Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 67

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:SocialDanny123

Hello

It appears there is a problem with SocialDanny123 (talk · contribs) which requires admin intervention. This user is a repeat copyright violator. He/she uploads screenshots without the slightest regards for copyright laws. His/her uploads so far include:

This user is a recreational editor of the English Wikipedia but uploads image here instead. When I say recreational, I mean he/she edits once in a blue moon. I've already asked him no to upload here on that project, be he/she seems to not listen.

I believe the most productive course of action here is a conditional indefinite block: An admin can block him/her indefinitely here but leave a message on his/her talk page telling him/her that he/she would be unblocked upon studying our relevant policies and promising not to violate them again.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kasir

User:Kasir has uploaded a map of Tehran Subway for the third time without any evidence of permission from the copyright holder, and he keeps removing {{Npd}} tag [1] [2] without resolving the issue first: File:Tehran Metro Map.png.

Here are his previous uploads under different names which have been deleted: File:MetroMapEnlarged.png and File:Tehran Metro map.jpg.

Over a month ago, I reported this user for the same reason: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 66#File:MetroMapEnlarged.png.

Please note that he has removed the notifications from his talk page as "چرت و پرت" ("rubbish" or "bullshit" according to Google Translate) and has posted several threatening messages at my talk page on Persian Wikipedia, not here on Commons: [3] [4] [5] [6].

I suggest that you: 1) restore the {{Npd}} tag, and 2) warn this experienced user for repeatedly violating the copyright law and for creating a hostile environment which discourages Wikimedia users from contributing. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That file was based on File:MetroMapEnlarged.png which had been deleted before for missing evidence of permission. So I have now deleted File:Tehran Metro Map.png as well and left Kasir a warning on his talk page. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. :)
I visited the Persian Wikipedia messages. They are not threatening. There is iritation and assumption of bad faith in us as a whole, but definitely no threats.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Codename Lisa,
I do not want to add to the drama of the situation, but here are some of his messages with English translations:
  1. [7] "بارگذاری کردن یا نکردن نقشه مترو تهران به شما ربطی ندارد که من را تهدید میکنید، در زمانی مناسب پاسخی سخت و قاطعانه به شما خواهم داد تا دیگر اینگونه برای من سخن نرانید." English translation: "It is none of your business whether or not I upload a map of Tehran Metro, so don't *threaten* me. At the right time, I will give you a harsh and decisive response, so that you will not talk to me like this." Google Translate (as if he is acting out of grudge)
  2. [8] "حذف چرندیات خارجی های لعنتی". English translation: "removing the nonsense by damn foreigners" Google Translate (This message was posted at Commons).
4nn1l2 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello again.
With all due respect, there are still no threats in these new messages. There is, however, irritation and assumption of bad faith, and something new that wasn't in the previous messages: Claim of ownership. And he seems threatened too.
You'd forgive me if I don't trust Google Translate, so, I requested my colleague FleetCommand to assess the Persian text along with me. Our conclusion is that the text written in somewhat archaic literary tone. For example, "اینگونه برای من سخن نرانید" no longer appears in contemporary Persian, neither speech nor writing. Hence, "در زمانی مناسب پاسخی سخت و قاطعانه به شما خواهم داد" does not translate into "At the right time, I will give you a harsh and decisive response" but rather, into "In due course, I will provide a decisive and unshakeable response" which is exactly what we want: An unshakeable evidence of copyright. This Persian message, does NOT indicate a grudge (as you stated) but rather, anger and determination.
Conclusion: You are dealing with an angry person who assumed bad faith, not a grudge-holding or malicious-in-any-other-way one. There is a difference in treating them. I am not claiming that I have mastered the difference. (Far from it, actually.) But there is one. I believe the best course of action here is to wait and permit him to demonstrate his (yes, male) unshakeable response. He is a good contributor. Losing him would be a shame. Perhaps it is best I talk to him next time, in his native tongue.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I respect your opinions, but I do not agree with them. "سخن راندن" is actually figurative, but it is a common verb in Persian. The noun "سخنرانی", which is used in everyday language, is a derivative of that verb. This is the most literal translation that I could think of: "At an appropriate time, I will give a hard and decisive response to you, so that you will no longer make such a speech to me."
This user was never threatened nor provoked. He considers such messages as threats. He is not a newbie, but an experienced user with "image-reviewer" rights at Persian Wikipedia, so he should be familiar with the basics of copyright.
And regarding the ownership claim, please look at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:MetroMapEnlarged.png.
I do not want to see this user blocked. The problem has been resolved, and this thread can be closed and archived in my opinion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Sad to say, he just removed another maintenance tag and then "cursed all stupid admins of Commons". "زبون نفهم", which is the colloquial version of "زبان‌نفهم", means somebody who cannot understand the language (lacking the power of comprehension). It has been translated into "thick", "dense", or even "idiot" in Kimia Dictionary by Karim Emami. Google Translate cannot translate this term. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. In the interest of not getting this discussion too tedious, I sign off with a summary comment: I can clearly see contempt, rage and enough other things to say we are not exactly dealing with a paragon of politeness and negotiation. (I myself am extremely disappointed and frustrated with Wikimedia Commons administration but I do none of these.) Still, my advice is not to overly read into a language whose writers don't nitpick on what they write (including Persian and English languages), let alone extract other conclusions from said too-much-reading. And yes, "سخنرانی" has long entered mainstream use as a dead metaphor but not its verb form "سخن راندن". The most formal verb they have is "سخن گفتن". The rest is clear. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: As the user accused of making such "threats" (simply by my adding a well-deserved warning at your suggestion) by the subject user, I support administrative action against that subject user.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Editting disputes or possible vandalisms

Previously I modified the Chinese translation for the subtitles of "File:Jimmy Wales voice.ogg".(see here). IP user "36.234.26.145", however, has been persistently trying to revert my rightful edits which do not violate any rules here without giving any valid explanation. (e.g.1 and 2) It seems that he/she is not going to stop. What am I supposed to do? --007perspect (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week. In the meantime, changes can be discussed at TimedText talk:Jimmy Wales voice.ogg.zh-cn.srt. Guanaco (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not a Chinese speaker, so hopefully an admin who is can offer an opinion, however, I don't see any obvious ill-intent in the original version preferred by 36.234.26.145. Is this about tone, word choice, or some other error? In any case, neither you or 36.234.26.145 have explained your preference for a particular version, or attempted to discuss the change on the talk page. I would recommend you start by adding a note to TimedText_talk:Jimmy_Wales_voice.ogg.zh-cn.srt explaining why you prefer your edited version. End your explanation with an invitation to the IP editor to explain why they prefer the original version. See if the two of you can come to an agreement. I'll leave a note on the IP editors talk page and add TimedText:Jimmy_Wales_voice.ogg.zh-cn.srt to my watchlist. —RP88 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for you two's kind engagements. I will try to reach a consensus with him/her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007perspect (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Eiwoo

User Eiwoo has been uploading non-free images from youtube with a Standard Youtube license as in this case below:

In this second image file, Eiwoo typed in a fake pass by Explicit

Perhaps, he should be given a warning about uploading copyright violations...but typing in fake passes is very bad. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Finally, he also typed in a second fake youtube pass here also in Explicit's name for the image below

Its youtube license is Standard Youtube license I failed the second image.

It seems to me that this uploader's images cannot be trusted and could be deleted as soon as possible. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Entirely unacceptable. Infringing on copyright, faking a license review, and smearing my name in the process. The screenshots should be be deleted immediately as obvious copyright violations. I'm actually surprised users without the image-reviewer permission are allowed to add the tag, seeing as OTRS tags (aside from {{OTRS pending}}) can only be added by OTRS agents. ℯxplicit 06:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It warns and tags the fake license reviews, as is done for OTRS tags. I've deleted all of the images except the "own work". Guanaco (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa photo upload problem

Good day Admin

I have been trying to submit my pictures for wiki loves Africa however, the photo upload wizard is stuck on release and is not moving to next for the description. What can i do?

Regards Naomi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnkaw1 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be a network issue but pinging, Anthere, one of the organizers of the contest who is an admin here for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
MANY people reported the issue yesterday. In different countries, so it is unlikely to be a connectivity issues. I was not able to figure out whether it was langage dependant or not, so I am going to check all templates in case. Also, the problem seems to be the non-availability of a button during the upload process. Someone sent me a screenshot to show me. I have not been able to reproduce the problem, because I am currently in Africa myself and have enormous connectivity problems. It is very hard for me to investigate what is being a problem at the moment. Several of the user groups had collective upload sessions yesterday unfortunately.
The site notice is now down. But the entries will still be accepted today. I will suggest the groups not to go through the upload wizard. Anthere (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Fonero

As a not new user (since 2 years) he is collectings unfree photos from all over the net and declare they as own work, see User talk:Fonero. --Stepro (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stepro: I have warned that user.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Dupy132

This user uploaded several images which were deleted in 2017. His remaining uploads appear to be low resolution images with no metadata and his talkpage has many copyvio notices. I don't know think they are own work. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted speedily 2 Facebook files and warned the user. Now all his uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Priestdaddy.jpg

Resolved

blantant copyright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nuked. In future, adding the {{Copyvio}} tag will achieve the same effect. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Inmobiliaria Carvajal

Looks like an account simply as an COM:ADVERT -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for promotional username, file tagged for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sussexwebdesigns

Another seemingly useless ADVERT account -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Promotional userpage deleted, account blocked. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Rahat xaman (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

advertising/spam and most likely copyrighted from somewhere. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is warned and all advertising is deleted. No other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013

There is consensus that User:Livioandronico2013 be blocked indefinitely for his continuous incivilities and rude responses during disputes while having been blocked numerous times before. The recent six-months block handed out by Steinsplitter will therefore be extended accordingly. As Livio has shown no sign of understanding and did not tone down his rhetorics even after this new block, appeals made by Livioandronico2013 to the indefinite block shall only be considered after a period of six months from today. Livio's talkpage access will then be restored so he can make a regular request for unblock. De728631 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Livio has been blocked a couple of times before for being blatantly rude and hostile and operating in bad faith. He has never really shaped up and it appears that his online conduct is currently worsening. See, for example, this discussion on Consensual Review on COM:QIC [excerpted; particularly offensive remarks are bolded below - my bolding]:

  •  Oppose Ugly flare at the top and rather unsharp at the right side. A photograph of a painting can't be QI unless the lighting is perfectly even which is not the case here. Additionally there is no information about the painting given in the file description. --Code 10:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is your revenge? This is QI not FP what does composition and light mean? Anyway, it's in a museum, and if you do not know, can not you choose light. --Livioandronico2013
  • @Blackcat: Indeed you may be right that it's not possible to take a QI under such conditions at all. I learned a lot about reproductive photography of artworks in the last years as a lawyer I had to defend a Commons user in court who was sued by a museum for taking such photographs and I came to the opinion that creating a true reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork requires perfect conditions that usually don't exist when you just walk around inside a museum taking snapshots of artworks. tl;dr: Sometimes you just can't create a QI. That's it. --Code 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Code all you boringly say is meaningless (as always). This is QI not a court or something else. The photo is well done for the conditions it is but you are infant and you do not want it to be QI.--Livioandronico2013 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That crosses the rudeness line, IMO. If you want people to look at your images, the least you can do is treat them with a certain amount of respect. You can disagree with people's opinions, but there is a voting system in place here that will make your case for you; if there are more people voting in your favour than there are opposing, you win the argument.--Peulle 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that he calls Code "infant"?

Now, look at the discussion here. I excerpt below:

  •  Oppose Uneven lighting and uneven sharpness. The top left is dark and blue and the bottom is over-exposed. An HDR technique plus some local adjustment could have compensated for the uneven lighting situation. The image is strangly sharp and unsharp in areas that do not seem related to depth-of-field and look more like camera shake. Is this a stitched image? If so, some of your frames are bad. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is a single photo and perfectly and of course perfectly clear but as I have already said I (naturally) calculated your false negative vote. --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Colin. The unsharp areas indeed look strange. Maybe the lens is seriously broken. The bottom part seems overexposed as well. --Code (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Surprise,surprise--LivioAndronico (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like sharpness is wanting, but I don't know what condition the ceiling is in. You're sure it's quite sharp? Then why do at least two viewers think otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Simply Ikan Kekek because, as I have already written but you do not follow, they are in bad faith. But then what do you care about the vote of others? Think about your ...--LivioAndronico (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yann, I've added some notes where the unsharp bits are. It isn't a focus issue. It is a long exposure, so perhaps the camera or ceiling shook a little due to tourist traffic? Can't really explain why some bits are sharp other than if created from more than one exposure or serious lens trouble. In addition to these sharpness issues, the light handling is far below the standard we expect from others at FP. I really don't think you'd expect a dark blue corner or a blown bottom from a Diliff, of Code, or myself, or numerous others.... -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin always the same things, always buying photos with Diliff ... are you in love? You should tell him --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Livio's consistent pattern is that even the slightest critical remark about his photographs prompts a rude response that is either name-calling, an accusation of bad faith or an accusation of revenge voting. I'll leave it to your wisdom whether this is projection on his part, but it is certainly not on-topic to routinely resort to personal attacks and commonly avoid directly addressing specific remarks, other than perhaps by general negation.

(P.S. I'll admit up front that I have on one occasion that I recall directly accused Livio of voting based on the person, rather than the photo. But (a) I was wrong in that case and admitted that; (b) this thread isn't about me, though I'm sure Livio will try to make it about me; and (c) in no way could anyone make a founded claim that I am always rude to people who question the photos I nominate or always impugn their motives.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ikan you might want to collapse some of your quoted text and just highlight the relevant offensive remarks -- this is a bit too much text to expect folk to wade through.. I agree Livio has a pattern of giving hell to anyone who dares oppose his photos, to then revenge vote (see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Musentempel im Herbst, 1710150958, ako.jpg for a recent blatantly obvious example). Obviously that revenge example isn't going to change result, but there are other cases where his vote has damaged a nomination, and just makes the whole thing unpleasant. I oppose a lot of images at FPC and naturally not all nominators appreciate that, but Livio is by far the worst. He never accepts suggestions for improvement, frequently lies about the processing he has done, and basically claims anyone opposing his images is blind or bad faith. Livio was blocked long term and only got back here because INC unblocked him against community wish -- for which INC lost his admin bit. As a result of Livio's campaigns against anyone who opposes him, his images generally get a free ride at FPC, as most of the reviewers to dare to oppose images at all have given up reviewing his photos. His subjects are wonderful -- he lives in a great city -- but technically his photos are far far far below the standard set at FPC for religious and historic buildings or artworks. He's the photographer at FPC that nobody wants to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I took out some exchanges that weren't essential. Did I remove enough? I want to keep the context clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question Is there misconduct or hostility from Livio outside of QIC/FPC/VIC? I would instead propose a one-year topic ban from these boards. Guanaco (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Guanaco, Livio has no interaction with other users other than at QIC/FPC or to complain to User:Blackcat about others at QIC/FPC. So your proposed "topic ban" amounts to "User can upload own files". The suggestion might be appropriate if there was evidence of Livio interacting with others in a positive way. The restriction smells a little of "Can we have your pictures please, but we don't want to see or hear from you", which I think is unfair. Either he's accepted as part of the community or not, and there are other places he can upload free pictures. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Livioandronico2013 for 6 months because of repeated uncivil behavior/personal attacks after numerous warnings and previous blocks. This kind of rudeness and unmellowness is unacceptable on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support Why are we not talking about indef here? Perhaps we should extend the block to a year or something like that. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support COM:FPC is definitely a more pleasant place without Livioandronico2013. --A.Savin 16:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Nominating at FPC/QIC requires taking criticism. Livio has shown time and time again that he can't and resorts to insults and revenge votes. We don't need that. Livio doesn't participate outside of FPC/QIC to any extent, so a topic ban doesn't seem appropriate. Multiple users have been insulted by Livio: those who have ever opposed his images, so this isn't just a personality clash. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not understand why some photographers feel offended by negative votes, some react with revenge negative votes or simply insulting/ridiculing others. IMHO, Negative votes are the best part of FPC. --The Photographer 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO, I think this user should be blocked indefinitely. Their behavior is toxic to our community and capable of causing severe damage to QIC/FPC/VIC process. Behaviors like this is against the core values of this project and should not be tolerated in anyway. I'm afraid, Livio's behavior may drive away potential contributors and force long time valuable users to quit the project. This user have been warned to desist from this behavior multiple times and they had been the subject of this board multiple times as well. See here, see User:Livioandronico2013 revenge voting and insulting the very people who are helping him, again User:Livioandronico2013, again User:Livioandronico2013, and see Livioandronico2013 once more and this ongoing one again. So, this appears to be a pattern of behavior that won't stop if we don't stop it. Wikicology (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I had to revoke Livioandronico2013 talkpage access because he continued with rudeness there and pinging x-users while beng blocked on a talkpage may be considered abuse. After that i agree with Wikicology regarding the indef. block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sadly. Good content is not an excuse for a bad behaviour. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Wikicology et al. The user should be blocked undef . Consider the attacks/insults he made in his talk page recently: calling all the project a "nest of snakes" and directly insulting Steinsplitter indicates a total incompatibility with a social environment, besides indicating a blatant rudeness. This behaviour is not tolerable in a project where all the users are volunteers, and are here to have a good time (and promote free access to culture). --Ruthven (msg) 07:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support We've tried many times to point Livio in the correct direction, they have had numerous chances to improve their behaviour, we have been scrupulously fair with them and still the problematic behaviour continues. I would support an indefinite block and would also endorse Steinsplitter's six month block, with the expectation that if the indefinite block is appealed, it is only done after six months. Nick (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support This individual sticks out in my mind for rudeness to me and many other people who wished to participate in discussions on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LoveyDovey (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploading copyvios, one after my warning (since deleted), seven out of the last eight uploads, and antisocial removal of warnings from user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ellin Beltz nominated his/her uploads for deletion and I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyprien badiou

