated in the link. That's why an admin and another user also deemed the file naming and captioning inappropriate [36] [37], and why AlvaroMolina renamed it to the neutral Bones of a man so as to reflect the original file's actual caption. Also, please note that per metapicz, the color profile date and time in this file's metadata is 2012:01:25 03:41:57 [38]. Although the file was perhaps modified recently, it thus appears to actually date to a few years ago. Soupforone (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The admin in question responded following your request here [39], presumably based on the fact the file's name was changed per your request. As for the user you mentioned, they have a long history of disruptive edits to the project ( I am sure you are aware, their disruptive behaviour includes canvassing yourself for an AfD request for the main article this image belongs to [40], they were also blocked a number of times [41], most recently earlier this month [42] for their disruptive behaviour. Their support of your edit comes as no surprise, they actually requested the full article to be deleted (you voted twice for the deletion, explicitly supporting the same editor you are citing [43], and previously [44]).

As for the remainder of your reply, you are making too many assumptions, this is not a stock image, the original file has VOA in the bottom right corner [45], the article clearly states both ethnicity/clan and place of exhumation. Your request to completely change both the name and the categories was very disruptive considering you took the time to get the article translated and could clearly see that for instance the image should not have been removed from its original categories and placed under 'fossils'. You also have a history of disruptive edits to my uploads as exampled by [46]. --Kzl55 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, actually my skepticism as to the file's sourcing stems from a similar file that you previously uploaded, which was deleted because it lacked metadata [47]. Somajeeste's whims are also not mine any more than they are yours. Likewise, the admin CambridgeBayWeather clearly described the captioning itself as original research; he indicated nothing about the file name change [48]. Anyway, if the original file caption had instead translated as Bones of x clan man excavated in x area as you claim, then the naming, captioning and categorization would perhaps indeed make sense. However it does not - only the byline alludes to the area of excavation, not the actual file caption. If the skull was supposedly exhumed in 2017, the color profile in this file's metadata would also not indicate a date and time of 2012:01:25 03:41:57 [49]. Soupforone (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You cant claim you were skeptical of the file's source, because a link to source was provided upon upload, here is the upload edit [50] complete with source and both location and ethnic/clan note as per article. I have declared the disruptive editing history of Somajeste (including canvassing yourself in a previous AfD nomination related to the image, in which you voted to delete the article [51] in contrast to a majority of participants) because you attempted to use their edit to legitimise your disruptive edit above. Similarly you used the name change request you've placed and your change of categories to request removal of image [52], and you are now using that to legitimise your edit. You clearly used a translation service on the caption yet ignored the clear mention of both the location and ethnic/clan background. As I said above your disruptive editing of categories was particularly troublesome. And as stated above this is not your first time disrupting files that I upload [53]. Attempting to claim the exhumation happened in 2012 is a bizarre move, the article is clearly dated March 10, 2017. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, most of the above I just addressed. As pertains to skepticism regarding the file's sourcing, although the file appears watermarked on the VOA website, that does not necessarily mean that it is a property of VOA. VOA indicates in its terms of service that-- "voanews.com content may also contain text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in VOA programming only. This material is not in the public domain and may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the copyright owner." [54] For example, here is an image on the website that appears with both the VOA and Associated Press watermarks [55] [56]. That is why the color profile date/time in the metadata is important. Also, I did not claim that the exhumation itself happened in 2012. I indicated that although an excavation of skeletons apparently took place in 2017, the color profile in the actual file's metadata indicates an earlier date and time of 2012:01:25 03:41:57 [57]. Soupforone (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to obfuscate the subject, the copyright issue is very clear; VOA credit is more than enough indication of source. You have insinuated above that the file could be from a different source (you referred to stock imagery usage), this is clearly not the case here as indicated by watermark. VOA indicates such usage with similar watermarks, examples are many but here are a few [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Your reference to the colour profile is not relevant, you have performed an edit based on your claim that the "file source does not specify the ethnicity/clan or place of exhumation of the cranium" [64], this has been proven to be invalid. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Soupforone, may I respectfully ask why you blanked your talk page shortly after this report was filled by the OP? BTW....this edit is disruptive. Stop creating an hostile environment for other users and with the speed of Hussein Bolt, learn to work collegially with other users. Wikicology (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology, I wanted my actual contributions on Commons (which number in the thousands) to stand for themselves rather than be eclipsed by one awkward discussion (the only discussion of the sort I have been in during my almost decade on Commons). Anyway, I'm not sure what the Bolt quip means, but I haven't been uncivil above. I can appreciate and respect politeness. Soupforone (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, your blanking of the page was not helpful to this discussion, it rendered the link provided for the discussion in question dead [65]. You blanked the page shortly after replying to this report ([66], [67]) so it was done on purpose, do you not consider this disruptive? --Kzl55 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I blanked my userpage for the reasons explained above, not to mess up your link. If anything, I perhaps should've archived it. Both are allowed on one's own userpage per COM:TALK, but the latter is preferred. Soupforone (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55, sometimes VOA will use different watermarks for the same image, making it unclear what is the file's actual origin. I demonstrated an example of this above, with VOA and AP watermarks. That files on VOA and other government websites (including those watermarked VOA) are not necessarily public domain is a known fact, and has been discussed on the Commons village pump [68]. This is where things like metadata profiles help clarify a file's origin. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the intro text was meant to serve as an extra caption for this file, and that the photo was taken as part of the 2017 excavation. Soupforone (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We are going in circles. I have provided you with many examples of watermark usage on VOA, we can only go by what they indicate to be VOA material. Your colour profile comment was not relevant, unless you were arguing the image was taken in 2012, which you were not. There is no need for you giving the benefit of the doubt on this matter, the ethnicity/clan as well as the location are clearly stated in the article, and the photograph was taken as part of the 2017 excavation, please do not attempt make it seem as if there is a dispute, unless you want to dispute these facts, in which case do say so. --Kzl55 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment 1. ICC profile date has no relation to when a photo is taken; it is the date when that reusable profile is created. I agree that news agencies sometimes use pictures from their libraries. But in such cases, they explicitly mention "representative image"; here not. 2. Tagging a file with "no source" by a user actively participated in a deletion request, who had tagged the file as copyvio earlier, is more disruptive. I see nowhere in his talk page, he acknowledge his mistake. So he can either 1. accept these mistake and move on, or 2. get sanctioned. Jee 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jkadavoor, a small correction-- I actually mentioned beforehand in that unrelated deletion discussion that the no-source template would still apply ("the file would still breach Template:nsd since it would have no indicated author and source" [69]). Only after Jim closed that deletion request did I then tag that other ruler photo as having no indicated source (which it still does not). There was then some objection that this tagging was premature, which I can understand. I have not retagged the file since the page is protected, nor do I intend to do so once it is unprotected. Anyway, thanks for the color profile date/time info. Please see below for the caption coding on the separate bones photo. Soupforone (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