Uploaded more copyvios despite prior block & warnings for same.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jcb (once more)

Could someone please take a look at Jcb’s latest actions? I’m sad that I have to write a thread about one who I consider a friend but the latest actions are once again harmfull. Jcb deleted dozens uploads done by Mr.Nostalgic (deleted edits, example, another example, another example. Those files are released by the Dutch National Archive - one of our most important GLAM partners – under a cc-zero license. The explanation for deletion is severely lacking (nothing about why Jcb believes that the National Archive is wrong for example) and the editor who uploaded the files was even blocked for the duration of two hours.

Regarding the deletions: speedy deleting them is in no way supported by our deletion policy. At the verry least a DR was required. When an interested third party gives a angry but understandable reaction all he responses with is "Please only contact me if you can refrain from accusing language like 'crusade'." When the uploader complains about the deletions he comes with an argument not addressing the situation. (Talking about PD-old while him doubting the copyright claim made by the National Archive]. Even when Timmietovenaar – who works for the National Archive – joins the discussion, citing how Vysotsky explains how the National Archive became the copyright holder he ignores the argument and merely repeats that he is right and everyone else is wrong. (The phoprahps were made by employees working for the Dienst Legercontacten Indonesië which is part of the Dutch department of defence which donated the entire collection, and this includes the copyright.)

Not only misused Jcb his tools by speedy deleting material that doesn’t fit the criteria for speedy deletion, someone got blocked in the meantime but he is also ignoring the arguments provided. This has to end. Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at all deleted files, but from what I see each file has a link to Nationaal Archief where it is clearly marked as Public Domain. Given that, the deletions can only be seen as administrative vandalism by Jcb. Jcb seems to hate Commons so much that they use now their sysop flag to delete valid freely licensed content. I really fail to understand, how long the administrative vandalism by Jcb should be tolerated here. --A.Savin 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Public Domain claims by archives are a common problem. While nobody makes a problem of deleting flickr-washed files, apparently some people think we shouldn't delete archive-washed files. In the previous case involving a Dutch archive, I called that archive by phone. In that phone call, they admitted that if they receive a box of pictures without mention of the photographer, that they would just put it on their website as an 'anonymous' work in the Public Domain. In case of the batch involved now, the files where mainly from 1947, 1948 and 1949, so that it's impossible that copyright would have expired. So if Nationaal Archief puts them on their website as 'photographer unknown' and 'Public Domain', there is no way this statement can be legally true. I requested uploader at their user talk page to stop their batch, but they did not respond and continued to upload instead. In such cases a short block (two hours) to stop the ongoing action is normal practice. Apart from the fact that, based on Dutch copyright regulations, there is no other possibility than that these files are copyright violations, this also tells us that unfortunately we have to be very careful with anything from the NA. Jcb (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: If an UDR leads to new insights (e.g. new information provided by the NA) so that this batch can safely be restored, I am prepared to process the restoring. (As far as I am aware there are no other deleted batches from NA involved deleted for this reason, at least not by me. It's just this single batch). Jcb (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Whether archives and museums can freely release collections in their domain is a topic of debates for several years and the result has not changed. Copyrights of works almost entirely remain with its creator an in a case where the works are not created by the archive and or museum they cannot release it under a free license without a written permission from the copyright holder. That being said, it would be stupid to insists that archives like the Dutch National Archive must provide documents stating a transfer as taken place for every single image in their domain. We could trust their claims and if any legal issue arises in the future, we can hold the archive or museum responsible. So, this is not an issue. The images should not have been speedily deleted but such deletion is not uncommon and it's not vandalism. IMHO, an undeletion request for the deleted images is more productive than administrative action against the deleting admin. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm for sure that in the case of the Nationaal Archief we wouldn't respond on the phone like a Dutch archive did with Jcb . We don't just accept boxes with photographs and add them digitized to our website.
The Nationaal Archief has a formal position in the Dutch archival field,described in the Dutch archival law (1995) we - inprincipal - only acquire archival material related to the national government and its institutions. Therefor we have a longlasting relationship with these so called "zorgdragers" which is institionalized in en elaborate process of selection and appraisel supported by extensive agreements about the care and its usage in the future. Transferred material like (for example) the Dienst Legercontacten (related to the Ministry of Defense) or the ANEFO Pressphotos (related to the Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst) are thoroughly investigated and agreed also on legal issues. I'm sorry to notice that the integrity of this images is disputed. --Timmietovenaar (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It's true that my phone call was not with NA. (I am open for contact by phone if you would consider that helpful.)
Do you have more information on pictures in your collection than we can see online? For example this picture. Do you have more information on how the DLC became copyright holder in the first place? If they don't know who the photographer was, how do they know that this photographer was an employee who had the official duty to take pictures? The information currently online does not explain this. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: see Inventaris van het archief van de Dienst voor Legercontacten (DLC) Indonesië, 1946-1950. They have such a document for most collections as far as I'm aware. If you want to know about the history of the archive (this collection) I would recomend that you read the pages 7 and 8. Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish I would have seen this document 48 hours earlier. Ok, this seems sufficiently convincing to me. I will restore the files. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
My comment on Jcb's Userpage, yesterday 15:55 hr., contained a link to the same description of that particular archive: If you would have taken two minutes to dive into the archival description of this particular archive, you would have seen that all files are in the Public Domain. In Dutch: "Er zijn geen beperkingen krachtens het auteursrecht." (My translation: "No limitations re copyright") Vysotsky (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The deletions are a secondary issue - we can restore them (although it's incredibly disruptive to our re-users across Wikimedia and elsewhere) but the primary issue, once again, is Jcb refusing to conform to community norms expected of administrators. The deletion of these files is a complex issue which needs to be discussed and a sensible approach with broad community consensus reached (whether that is deletion or not is not important) so that individual community members knows what is expected of them. I'm sympathetic to Jcb's position and I'd most likely support a restriction which prevents content from Nationaal Archief which has potential copyright issues being uploaded, but ultimately, the Nationaal Archief was a source that uploaders believed they could trust, they uploaded content believing it to be suitable for Wikimedia Commons, so we can't have administrators like Jcb running around making decisions to the contrary as they go, it really needs to be a community decision to restrict some content from Nationaal Archief. Nick (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is a sample from the archives of similar issues where Jcb's non-collegiate behaviour was raised. If anyone wants to spend time mining the archives to create a more accurate picture, this would be helpful.

  1. Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files 2016/9 Quote: Mechanically and robotically applying no-source tagging to all files indiscriminately really accomplishes absolutely nothing in improving Wikipedia Commons in any possible way.
  2. Proposal to ban Jcb from using the 'no source' template for six months 2016/10
  3. Jcb's use of "..." on image pages 2016/10 Jcb's behaviour considered pointy by the community
  4. Inappropriate behavior of Jcb 2016/12 Quote: Jcb shouldn't have ignored and blame back the fault [...] If he had just done the undeletion instead, we won't have this drama discussion.
  5. Jcb 2017/3 Quote: Jcb deletes a file uploaded by a respected experienced user, treats them as shit, and the user says "Fuck you Commons"
  6. User:Jcb 2017/9 Similar incident

--Fæ (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear admins. Do i get some kind of notification of what is going to happen? Are the files i uploaded going to be restored? Can i continue with my uploads of the Nationaal Archief? I must say that i realy feel very frustrated about all this and am thinking seriously of stopping on commons for both my accounts as Mr.Nostalgic and as Alfvanbeem just like the other user described above. Regards Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC) alias Alf van Beem
I told what was going to happen and as far as I am aware the whole batch was restored about 24 hours ago. Nationaal Archief is fine. They are a positive exception to all the archives with who we have so many bad experiences. So please feel free to transfer files from Nationaal Archief, they won't be deleted again. I am sorry for my mistake. Regarding any other archive, please be very careful with them. Unfortunately over 90% of them puts pictures online with false PD claims. It's not without a reason that most admins (not just me) are very cynical about PD claims from archives in general. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No, not again. Most admins in Commons know perfectly well that it is exactly the other way around: many archives are knowledgeable in copyright cases. I can't take an admin seriously (regarding copyright) who proclaims PD claims from the [Dutch National Archives] NA are not reliable, and -when proven wrong in just one case (to the evidence of which he was pointed two times earlier)- tells us (only two days later) Nationaal Archief is fine. They are a positive exception to all the archives with who [sic] we have so many bad experiences, and who clearly misinterprets Copyright Acts, even when they are spelled out. Active users know when to distrust an archive or website. Don't be cynical. Be knowledgeable. Vysotsky (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, you defended the files from the Stadsarchief Amsterdam with the same offensive language, while that archive admitted that their claims of 'anonymous work' where made up. Jcb (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcb, please list the archives with who we have so many bad experiences so that uploaders may know which archives are not reliable, so that content from these archives can be discussed with an administrator or an experienced user before uploading. I think if we are clear and upfront with users that some archives have some issues, we can defuse some of these situations or stop them becoming so explosive. Nick (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a list, but I think it would be a good idea to build a list of safe and unsafe archives. For now at least we know that Stadsarchief Amsterdam is unsafe, they admitted (by phone) that when they receive a box of old looking pictures that they would put them on there website as 'anonymous work'. I remember several bad experiences with Spaarnestad including false PD claims and the assumption that they would automatically be the copyright holder of any picture they have a physical copy of. Spaarnestad might have changed things in the meantime, based on this comment. For all the other archives and musea I had conversations with over the past ten years, I really don't remember. Must be over 100 different organisations. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Some useful links to prove the contrary: (1) Stadsarchief Amsterdam, website Q & A, general remarks on usage (in Dutch), incl. the remark "Bij materiaal waarvan de rechten niet bij het Stadsarchief Amsterdam berusten gelden afwijkende voorwaarden [...]" (My translation: "Different conditions apply when the Stadsarchief Amsterdam doesn't own copyright" and an example of one item, with clear metadata. (2) Spaarnestad Photo is a commercial photo press agency. Spaarnestad and Dutch Nationaal Archief made a deal in 2008-2011 comprising the old ANEFO photo collection (350,000 photographs). The ANEFO collection would be taken care of by Nationaal Archief (with physical transfer and transfer of copyright). In that process, some photographs were made public via Flickr -and a few were wrongly labeled re copyright. As a commercial firm Spaarnestad needs to make profit, but Spaarnestad cares about the rights of photographers and has in the past also granted CC-BY-SA-rights for photographs upon special request. Pre-1947 photographs made by unknown photographers from their collection are in the public domain in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Copyright Act, Art. 38. Main statement: if Spaarnestad wouldn't have existed and wouldn't have struck a deal with Nationaal Archief, all Wikipedia's together would have had 90.000 very useful images less. In my view, both Stadsarchief Amsterdam and Spaarnestad Photo are reliable organisations. I dislike accusations on a shaky basis. Vysotsky (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"Pre-1947 photographs made by unknown photographers from their collection are in the public domain in the Netherlands" - you have to read the whole sentence, not just the first half. It's 70 years from publication, not creation, so if there is no information about publication, article cannot be applied in such a way. The community consensus is to use 120 years from creation for works with unknown author from PMA+70 countries, not 70 years. Jcb (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to quash the "120 years" consensus as myth. Please provide a link to the consensus you are using to support your exact assertion that "PMA+70 countries" must use 120 years post-creation for unknown authors, otherwise it should be read as your opinion.
Secondly, in many countries, a proper and precise scrutiny of copyright act definitions and associated existing case law shows that where the word "publication" is used and the date of publication remains unknown or unprovable, it is sufficient to calculate from the date of creation unless within the 70 year period there has been a claim of publication rights. The second point is not one for this noticeboard, as a post-hoc issue it should be correctly discussed and set out in a specific deletion request or copyright review as it is a tangent that did not apply to your actions in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Fae, you voted in what you now call a myth. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense, please do not quote partial evidence by linking to old versions of discussions. If you made the effort to look at the full discussion, it was closed by a Bureaucrat with "For the above reasons, this discussion should be taken as indicative of a preference for a 120 year period amongst those editors who favour the idea of a cut-off. The next stage, now, should be to open a wide-ranging discussion and RFC of a more detailed policy, based on the preferred 120 year default. Once that discussion has concluded, and rules or guidelines have been agreed for the various specific situations that might arise, there should be a final binding discussion and !vote to bring the new policy into force." A yet to be properly agreed "indicative preference" is not consensus, it is not policy, it is not a guideline and cannot be used by any administrator to justify their use of sysop rights to force their personal opinions on the community. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb and Fæ: That next discussion should be at Commons talk:Cut-off date for PD-old files, but no one aside from the closing Bureaucrat has contributed.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This user Jcb is stalking me and deleting files that have no copyright violations. file:Fchipganassiracing.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonDance (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2017‎ (UTC)

With regard to making a list of good/bad GLAM archives, this would be potentially misleading oversimplification and is a tangent to the root cause of dispute in this case. For my projects where copyright has been a reason for deletions, it is the specific deletion requests that provide better understanding of both copyright for those collections and how other problem cases can be identified for future uploads. Large batch uploads should have on-Commons project pages where this can be collated. For example, the Imperial War Museum wrongly claims copyright over its public domain files, yet uploading from that source is fine, while the London School of Economics archives releases a huge number of photographs as "no copyright known" without a fully reliable copyright review, yet again it is fine to mass upload from that source with some caution. I certainly do not expect to have warnings or threats of blocks from administrators that are unlikely to know as much as about these collections as myself.

If an administrator wishes to mass delete problem files, having reference deletion requests is essential. The fundamental issue causing disruption here is administrators who use their personal tastes and judgement to speedy delete, rather than encouraging open discussion and feedback using the DR process. With a precedent of past DR cases, a mass deletion would be hardly any effort to create compared to use of speedies. So just stick to policy and process please, or walk away from contentious deletions altogether rather than poking at it because you have nothing more urgent to handle.

Blocking a good faith uploader like Mr.Nostalgic should never, ever, happen, and any administrator that acts this way should expect to be publicly called out for misuse of trusted rights. For the record on 4th December Jcb warned Mr.Nostalgic at 21:32 about uploading files dated 1947 onwards (diff), two minutes later at 21:34 Jcb blocked Mr.Nostalgic (log). Jcb failed to comply with Commons:Blocking_policy#Instructions_for_administrators as they never attempted warnings before a block, they never added a block notice, and though this was a controversial block Jcb failed to raise the case at AN. Even now Jcb appears to have not properly understood why their use of sysop rights was wrong in this case, or precisely how they failed to comply with policy. --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "mining the archives" for complaints about Jcb is at all a balanced way to judge issues with Jcb. Jcb does a lot of deletions. People get upset when their files are deleted. Hence, Jcb gets a lot of complaints. That doesn't mean there aren't some genuine problems and long-term behaviour issues, just that it isn't a simple job of listing links. In many of the links above, it is clear there is a problem with process and with information being lost. I'm not aware that anyone has bothered to update our processes to fix those issues. There does seem to be a specific problem here with speedy deletions where the issue was contentious or at least not well documented or discussed. It appears Jcb wrongly identified the files as copyvios and wanted to delete recent uploads and prevent new ones. The process of determining this was not followed. So I think User:Jcb should address the community to explain how this mistake will not happen again.

While I would agree that in general blocking a good faith uploader should be a last-resort and done by community agreement (way too many admins swinging the block stick at vandals then seem to take the same trigger-happy attitude to others). However, I have a question: if a user is batch-uploading images (don't know what tool was being used here), is there any way to stop that batch upload other than with a block should the user not respond to a talk-page request. It is possible to set of a batch and go to bed. If one wants to stop that, there doesn't seem to be a way other than a block. I see from the timeline that only 2 minutes elapsed between the request and the block, which seems very short. If there isn't some ability to just block uploads or block a certain tool, then at least I think Jcb should have considered "Just what is the immediate harm to Commons from letting this batch upload" We have here some old b&w photos which won't kill anyone if we host them for a few hours. If they were uploading commercially valuable and current images, then there's more risk. But always always it really isn't our job to worry about that: the legal responsibility is on the uploader, the re-user and ultimately on WMF if they get a take-down. So perhaps consider just how vital "fixing the problem" RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND is, Jcb. A little more cautious and careful and with an eye to community happiness being more important than some dusty JPGs? -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the workflow of speedy deleting a file must include checking the file history and looking up who uploaded the file. The workflow of blocking a user must include checking whether anybody talked to a user about seemingly problematic uploads, and if not, starting a talk page discussion. Jcb consistently fails to do either.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Natuur12, A.Savin, Wikicology, Vysotsky, Nick, Fæ, Colin, and Ymblanter. Speedy deletions out of process are abuses of power, and violations of the trust we placed during an RFA. How long must such abuses continue before something is done about them? I think it is high time for Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4).   — Jeff G. ツ 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 I also think the measure is now getting slowly really full (just a bit pity, he is a very diligent admin). He knows he is under critical observation, but he allows himself one big mistake after another (too much for be godly). I would agree for a temporary break for thought. -- User: Perhelion 12:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It appears that people are not happy that the Jcb's call and the response was not documented. Perhaps a statement from them would work? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Way forward

What is the way forward? Desysop request? Wikicology (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case I have reverted my action when it prooved erroneous, I have apologized to the uploader and I will be more careful with this kind of uploads. What more do you expect from me? This community is so good in applying different standards to different admins. E.g. when I posted a topic on Yann recently, it was clearly determined that their action was inappropriate, but nobody reverted their action and Yann got away with promising that they would repeat the abuse in the future. I am doing my best to learn from mistakes and I am always prepared to reconsider any action. That should be good enough. Please first apply this standard to all admins, before asking more from me. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You have worn out the community's patience with repeated poor replies and treatment of good faith contributors, and that's not just the number of times complaints have been raised on this noticeboard. As you are confident in your track record and competence, please voluntarily run a reconfirmation RFA. Holding the mop should be "no big deal" and if administrators were more prepared to run "no-fault" reconfirmation RFAs, there would be less of a feeling that this was a collectable hat that had to be gripped with both hands, even when admins are inactive or uninterested in contributing to the improvement of this project. I'm sure if you take the lead, then Yann would also offer to do the same. :-) Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Jcb, your comment sounds like you are accusing the community of been biased towards you. Please, stop it! One of the problem with you is that you don't listen to people until they report you on noticeboards. If you had listen when you were approached to review your action, we won't be wasting our time here. You disagree?. Wikicology (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with how the block is being described above. Our blocking policy is clear that it is "preventative" not "punitive" and while we may disagree about aspects, Jcb in good faith believed a user was uploading copyright violations and was using a batch upload to do so. I asked above, and got no reply, what mechanism admins have to end a batch upload without blocking a user account. There appears to be none. So this seems to be yet another undocumented area where Commons procedures are lacking. The block log says " blocked Mr.Nostalgic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 2 hours (account creation blocked) (To stop ongoing copyvio batch upload)". I think Jcb could have waited longer before blocking, and I think he should even have considered whether the upload of these copyvios (as he saw them) was an urgent problem, but the fact remains that this was a very short preventative block for what appeared to be automated batch uploading. One cannot negotiate with a computer program, and if Mr.Nostalgic had gone off to have his dinner, say, and left the batch upload running, there really isn't any way for the supposed procedural steps to be followed. It wasn't really a "user block" even though that was the mechanism, it was simply blocking a software tool for a short period.

User:Jcb, there are several people here who would love to see you lose your admin bit. It seems to me the main area where you actions are controversial is with old photos and with speedy deletes (or closing your own DR). Is it possible for you to refrain from those areas until such time as you have worked with others to better document (or establish) community consensus on these issues. You claim above there is a consensus for dates, but this is contested by others. I think the idea of on-Commons project pages for large batch uploads is a very good one and could be a place where potential copyright and other issues are discussed perhaps even prior to any uploads. They could be announced and watchlisted by those who are knowledgeable in the area. Also, the action you took to block the batch upload is not documented in our blocking policy. That does not, in itself, mean it is illegal (as that page is not exhaustive), but it suggests that a procedure should be documented and agreed on by the community. What sort of notice, what period of waiting, what kind of urgency assessment, etc, is done before applying such a block. I strongly suggest you take the initiative to get consensus for this sort of action and document the result. If you aren't interested in working with others to agree these steps, but just repeatedly make up your own rules on the hoof, then this sort of outcome is inevitable.

Jcb, I don't think complaining about others "getting away with it" helps your case. You are a highly active admin, and seem to get involved in areas that are contentious at times, so the onus is on you to take some initiative to improve your relationship with fellow users. You claim you are learning from mistakes but many times the issue seems to be that you are operating on your own interpretation of policy/rules which aren't documented, and aren't communicating well. You need to change your style of approach or else radically constrain your admin scope to non-contentious areas. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

For reverting bad batch uploads we have a mass delete button. In 99% of cases all files uploaded by a certain user need to be deleted, and it can be done within seconds. In rare cases, the files need to be checked one by one, and mass delete has an option of only deleting selected files. This may become a serious problem when an established user uploads a batch of bad files, but in this case we expect them to help with the cleanup (for example, compiling a list of bad uploads).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Note that in this comment I do not express an opinion on the subject above. But I have always thought that maybe administrators should have time-limited and renewable mandates (example 3 or 5 years) renewable through Rfa (or through a confirmation with different modalities). But this would have to apply to all administrators, it would cause administrators, whoever they are, to make constant efforts regarding their behavior and their interaction with the rest of the community. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    This seems very reasonable. Sort of like the confirmation for stewards. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion makes an instructive read. Vysotsky (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it shows how some users will criticize you, even if you follow established practice. Jcb (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it shows that some people call uploads copyright violations before this is proven to be so, and that some admins don't treat people in a very polite way -nor in a way that is benificial to Wikimedia Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This section is called "The way forward". In this section, User:Jcb said: I will be more careful with this kind of uploads. That was on 9 December, on the same day that he deleted an image drawn and donated by a good-faith editor (who had earlier donated 50 of his other drawings (not grouped together at that moment). After the deletion, he told the user: Warning. Don't upload copyright violations. After @Wikicology and I made clear that we thought the upload was in good faith, the image was re-uploaded by another admin. No word from Jcb. This is more than unpolite behaviour, it is behaviour that chases editors away. Can someone tell me what is the way forward? Vysotsky (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The file was previously published elsewhere. The user reuploaded the file several times after deletion and initially refused to verify their identity via OTRS as demanded. Your comment about this case was far from helpful. Finally the uploader did exactly what we expected from them according to our established practice: they verified via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?. It's not just my personal preference, it's what is written on our page about OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Also you are clearly bending the facts when saying: "After @Wikicology and I made clear that we thought the upload was in good faith], the image was re-uploaded by another admin." @Wikicology: wanted to know how the process works and thanked me for the explanation. Only when uploader finally followed the explanation and verified their identity via OTRS, @Guanaco: , an OTRS agent, restored the file. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what's obscure in: "If you are the author, please contact OTRS for verification. They can restore the file. Don't reupload it yourself."? The message is clear and not offensive at all. We expect that, if the user is the author, he will contact OTRS. Period. There is no need to make a fuzz about that, which is really common practice. (and Common's practice - lol) --Ruthven (msg) 18:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Jcb's explanation regarding OTRS was fine. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

2602:302:D1A2:C740:9533:2C90:1AE:73B5 (talk · contribs)

Attempting to speedy delete File:Doug Jones Flag (cropped).jpg and File:Doug_Jones_Flag.jpg. For those of you outside the US, there's a high-profile senate election happening today involving the Doug Jones in these photos. See this article for a summary.

Both of these have been through OTRS and are in use on Wikiprojects. It is very likely this user's nominations are politically motivated. Normally I would let this take its normal course, but since the election is happening as we speak... -Apocheir (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Artinpl

User:Artinpl requested a renaming of File:Chopin's Polonaise by Anton Teofil Kwiatkowski.jpg. I don't see, why a renaming in his imagination should be a good thing an in our guidelines. But he undo again and again my administrative desicion. I'm not an idiot, I know, that it is possible, that my desicion can be wrong. But he did not ask for a second view or talked to me. As to see on his discussion page, even other users had problems with his idea of renamings (for example, how to rename in the cases of the differend Breughel's?). How ever, I con't see, that we can accept such an behaviour. If everybody here can do what he or she want to do, without respecting all the rules, we have anarchy. The project is settled on working together and speaking to each other. This user seems not to want act in a respectfull manor. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not me but User:Marcus Cyron is problematic. I uploaded better version of the file and significantly improve it. I have also provided full rationale for renaming [9]. Despite that he moved the file under under completely different name and accused me of creating anarchy. He done nothing to improve file and knows the best what should be proper name? Artinpl (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Please, indef them. Wikicology (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I try not to get into the user fights but those threats are absurd and need to be removed before the user comes back. I'd say Indef till then. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TracyKinney1988 Is INeverCry

. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.190.158 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. The account is locked. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot Image deletion Suksin Lee

Hi,

Not sure why the image file was deleted at:

00:29, 17 December 2017‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Berlin 1926 Lee photo.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Jcb (No permission since 9 December 2017).) (undo)

The creative commons copyright license allows this image to be used publicly for non-commercial purposes...

© Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2017 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

The image under this license was obtained from the following article:

Yonsei Med J 2017 May;58(3):475-478 https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.3.475 Editorial pISSN: 0513-5796 · eISSN: 1976-2437 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopediaeditor456 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Mateocervilla (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

copyvio. Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user, deleted speedily one upload and nominated another for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:AleksejKalinin

This user and an IP, 88.119.143.58 seeming to operate as this user continues to spam their talk page with out of scope material. These are the only contributions this user seems to continue to make. They have been warned by admin Achim55 before about this behavior. [[10]]. Thank you, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Civility by jamesharrison2014

This edit by jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) demonstrates a lack of civility. Billhpike (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User warned. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre bulk categorizations

Can someone with a bit of spare time please take a look at Ta6513647 (talk · contribs) and Adamstony33 (talk · contribs). Weird rapid bulk addition of categories, maybe an issue with "Commons Mobile App". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Reported at COM:ANV a few hours ago; now uploading QR codes of links to their previously uploaded files, also with kitchen-sinks-full of miscellaneous cats.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Nuked. --A.Savin 00:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools by user:Yann

As an uninvolved bystander, I witnessed user:Yann block another user in good standing for one month for a flippant joke at the expense of a third user. When I asked the admin about it (first politely on the blocked user's page, then a bit more bluntly on his own (en.) user page), I got no reaction other than some vulgarity in his edit summary. Obviously, he has no intention to explain his behavior. Such behavior violates my sense of propriety, and, more to the point, the basic ethics I feel an admin is obliged to. (In 11 years I have not seen such a blatant case since the one I summarized in response to a question on en.WP). How does Commons deal with such a case? SebastianHelm (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

From the conversation, it appears to be an insult that was in bad faith. Probably another French speaking admin to take a look at the deleted diff? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It is undisputed that the trigger was a bad joke at the expense of another user. As I wrote to Yann, an appropriate response would have been to simply remove it. A level-1 user warning (if such things exist here on Commons) would also have been an option. But not an immediate punitive block without any warning. SebastianHelm (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any blockable offense, so I think the block should be lifted. Jcb (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I also think Edelseider's block should be lifted. Storkk (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is some backstory that I am missing and cannot find, blocking based on the deleted file talk page was very poor judgment IMO, and a violation of COM:BP as suggested by SebastianHelm (and questioning it isn't, incidentally, "bullshit"). FWIW, showing even worse judgment, is the threat that unless Edelseider apologizes upon the block expiry, he will reblock indef. Storkk (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The duration of the block is way too long based on the deleted file talk page. I support lifting the block. --Leyo 17:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yann, what do you think? Wikicology (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That joke is in bad taste. My French is rusty but if I'm not mistaken Claude Truong-Ngoc/Ctruongngoc aka the photographer made a joke about the subject pulling a gun after Edelseider asked what happened before and after the photograph. Edelseider joked that he would have done the same. While I don't support the block I don't support allowing such jokes either. Sarcasme, jokes, irony etc are easely misunderstood. Especially at a project which is multilangual. @SebastianHelm: if you want to raise an concern about admin actions at Commons, please don't do that on en-wiki. (Exporting problems, entering the fast track to pissing people off etc.) Natuur12 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Natuur12, that was a mistake. I agree with you that the expected place would have been his talk page here, which is why I pointed it out by adding "(en.)" above. (It happened because I had looked at his Commons talk page first, but when I saw no reply from him there, switched to his en. page, which was more interesting (version of the time). Then I simply forgot to switch back.) I didn't think it was that big of a deal, though. If such a minor mistake really triggers an admin to get so "pissed off" that he only can reply with vulgarity, then we have a much bigger problem at hand. SebastianHelm (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I just went through this and the edits after the block on the talk page of Edelseider. After reading this diff [[11]] leaves me thinking nothing but someone made a dumb joke (didn't seem racist or harassing, just bad), and someone else wanted to throw their weight around as an admin. I don't disagree with getting rid of the spam (joke) but this isn't the way one should handle it. Lift the block, go have a cup of tea, and everyone take it down a notch. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Harassment disguised as bad jokes are not acceptable to me. I am ready to lift the block if an apology is made. But that's not what the initial answer to my warning was... Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You are alone in your point of view that this block would be appropriate. So you can take responsibility for your own mistake and lift the block yourself, or somebody else will do it. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
i think it is appropriate. but then attempts to enforce civility here are like commanding the tide not to come in. not nearly as bad as inevercry. no standard of practice for blocks, so no standard to say inappropriate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
How can you know whether a block would be appropriate if you don't have access to the involved comment by the blocked user? Luckely we do have a standard, our official Blocking policy. Nowhere in that policy I can find that the block button could be used to play power games or to enforce an apology. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that the block is correct. Two users (Ctruongngoc and Edelseider) exchanged jokes of dubious taste (to use an euphemism), and the block is preventing them to continue with this behaviour (and to cool down, maybe). Yann should have answered to SebastianHelm simply that this kind of behaviour is not tolerated, when requested, with Wikilove, but that's all. I do not agree with Slowking4: being civil is mandatory in a collaborative project, and this is not a chat or a forum where to exchange jokes of this kind. I would have just used a shorted block, but it's just a personal evaluation of a "cooling down" period. --Ruthven (msg) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the block, as I can't see what caused it, but Jcb beware of claiming we have a set of clear rules for blocking. Look at what the policy says: "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below:". So there is scope to block for reasons other than those listed. While we do warn against "cool down blocks" these still get applied, and the blocking admin, on failing to find a suitable block reason, will sometimes reach for the libellous and legally unwise option of "harassment". And the statement about warning before blocking is routinely ignored by many admins. So, Commons policy is an incomplete mess. Anyone claiming policy permits something "because there is no rule against it" or prevents something "because is no rule that allows it" is just playing political games. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yann, for your reply. It is enlightening that you see something behind the bad joke that nobody else sees here: Harassment. That's a serious allegation, and clearly against AGF:
  • "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." (Commons:Assume good faith, in a nutshell)
Wikipedia is even more specific:
  • "De fausses accusations de harcèlement peuvent être considérées comme une attaque personnelle sérieuse et sont traitées en tant que telles." (fr.).
  • "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment" (en.).
So, do you have any clear evidence? SebastianHelm (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and unblocked Edelseider, because keeping them blocked is supported neither by policy nor by most colleagues who responded here. Jcb (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure you are in the best position to unblock this user considering your relationship with the blocking admin. Wikicology (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
So because I am often at the receiving end of their aggressive behaviour, I should be silent? Jcb (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
No. I would allow another admin to do this, especially if I have criticized their action. Wikicology (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather see the issue at hand dealt with here. We seem to have enough Jcb v. Yann discussions that don't actually solve anything. If our policy about harassment needs to include jokes made in bad taste to be spelled out more clearly let's discuss that and have something actually practical come from this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
What happened here is so obviously against the spirit of our blocking policy that I don't see how we should change the policy to make this more obvious. The first block 29 November for one week was imho unnecessary, but there could be some support for it. But then 30 November, after a discussion about the block at the user talk page, Yann somehow decides that he cannot win this discussion without using his power and changes the block to one month while revoking talk page access. Additionally he threatens that he will block Edelseider (a long term user with 174k contribs and an empty blocklog before this incident) indefinitely if they don't apologize. I think it's rather time for Yann to apologize to Edelseider instead. Jcb (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, @Jcb: . I am quite certain that Yann acted out of a conflict of interest: he and Claude Truong-Ngoc must be at the very least very close friends in real life. There is no other explanation for his over the top reaction and his over the top accusations which would, in real life, call for the intervention of a lawyer (you don't gratuitously accuse people of harrasment and intimidation, especially not after having deleted the conversation that proves that these claims are untrue). Close friendships or intimate relationships are the best and most beautiful thing in the world, but as they say "what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas". For the sake of the project, I hope that Yann will be demoted soon. --Edelseider (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I am shocked that some people here, including a long term admin like Jcb, support harassment. That's totally inappropriate, and I am going to report that to the appropriate venue. Meanwhile some actions are needed here so that these people get out of Commons, unless they change their behaviour. And no, I don't know Claude Truong-Ngoc outside of Commons. I appreciate very much his dedicatement to Commons, and it is very sad that people get in the way of harassing talented contributors. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not supporting harassment and you know that. You cannot draw such conclusions from the sole fact that I corrected one of your faulty admin actions. Jcb (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Manasi again