AlvaroMolina, Jeff G. and Jkadavoor, guys let's keep things in perspective. This file was uploaded as Exhumed skeletal remains of victims of the Isaaq genocide.jpg on the grounds that the caption on the original file source image indicates this. However, it does not. The caption in Hausa instead only reads kasusuwan mutum [70], which translates as "the bones of a man" [71]. We know for a fact that this is the actual caption since the <span class="caption" itemprop="caption"> code in the page source indicates as much. Here is the page source link=> view-source:https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YecfMV9_HxkJ:https://www.voahausa.com/a/an-gano-wani-kabari-cike-da-gawarwaki-a-samaliland/3758379.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=com. The line below the kasusuwan mutum caption that goes "Tawagar Masu bincike ta fannin..." is instead part of the separate <div class="intro content-offset"> intro description code. The proposed rename to the file's actual caption, The bones of a man, was therefore correct. Commons:File naming stipulates that "names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray [and] accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Given this and the page source coding, it appears that the file should therefore be renamed to its indicated caption The bones of a man. Soupforone (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to build a repository of media files. Contributors whose actions or contributions are detrimental to that goal may be blocked from editing. Despite feedback from the community that Soupforone's edits are problematic and disruptive, they continue to argue defensively. This suggest that this user do not understand what the problem is and would continue their disruptive editing. Thus, I propose a week block of their account. This user may be unblocked after they explain what they understand of this problems and how they plan to edit constructively if unblocked. Wikicology (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