User:MatthiasManasi: sock puppet with uploads and re-uploads of copyrighted photos from different photographers declaring as own work; see also [12] --Stepro (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Musée Annam (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

Hi, I would like to file a request for a 2nd look at this person's contributions. Some of the I don't agree with. Such as changing category:Eastern Asia to Category:Greater East Asia here, as well as focus on the word "Annam", which would indicate a focus less against the communist govt. I could mention more if needed. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, File:Mlle Phạm-thị-ngọc-Trâm.png is uploaded but credited to another account (blocked and locked). Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've also been wondering about this user, who has been putting back some fake vietnamese flags. I wonder if there is a connection with Namkhanh02 ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
update, blocked. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I think he/she is back as User:Grendill, and still kind of messing categories up. with best wishes for the New Year, Daderot (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

LoveyDovey

This blocked user has been blanking its user talk page, including the block notice, rather than posting an unblock request, despite multiple requests not to do that.   — Jeff G. ツ ping or talk 12:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • And the problem is? His/her talk page so why would you care? Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't care what personal information people put or not put on their user pages as long as it's within scope but that wasn't the issue. The issue was consistently erasing DR and CSD notifications from the talk page. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • From my understanding users can blank warnings and all that however they're not allowed to blank unblock requests, FWIW for years I was under the impression block notices couldn't be deleted however as I found out on EN I was wrong!, So other than unblock requests they can blank what they like, In terms of TPA being revoked I personally think it should be done to avoid things like BLPVIO and the human anatomy images being posted on their talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tomasmarget

User Tomasmarget (talk · contribs) is removing "no permission" templates, without adding permissions. --Smooth O (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Usually you should try to discuss the problem with the user before reporting here. I don't think that has happened. Probably, they misunderstand our policies in some way, and admin intervention isn't needed. Guanaco (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Smooth O and Guanaco: I left the user a notice about the issue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Amelamoula

This user has uploaded some photographs which are low-quality and plausibly own work, but also some which appear to be taken from social media:

My problem is that the last two appear on Pixabay which claims to provide them under CC0, but I can't tell whether this is true. In any case the uploader's claim of own work is highly implausible. Please could someone advise or take action on this? BethNaught (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The last two images are derived from copyright-protected works. The last image is probably a screenshot of this YouTube video and the other one from here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
While it doesn’t entirely rule out the possibility of it being a copyvio, I don’t believe the photo of the cat originates from that video. The Pixabay upload came months before it. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:World's Lamest Critic

I'm really upset as the user User:World's Lamest Critic is stating several times I'm a racist. I feel very uncomfortable by it and I don't want to tolerate this behavior. It was an reaction onasking to be polite for ' Really? Are you trying to piss me off? Good luck! :))', but is reaction was 'Racists don't deserve my attention'. I mentioned on the user' talk page that in my culture it is very offensive to be called a racist but he said I should get used to it. I am shocked to see this kind of behavior on Commons --Hannolans (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:World%27s_Lamest_Critic&curid=52958212&diff=275499881&oldid=275443790 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:World%27s_Lamest_Critic&oldid=275986676 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHannolans&type=revision&diff=275500611&oldid=275442481

I have warned the user. The next time they call you a racist or any similar name, a block would be in order. Happy new year. Wikicology (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --Hannolans (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not again. this is unrespectful. As I said I'm not a racist. --Hannolans (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hannolans: I'm wondering if you are easily offended, since you were not even mentioned in that edit. I simply acknowledged the warning that I was given. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not by name but as it is there because you called me a racist and you got that warning you meant me. Easily offended for committing a crime? Being a racist is a criminal act, so its really, really offensive to me. Also saying that I should not do edits on information about black people you said below because I you think do racist edits? I feel really uncomfortable with that. I'm writing articles about history and literature and cultural aspects is a part of it. I hope you have good intentions on Commons but since you are here on Commons this year your main contributions seem to be reverting and recat. --Hannolans (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to call another editor a racist, unless they self-identify as such. On this project it is acceptable to point out that edits may cause offence, do cause offence to the other editors and we should be free to say what the offensive nature is in an honest way.
@World's Lamest Critic: you were making a valid point, but lost it with that allegation. If you are frustrated with getting "technical" responses to a similar issue of offence, please approach an admin for help with mediation.
@Hannolans: With regard to adding Category:Black people in art to Category:Blackface, do not do that. You have no personal racist intentions, but I agree that making that edit is racially insensitive in the same way that adding Category:Women in art to Category:Drag queens would be seen as offensive by most people. "Literally" you can argue the case, but doing so misses the point. Again, you always have the option of inviting someone experienced with categorization of people to mediate, or propose a wider consensus or village pump discussion to avoid something like this becoming a two-party dispute. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: There was indeed no bad intention. This category was new and I re-used the mapping from the underlying existing category Category:Blackface minstrelsy that is mapped to Category:Africans in 19th-century art that is under the category Category:Black people in art. As we have that categorisation there it didn't occur to me that this mapping could be offensive. But indeed better to discuss the best categorisation in the right discussion place. --Hannolans (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hannolans: Thanks for pointing out those African categories on Blackface minstrelsy. I have removed them since these are depictions of black Americans and I have also removed the category "Stereotypical African costumes". I have already been warned about insinuating that editors may be racists, so I will not speculate on who added those categories or why. I will suggest again that you do not seem to understand the subject of blackface and your recent focus on it here and on Wikipedia is not a good use of your time. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: can you please be more polite. Category:Africans in art was added in 2006 by User:G.dallorto and since that time that categorisation is in place. The user G.dallorto is as he says 'gay and proud', but he is not mentioning he is a racist. About your advise to me not to work on Commons anymore, I wrote some articles about issues related to this subject in nlwiki and as those are linking to Commons, its important to have the right categorisation in place. I'm sure you know a lot but please help others instead of this offensive language --Hannolans (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Hannolans: , I don't know what G.dallorto's identification as gay has to do with anything we're discussing. Why did you bring that up? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because he is clearly not describing himself as racist but as open-minded and I don't like that you insinuating that editors here on Commons are racists just because of their edits. If you have a bias that every edit made might be racist and revert edits without giving arguments it's hard to cooperate. Every category and file has a discussion page, please use that --Hannolans (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW I agree with your removal of the category African people in art for blackface minstrel, and I'm sure that is was there because in 2006 we had less categories, and not intentional racist mapping. We now have Category:Historic racist caricatures of African Americans that is under Category:African Americans in art under Category:Black Africans in art under Category:Black people in art. But if that hierarchy is not ok to you, we should discuss that in a broader discussion in the Commons:Village pump. --Hannolans (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't call G.dallorto a racist or anything else. You brought them up. As I said, I didn't look to see who added the categories or when it was done. And you agree with the removal of the categories, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Let me ask you why you don't see a problem with Black Africans in art being the parent category of African Americans in art? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I bring this up as we should assume good faith with edits. I'm not stating the above mapping is correct or not but if it is not ok to you, we could discuss this on the Village pump or in the category discussion page. BTW I added a text explanation in Category:Black people in art with an explanation about that category as that might help against wrong categorisations (I copied the the text from enwiki). --Hannolans (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
No one starts a discussion at the Village Pump for every change they intend to make. If I am correcting an obviously incorrect categorisation, I will just make the change. I reiterate my opinion that you should stop editing anything to do with black people. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hannolans: Since this discussion began you added the Category:The Ten Little Niggers to File:TenLittleInjuns1868.png. Can you explain why you did this? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the same composition, see the explanation in w:Ten_Little_Indians. Note that the article Ten Little Indians links to Category:The Ten Little Niggers. --Hannolans (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
So even while you were complaining that I insinuated you were a racist, you decided it would be a good idea to add the category The Ten Little Niggers to an image? That seems like a really strange decision under the circumstances. I keep suggesting that you choose some other area to work on, but you keep working on images relating to black people and you keep making unlikely mistakes. What does an image of a piece of sheet music have to do with a children's book of a different name? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Because the category is currently used in the different wikipedias about the concept of the rhyme, and the different versions. This song is printed in hunderds editions, in different languages and different variations and titles, with and without lyrics and with several text variations. There is not one book and one song text but 400 different variante with the same roots: this song. So currently this category is thw overall concept category. As soon as we have more material or time we can create more subcategories in Commons and relink the wikipedias. One subcategory could be to distinguish the music song from and the books for children without music sheets, and the variants with indians and or editions per country or per year. It would make sense to create that categories and the current upper categories doesn't fit that well, but as it is linked to many wikipedia pages that needs to relinked best is to add first more material and after that subcategories when we have more material. --Hannolans (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added two subcategories Category:Aus Kamerun for the German book about the Kamerun version and Category:Ten Little Injuns for the Injuns version. I think a general main concept category would be better for both the songs and different books for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q184588 Any suggestions about the name? --Hannolans (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hannolans: I see that you have created Category:Stories for little children (1920), Sambo under Category:Stories for little children (1920). Can I suggest that instead of doing that, you instead add Category:Little Black Sambo? That way it would also be correctly categorised under Category:Old cartoons and illustrations that today would be described as racist. And I notice too that you uploaded the racist song "All Coons Look Alike To Me". If you are planning to upload more racist songs, perhaps we will need to have a category for them. Can you suggest an appropriate title? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Musée Annam / Grendill / Annam Imperatoria

Hi, I would like to file a request for a 2nd look at this person's contributions. Some of the I don't agree with. Such as changing category:Eastern Asia to Category:Greater East Asia here, as well as focus on the word "Annam", which would indicate a focus less against the communist govt. I could mention more if needed. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, File:Mlle Phạm-thị-ngọc-Trâm.png is uploaded but credited to another account (blocked and locked). Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC) I've also been wondering about this user, who has been putting back some fake vietnamese flags. I wonder if there is a connection with Namkhanh02 ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC) update, blocked. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC) I think he/she is back as User:Grendill, and still kind of messing categories up. with best wishes for the New Year, Daderot (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

And probably back again as 'Annam Imperatoria'. Unfortunately, he/she is disrupting categories... Daderot (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: , you blocked him earlier. Maybe action is needed here again. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
My block was related to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Musée Annam. Feel free to add another CU request. --Krd 17:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming a photo

Hello, Can you please rename my photo (File:Cosplay of Light Yagami by Rudra Protap Chackraborty 20161026.jpg) to this "Rudra Tenio Chakraborty as Light Yagami (cosplay) from Death Note, 10.26.2016.jpg" ?

Thanks User:Davey2010. Actually I don't come here, in Wikimedia Commons, often. I didn't know where to ask for help. I will use the COM:RENAME in future. Thanks again.Rudra Tenio Chakraborty (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rudra Tenio Chakraborty, No worries :), Ahhh right, Well anyway you're welcome, Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 18:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Insultos graves de User:Sardinaalabarbacoa

Sorry for writing in Spanish. Insultos graves, en español, por parte del usuario Sardinaalabarbacoa: diff https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LMLM&diff=277294848&oldid=275039336 LMLM (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done One week blocked. Yann (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

HoMen

HoMen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  seems intent on ignoring any and all communication as well as the basic principles of what this project is all about. They've uploaded several files under the same names as their previously deleted uploads (see, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HoMen). Are these different files under the same names, or was the content simply recreated outside of process? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

1 month for learning about copyright. Reuploaded content deleted. Unsure about nuking as most of the other uploads may be PD, but they are useless without proper copyrigt information. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nystart!!

Nystart!! (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Maybe it's time to take some actions against Nystart!! that continue to upload copyright protected images. -- Tegel (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Noting this user was blocked by a CU on enWP as a sock of globally locked Willschmut.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
They are reuploading deleted content. This is a blockable reason. Ankry (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I listed a NEW SOURCE. It's not copyright protected, now matter how much you repeat it. It is a 42 year old photo used by numerous websites! Nystart!! (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If it is only 42 yeart old, it may be copyrighted 78 subsequent years (120 years after creation in US). Ankry (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the user in question has been socking as an IP. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Marcus Cyron (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

After having now a long discussion with this user, in which he not even tried to understand and show respect four our rules, and after the 4th time he had uploaded the same image, ignoring all attempts to tell him, why he need to proof that the image is free of copyright, I've blocked him now for 3 days. Hopefully enough time to study our rules. Marcus Cyron (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:ShakespeareFan00

Self reporting due to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScandinavianSpringLogo.jpeg.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:KATZENWORLD LOGO.svg

These are the most recent withdrawls where a more competent approach would have avoided a completely unnecessary DR. As Comptence is required on Commons, I am asking an admin to apply some kind of time-out, as clearly competence is not being shown in the above instances.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's called a wikibreak. Log out, do something different for a week. Blocks on demand are a bad habit. --Fæ (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.. English Wikipedia used to have a concept called 'mentoring'. Would there be any admins willing to act as a mentor for User:ShakespeareFan00, for the next six months or so? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There‘s a bit of a Catch-22 concerning incompetence: the worst kind includes the belief that one has nothing to learn, (cf. w:Dunning-Kruger effect), while the capacity to acknowledge mistakes is itself an important area of competence here. (Speaking of enWP, a large proportion of the “CIR blocks” I’ve seen there are not for technical or linguistic failings, but for an apparent inability to accept advice or criticism.) So IMO you deserve kudos for pausing to ask for input; otherwise I second Fæ’s comment above. If you’re feeling compelled to edit when you shouldn’t, you might try the wikibreak enforcer script (I don’t know whether or not it works on Commons).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jcb - File:GillinghamSchool.png

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

I uploaded a file. It was erroneously tagged for speedy deletion and User:Jcb removed it. I had commented As per procedure on the talk page, contesting COM:COPYVIO. It was ignored. I then challenged him on his talk page. He then cited COM:SCOPE. Apparently, the local copy on Wikipedia, which was created due to deletion here, is reason enough to stay off commons. I use this on my user page, it is my own work. Limited uploads are quite clearly stated as allowed. He has run out of arguments, saying “I am not restoring it. End of discussion.”. No reason. Fine, I had taken the liberty of restoring it as it was quite clearly in scope and the argument had already been circular. He does not seem to understand the caveats of userspace usage, then has the audacity to suggest there is “community consensus” for deletion! He is, I feel, abusing administrator powers. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Reupload it again and you will be blocked. You are consuming our time completely out of proportion for one file that's probably copyvio and if it isn't would be out of scope. Jcb (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You are just out of reasons, can’t admit you’re wrong, because it upsets mr big admin. So you’re resorting to threats and forcibly ending the discussion- i.e abuse of power. English isn’t your first language, so maybe you haven’t quite grasped the nuance of COM:INUSE. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
HOW MANY TIMES. I made this. I only used CC0 material to make it, specially. You’re meant to find previous reference, not just assume COPYVIO. Go and delete everything on here that is own work. Go ahead. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: I discussed this on the talk page, I discussed this on your talk page. I made this, saying COPYVIO when you can’t find it anywhere is against COM:AGF and unwelcoming. Next, SCOPE is not a criteria for SPEEDY. So the file should have been restored and gone through proper process. But no. When I reuploaded you deleted it again citing some non-existant consensus. Your arguments were so clearly invalid, and you could not counter mine. So you have resorted to using your powers to fight me. That is worthy of an incident report. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, if you want proof it’s not COPYVIO, I used paint. I used a CC0 deer. I used the select tool to move it. I didn’t notice, but I overran the shield in doing so, hence the little nick in the lower left of the shield. I AM THE AUTHOR. You didn’t respond to the file talk page. It shouldn’t have been speedy deleted, so I am also requesting its immediate reinstatement. Bellezzasolo (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you recreated it, you do not own the copyright of the derivative! Bidgee (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO this is a rather extreme stance to take, to say the least: even though the TOO is low in the UK, I don’t think what would be described in heraldic terms as Vert a stag trippant Argent is copyrightable in the abstract. We have thousands of instances of arms that have been recreated in this manner, most of them based on blazons that are much more complex. Sure, any particular emblazonment (drawing or painting) of a coat of arms can be copyrighted, but I don’t see any reason to doubt the OP’s word that a free stock deer image was used in this case. In fact it’s standing on all four feet (statant), unlike in the original arms where one foot is raised (trippant).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I restored the image and started Commons:Deletion requests/File:GillinghamSchool.png, per the undeletion request. I don't think this is a candidate for speedy deletion, but in my opinion it should be deleted. In any case, there's no point arguing over this image and the appropriate procedure. Please comment at the DR, and explain how this is a useful image. If there are remaining copyright concerns, those can be discussed there as well. Guanaco (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass copyvios by blocked enwp sock

Please see uploads. This user blocked at enwp for persistent copyvio uploads. His socks below now uploading images to commons. Very likely copyvios.

Convenience links:

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked & Nuked. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Zhuyifei1999. You're an angel! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Two more

Cheers,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Confirmed as socks so uploads most certainly copyvios. Pls nuke and block. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Érico (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Érico. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclosed his/her intention to violate the Terms of Service

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

AshFriday has disclosed his/her intention to violate the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation through violating the policies of en.wiki, namely, w:WP:SOAP and w:WP:CENSOR, as explained at w:WP:ACTIVIST. I quote from his/her own user page: "Planning to clean up en.Wiki and Commons of copyright vios and smut." I.e. remove smut from en.wiki, which is a clear violation of w:WP:CENSOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

w:WP:CENSOR is an English Wikipedia policy. We follow Commons:PORN, Commons:Scope and COM:L. If you want to report a violation of the ToU on another wiki, you can do so at meta:. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Different home. different rules. Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, another thing bothers me: he/she has initiated a series of deletion requests, and in almost everyone of those he/she wrote "low quality image" when it's most certainly not the case (photographically speaking). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, all of the images that editor nominated are useless. Just because the camera in an iPad is of a decent resolution doesn't mean that the dick pic someone took with it is of decent quality. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: , @Jeff G.: To the best of my knowledge, I'm following the normal DR procedure and allowing the community to decide whether the files in question are of realistic educational use. I'm posting deletion requests for both male and female subjects, along with clear and/or suspected copyright violations. I'm not doing this indiscriminately, I'm looking carefully at each image to determine whether it is within scope and of value to the project. We have a vast backlog of unused amateur photos, removing the least professional examples will not harm Commons in any way. For the record, while I only joined up a few days ago, I'm not a sockpuppet, and every nomination I've posted so far has been made in good faith. AshFriday (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Smutty files are held to extra scrutiny. I see no problem here with the user's actions. If a certain file was deleted and shouldn't have been, ask for review. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A new account only here to rid Commons of "smut" is a problem account. Since starting their new account on Commons 4 days ago, AshFriday (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has created the following deletion requests, all on sexual images apart from the first six, presumably fitting their personal tastes for "smut":

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eropolis Toulouse 2008 03.jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Courageous Cunt 06.jpg
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Courageous Cunt 04.jpg
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shaved Vagina.jpg
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schamlippen 03.jpg
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Man on top.jpg
  7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Close-up Missionary Position.jpg
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Intercourse Woman on Top.jpg
  9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cum leaking out.jpg
  10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Courageous Cunt.jpg
  11. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal Penetration.jpg
  12. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mريaم Faرeس.jpg
  13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis entering vagina.jpg
  14. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman performing fellatio on man.jpg
  15. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female performing fellatio on male 2.jpg
  16. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female performing fellatio on male.jpg
  17. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude woman masturbating.jpg
  18. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tubuh Laki-Laki.jpg
  19. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penis ereksi.jpg
  20. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buang air besar.jpg
  21. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beschnitter Penis.jpg
  22. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Before triple-p injection.jpg
  23. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asian T Penis.jpg
  24. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asian boy penis.jpg
  25. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apadravya 10mm.jpg
  26. Commons:Deletion requests/File:ALANIUS 02.jpg
  27. Commons:Deletion requests/File:ALAIN07.jpg
  28. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aha 012.jpg
  29. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adult human penis flaccid.jpg
  30. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A penis viewed from the front.jpg
  31. Commons:Deletion requests/File:8-Shot sequence of a penis going soft to hard.jpg
  32. Commons:Deletion requests/File:508377-14aea10f41b7cfd8d79.jpg
  33. Commons:Deletion requests/File:48871472064706-dd4cd225.jpg
  34. Commons:Deletion requests/File:230604 itsme 011.jpg
  35. Commons:Deletion requests/File:1human penis.jpg
  36. Commons:Deletion requests/File:01foreskin.jpg
  37. Commons:Deletion requests/File:3kilt.jpg
  38. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AdRN - naked man in open seated pose - uncircumcised penis slightly engorged - natural pubic hair.jpg
  39. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazilian Wax Mons Pubis.jpg
  40. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bed Fingering.jpg
  41. Commons:Deletion requests/File:At the Pool.jpg
  42. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hawaii Nude Beach.jpg
  43. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haulover Nude Beach.jpg
  44. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aroused and Shaved Vulva.jpg
  45. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Tergo.jpg
  46. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wife creampie at new years eve party 02.JPG
  47. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A recumbent male masturbating with his legs bent and apart.JPG
  48. Commons:Deletion requests/File:05 Vulva Latina.jpg
  49. Commons:Deletion requests/File:01 - Unshaved Vulva.jpg
  50. Commons:Deletion requests/File:002 Vulva.jpg

This is misuse of the deletion tool by someone with a clear "mission" to clean up Commons, that is not for the good of this project. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think most of those 50 would fail to meet the guidelines of Commons:Nudity. You could make a case for some but most of that didn't add to the collection. We delete out of scope personal images of someones face because they simply fall out of scope. Why we should have to go back and fourth over out of scope really personal images just doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I don't want to spend my morning looking at all of the rest of the amature porn though and trying to judge for myself what really falls in and out of eduse. I'll pass that to someone else, and while I don't disagree that most of those would probably have got a vd from me, I think Fæ is also correct in that a person on a mission to reform commons is probably not good for the health of the project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We are in agreement, most could be deleted as out of scope. The problem here is that this is part of a mission for a new account, rather than based on a solid understanding of Commons policies and past deletion discussions.
There are frequent issues around understanding what are "personal images" that fail to meet Scope and which are within Scope, similarly Nudity is frequently interpreted as "we only need one very good image of a Prince Albert", which is clearly unhelpful. For these reasons, as well as individual administrator's strong personal opinions, even long term hosted sexual images tend to get deleted by default, rather than based on firm grounds of logic and policy. Based on our experience of past campaigns of this type, they are disruptive and add nothing to either Community consensus or a better interpretation of policy. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with multiple people above. This user is out to disruptively censor our project, in violation of COM:OMGAPENIS (part of our Project Scope Policy). They need to stop or leave.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I just went through the list of nominations provided above. I actually looked into each and every one of them, checking the cats they were in for similar images and comparing image quality, unique features, illustrative qualities, angle, field of view, etc, etc. This editor's nominations are not indiscriminate -or at least this list doesn't show as much- but their copied and pasted rationale was hit or miss, at best. Looking at their nomination of this image for example, it seems apparent that the editor never even bothered to look at the image. I cannot image a more illustrative image for an article on erections. In fact, I plan to use this image in that article, because it's an amazingly good one. There were a number of very high quality images that were nommed with the text "low quality image" in it, which is blatantly false.
I think this editor needs to be told to stop until they have a better grasp on policy and are willing to spend more time checking out the images before nominating them. Yes; they might help us trim some of the weeds. But this is a shotgun approach that is likely to be more disruptive than helpful in the future. MjolnirPants (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants and MPants at work: If you included that particular image in an article, I would withdraw the DR as it would be in scope. However, I'm a little curious - do you seriously believe it is a good quality set of images, and that the majority of the community would agree with you? AshFriday (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and yes. Without hesitation. Though I'm backing out on my avowal to use it on the page as there's another, comparable one there already. That image, even though it is small, methodically illustrates the procession of an. It's not titillating in any way, it's not obscene in any way. It's an entirely academic image. So even though I'm not going to use it, I still absolutely support its retention here. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants and MPants at work: Do you consider it a good quality image in comparison to - for example - this photo? I'm speaking in terms of general technical quality, unrelated to specific subject matter. AshFriday (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Those two images are so different that the only similarities are that they're digital photographs of people. Comparing them in the way you want me to is an utterly meaningless exercise, but for what it's worth: the penis image has significantly more educational (and encyclopedic) value than that one. The penis image clearly illustrates a common and commonly misunderstood biological function of the human body. That image is just a random art photo.
And you are shifting the goalpost. I've already answered your question; directly and unambiguously. If that was not the answer you wanted, that's too bad. But it's not an invitation to keep asking me slightly different questions until you get the answer you want. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants and MPants at work: Actually, I have not shifted the goalposts, my exact words were: "do you seriously believe it is a good quality set of images, and that the majority of the community would agree with you?" The question referred to the general quality of that particular file. I would like to get an idea of what you consider a good quality image, as you've stated that my description of it being a low quality image is in error. AshFriday (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Category:Flaccid and erect human penises in comparison, which currently has 98 files as well as one subcategory containing videos. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm unwilling to post any more DRs until this matter has been sorted out. AshFriday (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If the deletion requests aren't indiscriminate -- and it sounds like they are not -- then why would this not be a useful maintenance activity, rather than a problem? Maybe a trout/warning to use better rationales in the DRs and a restriction if that doesn't improve, but if someone said they were going to clean up social media-style photos on Commons, personal drawings, low resolution pictures of animals, or duplicate images of trains I doubt we would see them on this page. How is this different from "adopting" a particular clean-up area? Keeping with the enwiki analogy above, "activists" in the literal sense are most definitely allowed on enwiki; it's only activism that causes them to violate Wikipedia policies that's a problem (e.g. a battleground mentality, pov-pushing, adding undue weight to a perspective, etc.). I know nudity is a sensitive issue in the Commons community, and if someone is starting deletion requests based on inappropriate rationales or in an otherwise disruptive way, that's one thing, but if they're starting DRs for things based on our deletion criteria, what's the problem? — Rhododendrites talk |  01:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

From where I sit, the problem is that these noms are just barely not indiscriminate. The rationale given for deletion for something like half of them is almost laughably wrong. For example, look at this image, then read the rationale. In what way is that a low-quality image? In what way is the encyclopedic value "questionable"? It's a perfectly encyclopedic photograph of a vulva. And have you noticed that commons isn't an encyclopedia? So even if it had no encyclopedic value, that's still not even remotely a valid rationale. Now, I'm not saying this editor needs to be blocked. But I am saying that this editor would do best to stop with these nominations for the time being; they've caused drama, and the quality of the contributions of this editor so far has been hit and miss at best. I'm saying that Ash should familiarize themselves with commons norms better, back off on the claim to be here to remove "smut", and slow down with the nominations. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants and MPants at work: As previously suggested, if you believe this file is a good quality image with unquestionable encyclopedic value, you should post it to an article and thereby place it unambiguously within scope. As I've already said, I will withdraw the deletion request from any nominated photo that is in mainspace use. AshFriday (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Find me the policy that states that "not being used" is sufficient grounds for deletion. MjolnirPants (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It’s more or less the converse: use in any sister project makes a media file prima facie within COM:SCOPE. (That doesn’t give it immunity on that ground, but raises the bar considerably against the nominator.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants and MPants at work: I've made no such claim. As Odysseus1479 pointed out, posting the photo into mainspace use would automatically place it within COM:SCOPE. Why are you unwilling to post these two files into the mainspace if they're both of good quality and unquestionable encyclopedic value? AshFriday (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
AshFriday, I think you misunderstand Commons. This is not a holding-place for images waiting to be used in "mainspace" as you call it, or a Wiki sister project. It isn't a requirement for a user here to justify their "good quality & in scope" rationale by posting it on a Wikipedia article. Indeed, the editorial decision over image use in articles is entirely the responsibility of sister projects and editors on that project. While use on a sister project does tend to settle any "in scope" argument about individual images (at least, as long as it remains in use) the rule is not symmetrical. There's only room for a handful of images within any given article while there is room on Commons for a large number. This is true regardless of the subject matter. It is reasonable to carefully curate the repository to remove images that are unlikely to be of educational use due to dire quality and especially if there is an abundance of better images. However the threshold here is a reasonable expectation of educational use, not the presence of a Wikipedia link. The terms "encyclopedic value" and "educational value" are not the same thing. Nor is it a requirement for such value to be "unquestionable", merely "reasonable". But I also agree with Rhododendrites that the scope of a persons interest on Commons is none of our business, as long as their actions are generally useful and improve the project/repository. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for your input. Here are my counterpoints:

It isn't a requirement for a user here to justify their "good quality & in scope" rationale.

Mjolnir has more or less required me to justify the term "low quality with questionable encyclopedic value". That being the case, I believe it's fair to request that he justify his counterclaim that this image is "a perfectly encyclopedic photograph of a vulva" (his words).

There's only room for a handful of images within any given article while there is room on Commons for a large number.