1.  Support as proposer. Wikicology (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology, as regards the earlier ruler photo, Jkadavoor/Jee specifically asked me above to "accept these mistake and move on" [72]. I did just that in my reply to him ("There was then some objection that this tagging was premature, which I can understand. I have not retagged the file since the page is protected, nor do I intend to do so once it is unprotected"). As regards the present bones photo, I already indicated above to the o/p that I agreed to "assume that the intro text was meant to serve as an extra caption for this file, and that the photo was taken as part of the 2017 excavation". However, yesterday I was able to access this bones file's actual page source, which stipulates that the photo's caption really is kasusuwan mutum ("the bones of a man" [73]). Please view the caption code in the page source to see this for yourself=> view-source:https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YecfMV9_HxkJ:https://www.voahausa.com/a/an-gano-wani-kabari-cike-da-gawarwaki-a-samaliland/3758379.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=com. Therefore, the real question is whether a photograph caption-based naming (The bones of a man) or an intro text-based naming (Exhumed skeletal remains...) would be most appropriate for this file. Given the page source coding, I think the caption-based naming would be more fitting, but I would nonetheless comply if the intro text-based naming is instead deemed more felicitous. Soupforone (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, you not only made a rename request; but removed the related description and categories which were well inline with what that page says. So I repeat; either acknowledge this mistake and move on or get sanctioned. Jee 15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jee, just to clarify, when I removed those categories, I had only translated the actual photo caption on kasusuwan mutum ("the bones of a man") rather than the article text. That is why I assumed that the bones were unidentified. Nevertheless, you're right; it seems the page text was/is inline with the categories. I acknowledge this was an oversight on my part, so I won't challenge the rename/captioning/categorization. Soupforone (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope now we're on an agreement that some oversight (at least) had happened and you will be more careful in future. OK then; let us move on. Jee 04:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone Shortly after your removal of categories [74] I have alerted you to the article text and provided translations clarifying both the clan/ethnicity and the location [75], yet you made no effort to rectify your disruptive edit. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:LeonardH

This user has a strong Dutch-centred POV. He has now started to promote his POV here, moving perfectly valid categories from their German or French to uncommon Dutch names.

He showed the same disruptive behaviour on the Dutch Wikipedia and I like to prevent the same disruption here. See User talk:LeonardH and [76]. The Banner (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO Inconclusive regarding categories: Some cat moves have been reverted, and per his tp the user seems to be understanding. --Achim (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done: I left a note on the user's tp. As only 4 pages are by now affected that should be enough for now. --Achim (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

José de Martín Simón

User:José de Martín Simón is uploading a lot of artwork dated across several decades. The name is that of a notable artist,. But as we can see at File:Desde la cueva.jpg (Quentin Simby?), that person is not the creator of all of these works. I'm going ahead and tagging these as no permission, but other action might be required. Guanaco (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronhjones. The user is blocked and the offending images have been deleted. Guanaco (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: They had been uploaded (and deleted) before using the account User:Pedro Luis Guerra, with the same or somewhat similar file names. Always possible they might repeat. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Email Response for Photography Contest

Hello. I received the email below from Amqui about information needed for my uploaded pictures. I replied to the email as you can see below, with the missing information. I do not know how to update my photos with this information.

I noticed that it went to a "No Reply" address, so I don't know if Amqui received it or not. I do not know how to contact Amqui any other way.

Please advise. Thanks Ed

From: Ed [mailto:<email>] 
Sent: 25-Jun-17 7:33 PM
To: 'No Reply'
Subject: RE: ‪Amqui left you a message on Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for the information and sorry about that.

I checked the site and I cannot figure out how to update with this information.

All 5 photos were taken at the south end of Rouge National Urban Park
The Wikidata item Q-number is Q26810464

Could you advise how this can be updated?