Mjolnir could easily post the images on non-English projects or related articles dealing with the human reproductive system. I already checked, there are literally dozens of them.

This is not a holding-place for images waiting to be used in "mainspace" as you call it, or a Wiki sister project.

I've never made that particular claim. I have simply informed Mjolnir that he could easily prove that the two files mentioned above are in scope by posting them to literally any mainspace.

The terms "encyclopedic value" and "educational value" are not the same thing.

True, and perhaps I should have worded my deletion requests more carefully. However, I believe that most users here would see a correlation between the terms "educational value" and "encyclopedic value".

Nor is it a requirement for such value to be "unquestionable", merely "reasonable".

As mentioned above, Mjolnir has stated that this file is a perfectly encyclopedic photograph of a vulva, implying that it is above question. I am simply replying to his position that it is of unquestionable encyclopedic value.
That said, my view on this subject is that we should all stop arguing, take a look at the files in question, and decide whether they are within scope. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the DR procedure, and I will naturally give my undivided support to whatever consensus is reached by the community. AshFriday (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
AshFriday, you aren't listening. You have repeatedly required another user to prove an image is of encyclopedic value by posting it to a sister project. You said "Why are you unwilling to post ... into the mainspace if they're both of good quality and unquestionable encyclopedic value?" The answer is he doesn't have to and in fact it would be absolutely harmful to those other projects if users on Commons started posting things on articles just to prove some point here. I find it a bit distasteful that you think "non-English projects" are a convenient over-spill in which to dump images if the en:wp article is too full. Please show some respect to those independent projects' editorial choices. There isn't a "correlation between the terms "educational value" and "encyclopedic value"" any more than between "human" and "mother". They have different meanings. An encyclopaedia is only one form of educational media, and the Wikipedia is a rather limited type of encyclopaedia wrt image use. The big point is that educational value is far far larger and on Commons we are not bound by the needs of just one kind of educational publication. No, Mjolnir hasn't stated his opinion is "without question". He's merely stated an opinion. The key thing is that for DR we may see a range of opinions, some stated boldly, some weakly, and on some areas there is not unanimity. A requirement for things to be "without question" black and white is not helpful. Try to work towards a consensus and finding common ground, rather than bullying someone else to post images onto wiki articles. -- Colin (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: As I said, we should all stop arguing and look at the files in question. If you honestly believe they're in scope, you can vote "keep". If the consensus reached is that most/all of them should be kept, I will adjust my nomination criteria to reflect the standards of the community. AshFriday (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rhododendrites and MjolnirPants are correct. However, it is not incorrect to refer to this user's DR as destructive but I don't think censorship applies. I would encourage AshFriday to slow down, understand our policy prior to further deletion requests. Happy new year. Wikicology (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ash, Please stop pinging me in every comment. I am perfectly capable of checking this thread on my own and your constant pings are very annoying. I wholeheartedly concur with the points raised by Colin and the advice offered by Wikicology (which you might recognize as functionally identical to advice I've offered you already). MjolnirPants (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blocking of AshFriday - This editor is clearly on a one man crusade to delete all porn-related images from this project, No doubt about it it's disruptive editing and as such they should be blocked for it, I would support unblocking providing they're topic-banned from ALL DRs (That means no commenting and no !voting) - Any violation should lead to an indef block. –Davey2010Talk 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blocking of AshFriday - Despite the fact that these DR's are not acceptable (and I have voted keep on a few) I feel that AshFriday's stated aims are consistent with the TOU in that some reasonable effort has been made to identify images that are likely to be out of scope. While AshFriday should be mandated to perhaps adhere to a reasonable limit of DR's or to be topic banned from making any. A better use of time would be to point out that only some of these images are acceptable, and even with the stricter rules on nude images most of these images will be kept. And ask politely that AshFriday puts a bit more thought into his efforts to keep commons tidy. For the avoidance of doubt, "educational value" and "encyclopedic value" are distinct, "encyclopedic value" is its simplest form is an image of potential use in any Wikimedia project, and "educational value" is any image which depicts a subject in a way which means it may be used in a educational setting, but not on Wikipedia. And finally perhaps it would be an idea for someone to do a CU on this single purpose editor. If AshFriday does another set of DR's unlikely to succeed perhaps I would think differently. Regards. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Support running CU. The first day's edits, including cross-wiki editing, are a give away that this is not a novice user and this is likely to be a POV warrior SPA/disposable account. The claim "I'm not a sockpuppet" with no other explanation, does not tell the whole story. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd support running a CU too, Looking at their contribs their first edit was to make loads of DRs .... No one should know how to do this on their first time here ... We're clearly not dealing with a first-time editor that's for sure. –Davey2010Talk 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Taking into account the history of AshFriday, I think any good faith solution would have to be based on a CU confirming he is unlikely to be a sockpuppet. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Fae, I wasn't aware that any user is required to provide "further explanation", particularly when AGF should be taken into account by long term users who ought to know better. However, to satisfy your evident curiosity: yes, I'm familiar with wikimedia policies and procedures, as I was active on en.Wiki for several years before leaving the project for personal reasons. I have recently decided to return, again for personal reasons. For reasons of privacy, I will not discuss the circumstances of either my departure or return, as I assume privacy is a right granted to every user regardless of how long their account has been registered. Sufficient to say that I left of my own free will and I am not a sock puppet, regardless of whatever conclusion you, Dave and Jeff have leapt to.
That said: go ahead, perform a CU and allow an impartial administrator to make whatever decision he/she sees fit. Due to the rising hostility I've noted in this thread, I suspect that the outcome will be less than favorable, but knowing the system as well as I do, it's an outcome I'm prepared to accept.
On the other hand, as this will probably be my last chance to express my views on this noticeboard, I will do precisely that and place all of my observations on the public record.
I've been watching this site for years, and I am frankly shocked at the atmosphere of paranoia that has developed throughout both the administration and the general userbase. AGF is at an all-time low, DUCK is at an all-time high, and witchunts are often conducted on the flimsiest of pretexts.
As I stated previously, there is a vast backlog of poorly shot amateur photos which practically nobody is willing to do anything about for fear of being accused of censorship. On a personal level, I think this phobia dates back to Jimbo's well-publicized attempt to purge Commons without due process. Well, that was seven year ago: get over it. At this point of time, no one has the ability to censor Commons on a whim; it will never happen again. We can safely start removing sexually explicit material which the community judges to be out of scope.
I nominated fifty odd images for deletion, the majority of which even my critics agree would fail to meet the guidelines of Commons:Nudity. That being the case, what negative impact have my actions had on the project? What harm have they done to Commons? Literally, none. As far as I can see, my worst crime has been to ruffle the feathers of a few long term editors who've taken issue with the new kid on the block "invading" their territory. If you're going to start blocking new users simply because they're attempting to clean up a very real problem, you'd better post a warning along with the usual welcome message: please refrain from making deletion requests for X number of days or you may be mistaken for a sockpuppet.
Fae, you went to the trouble of tracking down every one of my DRs on Commons, along with three edits I made on Wikipedia. Well, let me ask you: what else are you prepared to do? Are you willing to go through the rest of the project posting deletion requests on images which are of questionable value? How about you, Jeff G.? Or you, Davey2010? Are any of you willing to spend hours every day checking the backlog for low-grade, poorly shot sexually explicit images that add very little - if anything - of educational or encyclopedic merit? In all probability, this will be a time-consuming task requiring the attention of a large number of editors. If you aren't willing to contribute your energies, then you'd better stop chasing away people who are.
Here are my conclusions, such as they are:
1. Commons has a huge problem with potentially out of scope sexual content crowding out the collection. We will need to resolve this problem sooner or later.
2. Users are reluctant to confront the issue for fear of being accused of "censorship", suspected of hiding an agenda and subjected to undeserved peer criticism.
3. New users wishing to deal with this problem are subjected to suspicion, undue levels of scrutiny and the threat of blocking. In the long run, this atmosphere of paranoia will contribute to the problem by driving away editors acting in good faith.
4. New users should be encouraged to act according to their conscience regarding sexually explicit material rather than discouraged by long term users.
5. Commons is not censored. This does not mean, however, that Commons is required to accept every sexually explicit image uploaded to the site, especially when the image is of questionable educational/encyclopedic value.
6. The long-standing policy of assuming good faith should be promoted over the "atmosphere of paranoia" mentioned above. AGF has been in decline over the past few years and will continue to have a negative effect on the project as long as the actions of new users are automatically scrutinized for "suspicious activity".
7. Familiarity with Commons policy and procedure does not equal sockpuppetry. Assumptions of this kind are highly detrimental to the userbase: just because someone doesn't act like a stereotype newb doesn't mean they should be blocked.
8. A deletion request should be judged solely upon the quality and educational/encyclopedic value of the image, not on the motives of the nominator. This is sheer common sense.
I have pleaded my case - such as it is - and will await the consensus of the community. Please note that in the interests of maintaining harmony, I have refrained from making any further deletion requests until this matter has been settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshFriday (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
One more thing, Fae: three minor edits on Wikipedia does not constitute "cross wiki editing", nor does it imply malign intent. AshFriday (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@AshFriday: No. What does "ASG" stand for? What does "smut" mean to you? What have you done to follow your "conscience regarding sexually explicit material"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: My apologies for the typographical error. I meant to say "AGF": Assume Good Faith.
"Smut" refers to low quality sexually explicit photographic material with questionable (or no) educational/encyclopedic value.
"Conscience regarding sexually explicit material": if a user honestly believes that an image - sexual or otherwise - is of low quality and of questionable educational/encyclopedic value, they should nominate it for deletion, regardless of whatever criticism might follow. AshFriday (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@AshFriday: Do please answer Jeff G’s question above me, I don’t want to step on this. Well my own thoughts; I don’t know if you’re a sock or not. I’m not an admin; I’m certainly not a CU, that’s way above my pay grade. You haven’t broken the wiki by what you’re doing but taking a seemingly random axe at 50 images is not how I would start a discussion. We can all tell that you have an agenda and to your credit at least you say so on your own user page so we can move past that one.
I said myself early in this mess that I agree, “I think most of those 50 would fail to meet the guidelines of Commons:Nudity”. None of it broke the wiki. This is not the proper way to have a proper discussion on this topic though. You’re essentially asking for a large policy change to be jumpstarted by 50 DR’s. That could be seen as inept or quite aggressive.
Onto your points: I do agree with your first point. And you yourself said this needs to be fixed sooner or later. The thing is tons of backlogs need to be fixed sooner or later. Some of it’s easy, some of it’s not. You picked one of the most controversial topics for reasons that I can only think that I see it as a backlog where as you see it as a moral crisis.
2-4: Just no. 4 is a big no. Users should be encouraged to act on commons policy. New users are encouraged to start slow, yes, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy of censorship at play.
5 I do agree with. The guidelines of Commons:Nudity in my interpretation to a point agree as well. Where that point ends is who’s to say what does and does not have educational use? You? I’m sorry but you are not what one would call a neutral arbiter. I personally don’t want to go through pictures of armature porn. I can find what I feel are more constructive ways to contribute to the project, also I just frankly don’t want to look through all of that. Granted this is how the backlog of these photos happened but in any case here we are.
We have plenty of images that are of Educational use and not currently used. Now some of those images may offend you. Get over it. That is the scope of the project. If an image is of educational use but not currently used in a WP mainspace that doesn’t mean that should be deleted. That’s not how commons works. Users are encouraged to act upon policy.
6-8 aren’t wrong but I feel you’re twisting them to fit your situation and that isn’t fair. I don’t think its outrageous when users who have been here for years see someone new nominate 50 DR’s on a very contentious topic and begin to suspect something’s not right. I don’t think that’s a witchhunt entirely. Although the talk of blocks was taking this a bit too far when you didn’t continue any activity that brought up this whole thing in my personal opinion and no one showed any evidence of sockpuppetry.
Finally thank you for abstaining from any additional DR’s. I could be wrong but I don’t think you’re really a sock but I think you could have found a different way to approach this then filling 50 DR’s the way you did. Also wow I wrote a page for this mess. This is why this topic can be so contentious. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sixflashphoto: Thank you for your willingness to discuss the issue (and for agreeing that there is a problem with the backlog). My view is that we've needed to address the elephant in the room for some time now, and my observations have led me to the conclusion that many people here are reluctant to face the subject head on.
You said that we have plenty of images that are of Educational use and not currently used. I have no problem with that; I am in total agreement with Commons' mission statement. Nor do I find sexually explicit content offensive. However, by the same token, I consider some of it to be of poor quality and of questionable value, which is precisely what I've stipulated in the rationale for most of the DRs. I've also raised issues relating to personality rights and discussed the possibility that some of the material might be "revenge porn", both of which are important concerns. At no point have I described the nominated images as offensive. Nor have I said that "an image (which) is of educational use but not currently used in a WP mainspace ... should be deleted." As a matter of fact, I would bitterly oppose the removal of any educationally valid image, sexually explicit or otherwise.
I have not encouraged anybody to act outside of Commons policy. At the same time, however, I would hope that if a user honestly believes that an image - sexual or otherwise - is of low quality and of questionable educational/encyclopedic value, they would nominate it for deletion, and not be intimidated by the possibility that adverse reactions might follow. Which, incidentally, is what I meant by following their conscience.
I certainly haven't claimed to be an arbiter of what constitutes educational value: I am leaving that up to the community as a whole. A deletion request is decided by consensus, something which I have virtually no influence over. I would like to hope that certain parties hold no sway over the general community either, but unfortunately, that may not be the case.
I'm not sure what you mean by "major policy change". Which policy do you think I'm attempting to alter?
I didn't post any DR with the specific intention of "starting a discussion" (though I suspected there might be some debate over whether the images are in scope). I simply rolled up my sleeves and got to work. And why not? We've neglected this chore long enough, and as we both agree, it has to get done at some point (also: please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any policy which limits the number of deletion requests a user can make per day).
My nominations were not "random", seemingly or otherwise. I deliberately avoided files which were already in use, images which I believed were of good technical quality, and photos which I perceived to be of educational/encyclopedic value. The last two might be subject to interpretation, but that's what the DR process is for.
For the record, I do not see the backlog as a moral crisis. Like yourself, I see it as a long-neglected task that needs to be dealt with, in the same way that we deal with copyright violations and spam: if it isn't within SCOPE, remove it. Keep any free license image which is of realistic educational value and delete anything that isn't.

I don’t think its outrageous when users who have been here for years see someone new nominate 50 DR’s on a very contentious topic and begin to suspect something’s not right. I don’t think that’s a witchhunt entirely.

I'm afraid we have to disagree on this point. During the years I've been watching this site, I've seen numerous editors flagrantly ignore AGF where newcomers are concerned, sometimes to the point of harassment, and often over minor errors or an innocuous remark. Naturally, I can't mention any names, but I honestly think that we - as a community - have lost sight of how important it is to assume good faith in every situation, especially when we need volunteers to handle task we ourselves might hesitate to do ourselves.
Anyway, thanks once again for your thoughts on this matter. If my account survives this incident report, I'd be open to more of your counsel and advice. AshFriday (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we get an admin to look at this? I see a brand new user being told the same thing by a large number of more experienced users, and simply refusing to listen. That, in and of itself, needs to be dealt with. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I closed most of the DRs as kept, except a few where there is a consensus for deletion. I blocked AshFriday for a month. We don't need people with an agenda. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Siddiqsazzad001

After his second block for uploading unfree files after warnings, this user is back, doing it again. He cannot grasp the concept of copyright, and keeps uploading derivative work as his own. I do not trust him. He was offering here to create English Wikipedia articles (there too), and has claimed rights never attained.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for 3 months. Taivo (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

special:contributions/Heather Hensley

possible INeverCry? Creates an account, and immediately nominates for deletion. Also, uses Visual File Change and Cat-a-lot. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.63.39.142 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done "if it walks like a duck..." Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user from uk.wiki comes here to retaliate

Hello. I am admin at uk.wiki and I blocked User talk:Yuriy Urban on January 12 for harassment of User talk:Dgho, ethnic abuses and other misbehavior. Then Yuriy Urban arrived here to nominate more than 30 of Dgho's files. After my statement it is a personal retaliation he threatened me with my files check. Now he nominated my uploads which of course makes me uncomfortable, despite I'm sure my uploads are mostly OK.