Thanks
Ed

From: Wikimedia Commons [mailto:wiki@wikimedia.org] 
Sent: 25-Jun-17 12:51 PM
To: Eddar27
Subject: ‪Amqui left you a message on Wikimedia Commons
 	 	 	 
‪Amqui left a message on your talk page in "‪Wiki Loves Earth".	 
		Good day, the picture(s) you uploaded for Wiki Loves Earth are missing a description indicating in which park(s) they have been taken as well as th... 
View message  ‪Amqui  View changes 

To control which emails we send you, check your preferences.
Wikimedia Foundation, 149 New Montgomery St., 6th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddar27 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Eddar27: The e-mail you received was not from ‪Amqui, but from an automated notification system. Replies sent to the notification system will not be read by anyone. As stated in the e-mail, the message from ‪Amqui was left on your talk page, so that would be a better place to respond.

As for editing the file descriptions, just go to File:Pond at south end of Rouge 3.jpg (for example) and click on the "Edit" tab. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Macerata1

Blocked for a week in late May for uploading images with dubious copyright status. S/he has resumed this upload the "own work" statement for File:Tudose.jpg being clearly untruthful.—Andrei S. _Talk 10:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done 3 months block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:HHubi / Special:Contributions/188.100.48.223 block evasion?

IP 188.100.48.223 (talk · contribs) has been moving all content from Category:Military radios of the Soviet Union and Russia to Category:Military radio stations with edit comment "Correct categorisation (in line to ITU-RR) by -- HHubi". User:HHubi is indefinetely blocked. MKFI (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done 188.100.0.0/18 soft blocked for a couple weeks and edits mass rollbacked. Daphne Lantier 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Mikrokozma (talk · contribs)

This user uploads images from other site and claims he is the autor. For example Image:Andrija-mandic-foto-tanjug.jpg (Tanjug is Serbian state news agency), Image:Milo_Lompar_Intervju_za_Svedok.png (Svedok are Serbian weekly newspapers), etc. -- Bojan  Talk  02:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

All tagged as copyvios. Guanaco (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Чакмак sockpuppet of User:Yahadzija

User:Чакмак is uploading previously deleted photos of User:Yahadzija, so probably it's another suckpuppet Category:Sockpuppets of Yahadzija. See contibutions. --Smooth O (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Acct blocked and uploads nuked. Daphne Lantier 15:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Elano64

• Elano64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Elano64 has continued to upload obvious copyright violations after a final warning. Most of the non-obvious uploads are suspicious and will need to be deleted. Guanaco (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Siwibegewp

Please stop the editwar of User:Siwibegewp regarding File:Mooren.JPG. As I live close-by I know that the description and category of this image is wrong. There is no such "Moorlandschaft" (wetland) in Neudörpen and this is what I wrote in the edit summary. However, User:Siwibegewp keeps on reverting my edits without any explanation. Please stop this bad behaviour and let me finally edit the file without any revert. -- Ies (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Ies: Please stop original research ("as i live close-by I know...") and vandalism of the file page. --Siwibegewp (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop when - as I live close-by - I know the location well and see with my own eyes that the description and category of File:Mooren.JPG must be wrong. Knowing a location is certainly not any reason to ignore a mistake in an affected image description or category. -- Ies (talk)

Knowing a location - as you claim - is certainly not a reason to falsify an image description, as you did. --Siwibegewp (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As I see User:Siwibegewp wheanwhile added a vandalism charge. Please stop his bad behavior. This is not an appropriate reaction to a reasoned and well explained edit that cannot be proven wrong. And knowing a certain location is certainly a very good reason to evaluate whether or not an image shows that location. This is how Commons works. Even a check with Google and Bing maps (or any other map) shows that there is no such "Moorlandschaft" (wetland) in Neudörpen. The only bodies of water there are few small fish ponds. Everyone can see that I'm right with my edit. So why that edit war? -- Ies (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Siwibegewp's edit warring reverted, and Siwibegewp blocked 3 days for edit warring and personal attacks. Daphne Lantier 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, there is not actually a ban on original research as such on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Tlhkg.kana hotel photos all copied

Hi, started all photos uploaded by User:Tlhkg.kana but there are a couple so I thought it better to post here: essentially all photos available are copied from the hotel website as bigger photographs and obviously are copied. I've tagged two as an example: File:The-Langham-Hong-Kong-Hotel-The-Langham-Club-Lounge.jpg and File:The-Langham-Hong-Kong-Hotel-Deluxe-City-View-Room.jpg. The photos were also previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tlhkg.kana so a block/final warning may be needed. Jcc (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it appears if you want something done, do it yourself. Went through formally tagging all of them. Jcc (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hostile tone in talk page

Resolved

(to put it mildly), as seen here, by Antero de Quintal (talk · contribs). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, already fixed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Or not? (pinging @DarwIn: , @Defender: , and @JMagalhães: )

• Looks like user name Antero de Quintal (talk · contribs) was globally locked upon renaming to JMagalhães (talk · contribs), not as kind of reaction to objectionable behaviour: in view of the fact that User:JMagalhães is not blocked, and in spite of the stated locking rationale («Vandalism-only account»), half hour after it was created.
• I’m concerned about the way this user was not disciplined and yet the offending edit was revdelled. What prupose does this serve? While it “protects” us from reading foul language, it leaves the delinquent part free to utter more of it and it prevents the community from proving that the original utterance was actually made. The delinquent part, Vashlv, was disciplined.^{16:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)}
• (For the record, I remember seeming this user as a pt:wp admin, and I have no recollection of any past hostile dealing. I also have no idea about the exact disagreement between Antero Vashlv^{16:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)} and DarwIn that promped this reaction — seems to be a matter of local misidentification: something, maybe a photo or a subcat, that’s not in Madeira but in Oporto…)
• Antero de Quintal (talk · contribs), now renamed JMagalhães (talk · contribs), is adept of making his user page and his talk page hard to interact with, by means of cunning use of HTML/CSS (a div blocking the edit and history buttons!) and of MediaWiki page transclusions. This should not fool anyone savvy (like, I hope, are all our admins) but wastes volonteer time and is contrary to the spirit of a wiki. (The very name change, roughly simultaneous with the offensive remark in DarwIn’ talk page, seems to have been a ruse to allow that behaviour to go unpunished, letting the apparently recent meta account be blocked as a mere decoy.)
• Why do I care? After all, it is known that I’m all for smug, snide, gloves-off exchanges with other users when chiding for percieved blunders. However, there’s a wide chasm between on-topic harsh language and ad hominem gratuitous insult: Antero Vashlv^{16:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)} didn’t state a point, however worded (so much that I still don’t know what exactly he’s argueing about), he just made use of inappropriate sexual suggestions — common in a drunkards’ brawl, but not conductive to gather and curate a free media repository. Which is what I care about.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I requested a global username change, from "Antero de Quintal" to "JMagalhães". My account was renamed, but my old username was completely deleted and got, let's say, "unregistered". Yesterday, a well known vandal at pt.wiki, Vashlv, exploited that and registered a new account with my old name "Antero de Quintal". Then he used it to attack and insult some users, pretending to be me. It's not the first time Vashlv does this, specially when high-profile and well-known users change their name, like me. This issue is already being solved at meta. JMagalhães (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I’m very glad that this was the case. Maybe the edit summaries should have been more clear about the nature and identity of the hijacking, though, to dispell any doubts in cases such as these. In the same vein, I edited the post above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated, minor concern

(@JMagalhães: But I still think that the HTML/CSS tricks you have in your user pages are a bad idea.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: My user page has no history button because I don't have local user pages. There are no html/css tricks. What you see is a transclusion from my meta user page using GlobalUserPage extension. JMagalhães (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@JMagalhães: I mean <div style="padding:50px 0;position:relative;z-index:1;background:#ffffff;margin-top: -120px;"> at meta:User:JMagalhães/PU3. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@JMagalhães and Tuvalkin: I agree, that negative margin is rather antisocial, especially when viewed in MonoBook.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)