Then he didn't stop and wrote other threats in Ukrainian, meaning literally "Now I'll check as well as continue to fight against all of you non-Slavic ones after returning. I think more subtle..."

Please stop misbehavior of Yuriy Urban here. Thanks in advance.--Brunei (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

-revi 님 차단 요청

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

Drama imported from a non wikimedia wiki. This board is only for commons related complains. If User:2018년 continues with personal attacks, copyvios, etc. he will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

큰숲백과 계정을 되돌려달라는 요청인데도 불구 제 편집을 되돌리고 협박까지 하고 있습니다. 대림 님도 봐주십시오. 빨리 -revi님을 당장 탄핵+적절한 조치를 해 주시고 큰숲백과 하시는 분들 큰숲백과 계정 되돌려주세요. 그리고 miraeze산하 위키에서의 전역 잠금을 풀어주시기 바랍니다. 엉뚱한 위키도 못하게 막는 것인데다가 저는 잘못이 없고 정당한 계획을 한 것입니다. Mykim5902제재계획 문서도 복구해주시기 바랍니다. 대림 님도 봐주시고 제 계정 복구해주십시오. 당장요.--2018년 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

He is asking for me blocked, because I am refusing to unlock him elsewhere (bigforest.miraheze.org).
I was reverting his edit on my talk page on Commons because he was asking for unblock on non-WMF wikis, which has nothing to do with Commons. Please note, this user has said ‘함부로 지우지마 지우면좆되는줄 알아.(If you delete this, I will fuck you)’, ‘그 개새끼 (that son of a bitch) fuck you’. (From edit history of file page, that son of a bitch is Christian Ferrer. (Links available for admins only, sorry non-admins) I’m involved so I’m leaving decision to someone else. — regards, Revi 03:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm year2018(2018년). He mistranslated my message by purpose to block me. -revi insulted and blocked me in another wiki and I just want to get sorry for him. Also, -revi deleted some files that I had uploaded without any warning. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.73.113.160 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
제 생각으론 전역차단이 옳다고 생각합니다.--Shortwikimail (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
전역추방은 2개 이상 위키미디어 프로젝트에서 영구적으로 차단되거나 추방되었을때 논의할 수 있다고 알고 있습니다. 2개 이상 프로젝트에서 차단될경우 논의를 시작하고자 생각중이였습니다. -Ldmsys(Alt) (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
지금 똑같은 일이 여러번 벌어지고 있으니 곧 논의할 수 있겠네요. --Centrair (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
220.73.113.160 who called himself "2018년" say that -revi mistranslated their message. but, i dare say that he translate it more favorable to 2018년. "함부로" means threaten other. and "좆" means penis, understandably signify "I will fuck you". "개새끼" can be literal translated as "puppy", also means "s.o.b.". (YBM K-E Dictionary translate "개새끼" as "a son of a bitch", too). there is no incorrect translation on -revi's saying. in korean, 2018년 said more rudely than translation --Quadraears (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is year2018(2018년). -revi used some bad words in Korean like '개새끼' or '좆' in another wiki where -revi is administrator. The only reason why I used these bad words is to get sorry for his bad word. 220.73.113.160 05:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
YOU used that words, not -revi. Do not lie. --Centrair (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Do not hold everyone up to ridicule. the only person uses insult was you, 2018년. i saw you on other wikis like libre or uncyclopedia, you constantly ignore each's ToU and hurl abuses at each wiki's administrators. you also blocked at korean wikipedia because of your habit said above. by now, you have to think that you're wrong, not different. --Quadraears (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(I'm Ldmsys(Alt)) Even if that's true, why do you drag things that happen on other wikis here? And if it's not a lie, give us evidence. -Ldmsys (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is my user discussion link to wiki where -revi is administrator. An[13] Everybody welcomed me and someone even said that he is admired by me. But suddenly -revi said that I was blocked by me. 58.226.29.168 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is bad words which you said '-revi said it' in that page? --Centrair (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
He blocked my account. And he deleted comments that he had said. 1.239.39.144 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
So when did revi use the same word as 개**? -Ldmsys (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Give us evidence. Every action is logging in Special:logs on Mediawiki system(even delete comments). If your comments are truth, you can show us evidence. --Centrair (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 Strong support I agree to the terms of the 2018 account.-Ldmsys(Alt) (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. -revi and everyone, please forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.73.113.160 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

i know that you asked everyone's pardon at uncyclopedia laboratory. and you say "it was useless." I wish that your apology on this time is sincere unlike last time. --Quadraears (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(위의 글을 번역한 것입니다.) 백괴 실험실에서도 이렇게 용서를 구하셨지만, 2018님은 "내가 데꿀멍해봤는데 소용없다" 라는 식으로, 사죄가 진실된 것인지 의심가는 행동을 보이셨습니다. 이번의 사죄는 전과는 다르게 진실되었으면 좋겠습니다. --Quadraears (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
저도 비속어 쓴 것에 대해서는 진심으로 반성하고 있습니다. 음라 님께도 죄송하고 너무 죄송한 마음이 들었습니다. 그러나 명예훼손의 범위가 어떻게 되는지 알려 주셨으면 좋겠어요. 정혜성 키가 136으로 보인다는 의견 내기도 명예훼손에 해당되나요? 욕과 비속어를 쓴 것에 대해선 너무 미안합니다. 님들도 제가 욕과 비속어 쓰는 거 배우지 마시고 저도 안쓰려고 노력하고 있습니다. 님들도 제가 쓰는 욕과 비속어 배우지 마십시오. 제 소원은 모든 사람들이 제가 쓰는 욕과 비속어를 배우지 않는 것입니다. 근데 명예훼손의 범위가 어떻게 되는지는 매우 궁금합니다. 저도 욕과 비속어를 쓴 건 진심으로 미안해하고 있습니다.--2018년 (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
사과한다 해놓고 잘못을 인정을 안하니까 좋은 소리를 못 듣는겁니다. 다른 사람이 말리면 그런줄 알아야지 여기까지 와서 난리를 칩니까? 거기다 사과한다는 사람이 백괴실험실, 큰숲사전, 구스위키에도 다른 사람 비방을 했더군요? 모를줄 알았나요? 그리고 당신의 소원은 여기서 상관없습니다. --Centrair (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
누가 저를 트롤이라고 했습니까? 누가 저한테 깽판을 부렸죠? 저 너무 화나서 머리 폭발 직전입니다.--2018년 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
당신은 트롤입니다. 이렇게 말해야 알아듣는군요. 그런데 여기엔 그렇게 말한 사람이 없네요. --Centrair (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
저는 트롤이 아니라 3월 이전이므로 아직 초등학생인 사용자일 뿐입니다. 표리부동 님은 억울하게 계정이 잠기셨습니다. 제가 트롤이라면 표리부동님도 트롤이라고 해주십시오.저 트롤이면 표리부동님도 트롤입니다. 표리부동님이 트롤 아니면 저도 트롤 아니고요. 트롤을 나쁘게만 봐주지 말아주십시오. 겨울왕국 트롤은 좋은 트롤이지 않습니까. 진심으로 사과드립니다. 아직 초등학생이어서 온라인 세상을 모른 결과입니다.--2018년 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
나이가 적고 많음과 트롤이고 아니고는 상관 없고, 표리부동씨는 백괴에서 IP로 당신을 욕해서 계정이 잠긴 것입니다. 딱하셔라, 트롤의 물귀신 작전으로 백괴에서 추방당해버리시고. --Centrair (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
사과를 할거면 사과를 하던가, 잘못 없다는 태도로 나오지 마세요. --Centrair (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2018년

He bothered other users(User_talk:2018년, special:diff/280524152, #-revi 님 차단 요청, and so on). --Centrair (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

revaluation file user Lûgnûg

good day dear administrators I write to you to ask for pleasure if you could consider the fact of restoring the user Lûgnûg files, which licenses are mostly pd 100 -70, and that can be useful to many other users for their contributions --87.0.97.213 13:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Good day. --Ruthven (msg) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Raymondskie99

Raymondskie99 (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyright violations, even after a three day block for copyvios, and is largely unresponsive to outreach. A minority of the images uploaded actually have been in the Public Domain, but I'm not sure the user understands the difference. Only once has the user responded (here), apparently mistaking "released to the public" with "in the public domain". The user also has a history of adding incorrect sources, urls, or authors (e.g. here, here, here), which I'd like to assume are honest mistakes in learning the ropes. -Animalparty (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I note this user has recently been reported to Blocks and protections. -Animalparty (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Annnd he seemed to do it again. theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

This user is continuously edit warring on File:World marriage-equality laws.svg and pushing for his new version of the map. You can view the comments made on the recent history. After me telling him there needs to be a discussion and a consensus on the issue, and me leaving a message on his user board here User talk:Kwamikagami#Same-sex marriage map he continued to revert the map and push for his version without any discussion whatsoever. He also later left a message on my page, User talk:Growupon#Same-sex marriage map telling me to "stop screwing with the map" when once again it is him who is pushing for the new version. At one point after being asked to stop edit-warring he even replied by saying "I'll edit-war all I like". I warned him that if he will continue edit-warring he will be reported, but that didn't stop him. As of now he has once again reverted back to his version and I am tired of engaging in this edit-warring so I am leaving this message here. --Growupon (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you should be blocked for revert warring. Also you've failed to notify them of this very AN/U discussion/complaint. Bidgee (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This is Commons, not WP. There is no blocking for rv warring, at least not of your own contributions. If Growupon wants a different map, he's free to create one of his own. Meanwhile, there is a discussion, with a different user, about whether the recent changes are supported by sources. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That discussion should have taken place before you uploaded the new map and should have been started by you as your are the user proposing these new changes. I shouldn’t have to make a new map if you entirely change the already widely used map to something you want to see without any consensus. You only engaged in the discussion after it was started by a different user who also questioned your changes despite being asked to do so numerous times. Also, Bidgee, I don’t see how I should be blocked for reverting back to the map that was used prior to the addition of changes that were added without discussion or consensus, and I did in fact inform Kwamikagami that I was posting this comment. --Growupon (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Very dramatic.
It's hardly a "major change", it's just updating the map to reflect current events as described in the WP article. That's what we've always done with such maps. And of course I only engaged in discussion after someone started one -- I'm hardly going to ask permission to update my own map, and wait months to give people time to respond, when events are moving so quickly. Be practical.
Now, if anything I did is actually incorrect, you could try providing some evidence of that. Otherwise I will assume you don't have any. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed a major change and clearly there are users who don’t agree with it. I already left comments about it on the discussion page and in the edit comment section so stop talking about IDONTLIKEIT and me not providing any evidence.--Growupon (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The user Kwamikagami is still pushing his changes to the map despite all other users on the talkpage being against it. He claim that he's got the support of a silent majority, and accuse the others users to be screwing with the map by reverting his changes. What can we do to solve this situation? --Aréat (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

disgusting jew page

OP indeffed for racial abuse, Any unblocks should probably be discussed here first before unblocking. –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

there is this disgusting jew and he posted hateful message on his home page. wikicommons should not allow hatred from such a disgusting jew.

here is the evidence!: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ferbr1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YipC (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The hateful text seems to have been vandalism perpetrated by others and not by Ferbr1. The vandalism has been removed in the meantime. I hope that YipC in future won't be using equally hateful language and also research things better before posting such allegations. - Takeaway (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope that some admins will watchlist that page and block the perpetrators of such vandalism if and when it continues.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the vandalized userpage. Ankry (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So User:YipC just called another editor a "disgusting jew"? Is it ok to call someone that on Commons? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not, they should be blocked if that kind of behavior persists. Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So it's ok to call another user a "dirty jew" so long as you only do it once? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: No, it's not.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Then why hasn't anyone blocked YipC yet? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Because blocks are a last resort and we have rather a clear mistake here, not an intended personal attack. Ankry (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: My opinion is, that the user should be warned, and no block is needed unless this behaviour continues. Blocks are intended as last resort, when there is no other way to prevent such behaviour in future. Note, that blocks are a tool to protect Commons and its community, not to punish inappropriate user's behaviour. Maybe {{Be civil}} will be the right one, but unsure. Ankry (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to take any action that you find appropriate. Commons is not the main field of my activity and it never will be. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I warned the user. A block may be in order if it continues. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment "there is this disgusting jew" is an anti-semitic statement as well as an offensive personal attack. It is not a minority viewpoint to read the words written as deliberately anti-semitic, it is a plain English reading of the words. There is no need for repeated warnings when someone is disrupting the project in this way, and there is no other possible explanation such as a misunderstanding about language and it is telling that the contributor has neither explained why they used these words, nor have they apologized for using them. A block would be appropriate and justified against COM:BP under harassment and "create a hostile environment". --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment from my point of view: user YipC posted exactly the following "there is this disgusting jew and he posted [...]" + subject "disgusting jew page", which is absolutely not tolerable as a clear antisemitic statement and should lead to an immediate indefinite block!! --Joschi71 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I have just read two very disconcerting messages left by YipC on talkpages on enwiki and in one of them, they also resort to extreme racist remarks. I first thought that their reaction here on Commons to the very hateful message that was posted on Ferbr1's talkpage by vandals was perhaps a one-off slip but now I see that user YipC is indeed very racist. Of course this is Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia but it does say something about this user. One can't be so naive to think that there aren't any racists, homophobes, intolerant religious nutcases and such here on Commons and as long as they behave nicely, they should be able to do their thing in my opinion. But in this case, where a user's can't hold in their intolerance, some sort of block would indeed seem appropriate. - Takeaway (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment When I read a Google Translate of the vandalism that this editor appears to be responding to, it expresses "disgust" towards "gentiles". Therefore it seemed barely possible this editor was reversing the insult in a manner that more juvenile and ignorant than deliberately offensive using terms of their own creation. However, I followed the links to Wikipedia issues above, and also this reference to "dirty brown indian" and this reference to "indian vandals are common place and those rotten people". It seems this editor is prepared to use racist and anti-semitic language to insult others, and that is unacceptable even if the others are vandals or write hateful messages. The user has continued editing here despite the above negative discussion on their post, and without making comment, though if they don't look at their watchlist, they may not have noticed the issue until Wikology's warning this afternoon. As this appears to be an ongoing problem with this user (though admittedly cross-project) and they do not acknowledge the problem here or on Wikipedia, I think an indefinite block is an appropriate preventative measure. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

When a fairly new user shows up on a noticeboard and posts something about "disgusting jew", it's putting up a giant flashing sign that says "Hi, I'm trolling". Their activities on enwiki just confirm it. Whether this overtly antisemitic remark is intended as antisemitic trolling or just plain antisemitism, it makes Commons look foolish when no admin blocks the user. And it makes the admins who argue against blocking complicit in that antisemitism. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support block of OP - "Disgusting jew", "dirty brown indian" etc etc etc ..... It is not acceptable under any circumstance to label editors as these words and as such this user should be indeffed, I couldn't care less if it "they've not done it since" they shouldn't of fucking said these in the first place, Allowing this editor to go unblocked sets the precedent this type of racial or anti-semitic abuse is acceptable when it's not. –Davey2010Talk 17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done blocked the user indef. Comment is unacceptable. The block can always be reversed if there is a credible promise that this user will never make such comments again, ever of course. Natuur12 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elekes Andor

Please send a warning to User:Elekes Andor because of this vandalism. Correlating with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horthy Miklós (2).jpg. Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It was only my opinion. This question stamps as public domain are under discussion, not decided yet. Stamps of Hungary are considered to be in the public domain. Publishing of the stamps is state monopoly in Hungary. According to the law (1.§), publishing under abiding rules (the state) are n o t defended by the law. Szerzői jogi törvény 1.§. 4) Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá a jogszabályok, az állami irányítás egyéb jogi eszközei, a bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok, a hatósági vagy más hivatalos közlemények és az ügyiratok, valamint a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok és más hasonló rendelkezések. (https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=99900076.TV) Ebből a felsorolásból a bélyegekre illik a következőː jogszabállyal ...... kötelezővé tett rendelkezések. (A jelzős szerkezet - jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett - vonatkozik egyrészt a szabvásokra, másrészt a "hasonló rendelkezésekre"). Ilyen rendelkezések azok, amelyek megállapítják a Magyar Állam monopóliumát arra, hogy bélyegeket adjon ki. A Magyar Állam által - a Magyar Posta útján - kiadott bélyegek kiadását illetőleg magának a monopóliumnak a gyakorlását is jogszabályok mondják ki. Ezek a jogszabályok a szerzői jog rendszerében "hasonló rendelkezések", így a bélyegek vonatkozásában teljesül a szerzői jogi törvény 1. §-ban írt utolsó fordulat. Teljesül azonban a második fordulat (jogszabályok) is. Valamennyi állami bélyeget jogszabály alapján adnak ki. Ezért fölösleges egyenként vizsgálni hogy volt-e a bélyegre vonatkozó jogszabály (volt).--Elekes Andor (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This time there is an open debate on the copyright situation of the stamps on the hungarian wikiː Bélyegek képeinek felhasználása szabad licenc alatt Wikipédián - https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Kocsmafal_(jogi)#B%C3%A9lyegek_k%C3%A9peinek_felhaszn%C3%A1l%C3%A1sa_szabad_licenc_alatt_Wikip%C3%A9di%C3%A1n --Elekes Andor (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You may not modify texts defined by common discussion because your opinion is different. --Regasterios (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? How could I knew that the text was defined by discussion ? I knew that the text was n o t defined by discussion ǃ The discussion was under way - see the debateː Bélyegek képeinek felhasználása szabad licenc alatt Wikipédián - https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Kocsmafal_(jogi)#B%C3%A9lyegek_k%C3%A9peinek_felhaszn%C3%A1l%C3%A1sa_szabad_licenc_alatt_Wikip%C3%A9di%C3%A1n. My opinion is n o t different. The copyright question is a legal question. Users with legal knowledge m u s t be involved into the discussion - what is n o t accomplished. --Elekes Andor (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Former discussions what you rewrote by your editing: Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain#Hungary and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-10#File:1888_Kodaly_500.jpg. The discussion on huwiki counts for nothing in Commons. Incidentally, most of the editors say that the stamps of Hungary is copyrighted. --Regasterios (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Materialscientist

Closed - As per en:WP:TPO editors can remove whatever the hell they like from their own talkpage, Either we close this or I support blocking per CIR which is more drama and we don't really want that so as such I'm closing this as Not and never will be actionable. - I would suggest the OP goes off and does some more productive. –Davey2010Talk 21:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Materialscientist is always undoing my warnings: [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Regasterios (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You can assume they were read. --Fæ (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem might have been that you have, unintentionally, flooded his talkpage with so many notifications that they are no longer shown in regular fashion. In addition, did you try to communicate with Materialscientist directly (not via templates) about the issue? --Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
His talkpage is already flooded without my notifications. He uploaded these files for years ago. What I try to communicate about it? He doesn't upload stamps of Hungary nowadays. I just inform him not to prevent him to upload further copyrighted files. --Regasterios (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
An automated notification about a DR is not a "warning". It's a courtesy to the uploader, who is free to remove the notification at their discretion. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Leyo 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I believed an editor mustn't remove notifications from her/his talkpage without archiving. I mistook, sorry. --Regasterios (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not about removal of {{Autotranslate}}d stuff only. Moreover:

I am sure that nowadays this Commons member may not be admitted to exercising authority over such controversial questions as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355‎. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that I should be desysoped because I didn't like your recent posts on my talk page. Lol :-).
True, I shouldn't have speedied File:Honeymoon.jpg, but this issue has been quickly resolved without assistance from Incnis Mrsi. Materialscientist (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I am saying that you are a very experienced man and should now refrain from actions requiring a level of trust you currently can’t hold. As for routine mop operations… surely, let Materialscientist perform it further. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for allowing me to do the janitor's work, as was the case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355‎ :-). BTW, you can't possibly know if I am a man :-D. Think twice. Materialscientist (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: you might want to strike out "refusal to archive the talk page according to guidelines in spite of urging to do so", since COM:ARCHIVE doesn't state that they must Archive and not delete (it only just recommends it). Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Note the open discussion on ‘second party‘ or mandatory archiving at COM:VPP, showing mixed opinions on the question. (There’s been little activity over the last month.) Still unclear how it will turn out, but there’s certainly no obvious consensus to make it so.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Groupir !

Hello. Groupir ! (talk · contribs) seems unconfortable with some deletion requests I made and instead of replying on the subject says about my DR that they're "deletionnist's delirium". May someone warn him to be more polite in his talks. In advance, thanks. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment @Groupir ! and Patrick Rogel: Merci de rester courtois. Malheureusement, la plupart de ces demandes de suppression sont probablement justifiées (sauf une, d'un film italien). Cordialement, Yann (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. Hostile response to negative review culminating in personal attacks at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Clumsy wagon, e.g. "Jesus, you are out of mind." This is not the first time RTA has failed to handle oppose votes at FAC in a mellow manner (see block log). -- Colin (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

He send to deletion a 10 hrs upload file just because he do not know the existence of Commons:Village pump/Copyright, the right place to him take his questions.
And, as you can see, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vagão desajeitado versão final.webm he is wrong about it, and just admitted after all other volunteers saying that he is wrong, and he didn't removed the deletion request. It was just a personal attack, nothing more than that this deletion request, a misuse of our tools.
Block log? Humm, let me see, nothing about FAC... why are you inducing sysops to believe in that?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Everybody can make a mistake. I see no evidence for your claim that this was meant as a personal attack. Surely, it's not misuse of tools. So, getting a deletion-request may raise tension, but it's just a request for discussion, which actually happened. So, please calm down a bit. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm calm.
This thing here, especially the ending part, and the sequence of actions show how it's personal. Furthermore he didn't removed the deletion after the "discussion" show him that he is wrong... I didn't hear a "sorry I was wrong Rodrigo" either.
And again, we have a place for "request for discussion", and is not a request for deletion, the request for deletion, is a request for a deletion. If he didn't want to inflame the environment here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright was the right thing to do.
We done here? Can I use my energy and my time in contributions here?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The DR was created after the personal attack of "Jesus, you are out of mind.", so did not provoke it and certainly cannot be claimed as an excuse (even if there is any excuse) for the personal attack. Whatever mistakes a person makes or disagreements people have, personal attacks are never acceptable. My (incorrect) reading of the CC compatibility chart led me to believe this work was not permitted on Commons, hence a DR discussion. The file description pages still only makes attribution to RTA's video and no mention at all of the music Title: "28 Aussens@iten" Artist: "Stefan Kartenberg" or link to where he got it here. Nor is RTA morally correct to claim sole authorship of the work published on Commons, as he does. The musician might have chosen not to add "SA" to his licence, but taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own is called Plagiarism. RTA says "Jesus Christ 500 hrs of work for this, great great tks community, this all love yet is not willing to give the artist behind the audio portion of his audio-visual work the basic moral credit he has earned.

Earlier blocks concern abuse at User:The Photographer, and INC, including the FPC here. Previous issues with own FPC nominations:

-- Colin (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So... no...
What's our point here? What do you want? A mutual block as your friend? I'm fully open to that.
As far I know, I can not talk about this user (requested by me, accepted by him), as he also can't. So I can not even talk back when you mention him, and you probably know.
"Colin did you ever made a video from scratch?" is simply a question, we can see by your contributions that you do not upload videos. And you are always full of true, and as you can see, you are not always right.
"The DR was created after the personal attack of 'Jesus, you are out of mind'." yes, this call revenge, vengeance...
And you are distorting things, again in 2 massages, two distortions, wow!
I was talking about open a deletion request for consulting about license. This do not make sense.
Show me the problem in "Jesus Christ 500 hrs of work for this, great great tks community, this all love"
"Alchemist-hp what the fuck are you talking about? [...] -- RTA 12:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC) " 2018-2015= 3 years ago?
Not, it's not a plagiarism, all the authors are in the video. If you don't like the way of how I mentioned it, you should focus your energy in solve the problem (a problem for you), and fix, not create this storm. You still wrong about the license, so go search about it.
Again you don't want to solve the problem, you want to toast me, because you have all the information to fix, and you prefer wrote all this, search 2015 editing, and didn't edited the file that are really concerning you.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We done here? I do not want to deal with his threatening and violent posture (as you can see here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vagão desajeitado versão final.webm). So if he wants, I apologize for saying that he is out his mind, to finish this thing up. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. Complete disregard of civility. RTA, next time instead of saying "I'm calm"--act calm. There is a difference. It's a DR not a ban. If you disagree you can make your points in a civil manor and the community is far more receptive to it. Also we are not responsible for fixing your mistakes regardless of how how busy you are. Good_faith_and_copyright. Someone please close this as pointless drama. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
"so we done now?" is very flippant and shows no respect at all towards that person or those people,
"e done here? I do not want to deal with his threatening and violent posture (as you can see here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vagão desajeitado versão final.webm). So if he wants, I apologize for saying that he is out his mind, to finish this thing up." - They're not apologising for the comment because they knew it was out of line ... They're apologising to wrap this up which really when you think about it it's not an apology at all... It's just a case of "I'm not sorry at all, I just want this closed up now"..,
In short if they want to remain a part of this project then they really need to change their ways and their utterly poor attitude here as that sort of attitude is not welcome here,
We've all dealt with people we don't like but regardless you treat people with respect .... there's no respect at all with this editor,
A block wouldn't instantly change them but it would (hopefully) make them see and understand that their current ways don't fit in with this project and that they need to change their approach here and how they handle things. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
First, I'm not the one using this tone:
"Your ego is the thread that runs through your FPC nominations, your conflicts and your failure to equally credit the author of the music in your audio-visual work. You treat everyone else like they are a stupid child, claim they are insane, and expect us to fix your legal problems for you"
"Well, we all know you are heading for a block, sooner or later."'
And we have record of him adopting threatening postures in the past, including a block because of it. If a remember a question with Fæ, とある白い猫 or Revent, or maybe other volunteers, this not my thing.
Second, I'm not the one that made mistakes here, he made a mistake, and gave this: "the font is rather small and I'm getting old" as answer.
If it bothers you, you can create a better environment, and fix, the essence of wiki - not open threads and threads removing time of the volunteer and give this: "I'm, according to you, 'out of my mind', so I'm not touching your files with a barge-pole" as excuse to not fix...
The "are we done" was simply a question, "can we close", simply because I attended his imposition and others already showed him that he was wrong. And even when the rest of the community didn't request for it (only one volunteer openly support the demands, not a request, a demand). So there is no reason to the DR stills open. I'm very focus in production, so any discussion that removes me from this track is bad for me.
I'm trying to avoid this violence but he keeps pushing me back. "I'll not argue about it.", "We done here? Can I use my energy and my time in contributions here?", "I'll ignore all the attacks", "I'll ignore the violence", and he keep going, and going, and going.
.
He was aggressive, and the aggression start to escalated and I'm the one with a bad posture?
.
  • "there's no respect at all with this editor"
User_talk:Rodrigo.Argenton#Freedom_of_panorama_in_Brazil
We're is the "no respect" situation here, in a very related issue, but with person that do not threat me. You can see also that I even disagree with him in one point, but said that I'll do what he suggested because is better for the community, and I didn't already accomplished all the request, because I'm here.
And how can you make this statement if we never exchange massages as far I remember?
.
  • "If you disagree you can make your points in a civil manor and the community is far more receptive to it. "
Where I didn't use a civil manor to expose my point. The community had already answer him telling that he was wrong, before I even see the deletion.
And this are my answer to the issue at FPC:
  • "Colin if you google it, you will find this, the CC-by only asks for the by, not for a list of whole crew"
  • "Sorry, but who moves the blocks is not a copyright information needed. "
  • "You are totally wrong about CC-by, totally. Just go and find I'll not argue about it."
The "I'll not argue about it." is simply to avoid this, because I know him. And how my posture is any wrong?
On the other hand, the first sentence is a partial answer to:
The first video is a bit amateurish and gets a bit boring to watch. The second is better. However, the video has a soundtrack for which it appears three names deserve credit. Is that soundtrack on the same licence terms? The attribution at the end of the video, and on the file description page, absolutely must list all parties who created this whole work, audio and video and presentation, not just who set up the camera. Also who is the person who moved the block? Colin[18] [my highlights]
How this is any civil? Diminish all my work calling "boring", "amateurish", and saying that I only "set up the camera"?
And I stayed mellow, and answer it with respect, as I did with all the other 6 volunteers at FPC, and none of them open up a "user problem"
.
The only "uncivil" manor that I can see from me was me saying:"Since when deletion request is a place to find answer about license? Jesus, you are out of mind." as a reaction of he treating me with a file deletion, base on believes, that was proved wrong. From the other side he keeps pushing, including not related cases, including one that I cannot even talk about, saying about my ego, and threatening me, and all I already wrote.
.
Well,
As far I can see, he could said "hey, I think that you cannot use this license, as I'm not a specialist on it, I'll open a thread at Village Pump" or use my talk page, as AFBorchert (sorry to mention you in this drama) did, and discuss the point. He prefer to open up a deletion request.
.
For me we did not need all this things if he had listened at first, because he was wrong, and gently requested the inclusion of the lines that was important to him, or include himself, not because his is responsible, but because he can. If he had did that I was not even talking to anybody, I was at this moment uploading - I do not want this drama, this affects my work.
I don't believe that he wants an apology, however I want end on this, a fair closer, 2 weeks as punishment for trying to avoid a conflict? For saying that is absurd the posture of requesting a deletion just to find a answer about license? How this will be any good? If you had already close, I was back on track, and silently uploading, as I did in the last months.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Watch any TV program or movie and the credits are there to note all those involved. The CC Attribution credits only concern the copyright owners (and it is plural here), but the end credits really should give credit to the person being filmed, who moves the block around. Of course that person can remain anonymous or uncredited if that is their wish, but at FPC, we expect the finest standards, and crediting the presenter is basic elementary details for a video end-credits. That is why I mentioned that at the FPC. I also mentioned the lack of credit on the file description page for the music. Three days ago.

The reason for the DR was due to my misreading of the CC licence-compatibility chart, and I calculated wrongly that the combination of video and audio licences was invalid and we could not host it. The further details, with missing attribution and "link to where you got it", are serious but not worthy of a DR unless there really was some kind of refusal to add it. Which to be honest, it seemed like there was for a while.

The video was found to be "boring" by multiple reviewers at FPC. For example "like any single-take video, gets really boring really quickly", "Boring to me. I cut off both videos in the middle". My comment "The first video is a bit amateurish and gets a bit boring to watch. The second is better." was actually one of the more positive. The comment by RTA "Jesus Christ 500 hrs of work for this, great great tks community, this all love" sums up the attitude here. Not once, not once, does he say

"Oh dang. Yes. The musician. Of course he absolutely deserves equal credit. I'll add that right now. Thanks for pointing out my mistake."

Instead we have three days of arguing, insults, boasts and mocking. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Family and Friends

This editor began uploading images a few months ago. Since that time, every single one of the more than three dozen images this user has uploaded has been deleted under copyright grounds. Some were deleted via a DR (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Family and Friends). This editor was informed of this DR and refused to respond there. This editor was given a final warning regarding these frequent copyright violations, and again chose to not respond (see User_talk:Family_and_Friends#Copyright_violations). Once again, the editor has continued to upload copyright violating images. Yesterday, he uploaded File:MarkSalling2013.jpg, which is a blatant derivative rip off of a Getty Images property (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:MarkSalling2013.jpg). This is either unable to understand our licenses requirements or unwilling to abide by them. Either way, the outcome is the same; this editor's presence here is incompatible with our requirements. I'm requesting they be blocked until such time as they agree to abide by our licensing requirements. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked the user for one month; it is sufficient for him/her to read our licensing guidelines. If he persists, the block could be longer. --Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_67&oldid=296809007"