Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 45

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


(ping, ping)

In a recent multiple-file DR filed by User:Russavia, a serious concern was raised, assuming bad faith from their uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data implied copyright violation of third parties. Upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads, and the DR was closed by User:Fastily.

In the closing statement, this user noted that a separate DR will be open for each of the affected 322 files, «so the files can be discussed independently of one another». However the kind of concern that caused the original DR cannot be evaluated in separate, and most of the photos, considered individually, present no concievable reason to be even filed a DR. This splitting serves no purpose at all, apart from wasting volonteer time, while risking reckless deletion of potentially valuable items.

(P.S.: While I’m sure that User:Fastily and User:FastilyClone are the same person in meatspace, this is not a sock puppet complaint: I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that this collegue has two accounts and I have no reason to imagine he/she would use them in any objectionable manner.)

-- Tuválkin 23:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This has not actually happened (yet). I suspect common-sense will prevail and the unfairness/un-mellowness of blitzing a user with 300 DRs en-mass will never happen. If anyone has serious concerns, they could raise a couple of sample DRs as test cases and then assess the rest. For example a couple had explicit copyright statements in the EXIF data that may be worth questioning. PS I'm only really responding as I generated the supporting analysis, which might help decide if anything further is needed. -- (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
, yes it happened (and already had when I filed in this complaint): Goes from here to here: That’s 332 322(corrected: -- Tuválkin 04:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)) individual DRs based on a reason that can only be considered in toto and which was already solved in the discussion of the original bundle DR when said DR was closed and the ensuing stampede was unleashed.
Russavia did well in raising the flag on these suspicious photos, did a great job with his /analysis, Hornet Driver laudably created and uploaded five concrete pieces of evidence to make his case… but I cannot find anything good to say about Fastily in this matter…
-- Tuválkin 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Fastily may meant one DR for each camera? Jee 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
He may, and it would make sense, but then why did he create 322 DRs instead of a mere dozen? -- Tuválkin 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops; I though it is not done per Fae's comment above. That much DR is very bad. :( Jee 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Mmmm that's easy enough to do. I'll re-sort them accordingly. -FASTILY 03:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of these 322 DR withdrawls end up on my watchlist because I voted keep on them (I started in "A" and stopped in mid "G" when it started to become tiresome, that’s when I come here). I checked a handful of the files and the notification about a previous, closed DR is missing from the file’s talk page (here, for one, the DR of March 19th is noted, but not that of June 17th). Is this done by a slow bot, not part of the DR closing? -- Tuválkin 04:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I appear to have been misled by following a sample DR notice which took me back to the original DR. Raising 300 DRs in one day would overwhelm most editors and was not needed in this case as other approaches could have been taken. I would be extremely unhappy if an administrator blitzed me this way without prior agreement, and I do know how to use the tools to respond to 300 DRs within 7 days. Tools should not be used disruptively, and administrators should never let bureaucracy take over from simple fairness. I look forward to seeing Fastily put this right, and do the right thing by this uploader (who may have done absolutely nothing wrong here, apart from supporting Commons with valid content in good faith).
In the meantime I suggest all administrators consider these DRs void. -- (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Your information/perspective seems outdated; I withdrew and closed all these DRs over 4 hours ago. While I personally will not be renominating any of these files, it might be worthwhile to vet the no-EXIF airplane images listed here -FASTILY 09:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No doubt. Thanks for taking action. I have notified Hornet Driver of this discussion, which seems to have been missed. Hornet Driver has yet to be notified, on their talk page, of your action in putting your original action right, you may wish to take a moment to do that out of courtesy. -- (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:User21550231 changed (again) licenses in his images from {{Cc-by-3.0}} to Cc-by-nc-nd. See example here. Can someone undo the changes? I have already blocked the user as obvious sock. Ankry (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose to delete all uploads of this account and eventually to indef-block. Obviously the person behind this account tries to (ab)use Commons to warn potential victims about a person "Robert Andrew Scott" which he/she accuses as serial polygamist, among other accusations.[1] In the image-descriptions he also links to https://www.facebook.com/robertandrewscottConman which likely belongs to the same person. What's also strange is that the uploader here and at Facebook uses as username the name of the accused person. Apart from the fact that we have no means to check the accuracy of the accusations (which might be true or not), such use is out of the scope of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Agreed. User blocked for 1 week, all files deleted. Harassment is never acceptable. Also probably unacceptable user name, as imposture. Feel free to block him longer. Yann (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Biantez

Please, stop user Biantez from keeping insults in my user talk page. Biantez is a long-term sockpuppeteer from Portuguese wiki and is currently blocked on that project. After this block was placed, he decided to keep harassing me and others to have his block removed there, which was just ignored on the beginning.
However, ignoring is not working. he has added insulting comments on my page, which is being reverted by me, but he insists on keeping it for no reason but harassment ([2], [3], [4], [5]).
I won't keep insults on my page and I don't want to keep reverting that indefinitely or have to deal with somebody that is not here to contribute. Thank you.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have let Biantez know about this thread for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

192.168.1.1PL

192.168.1.1PL (talk · contribs) renamed a number of galleries including for example Athens and Minsk to non-Latin names without any discussion, and is renaming categories to what they think is a correct spelling, also without any discussion. I left them a message at the talk page, advising to look for consensus first, but I am about to board a flight from Japan to Europe, and I am not sure when would be the next time I have internet access, so if somebody can answer their quieries (if forthcoming) and/or rename some galleries back, it would be great. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories are in English, but Galleries can be in the native name, so this seems OK to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yann, it seems to me that while you are correct as to the letter of the rule, the renaming is not in the spirit of Commons. I don't think an IP user should be renaming long established English named galleries to another language. It would certainly be OK for him to start new galleries with titles and captions in Greek and Belarusian, but it is not OK to simply grab other people's work and make it much less accessible to most of our users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 Info @Jameslwoodward: This is a registered user, not IP. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Aha -- thank you -- a user with 191 edits on Commons. However, even a user with 191,000 edits should not be hijacking the work of others. My comment stands. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree and I think the pages he's moved should be moved back, without prejudice to (s)he gaining consensus for the move to the non-Latin name. Happy to help if needed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the gallery rename. I only note, that their category rename were OK. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

second opinion for deletion review

Hi to all! During the review of one deletion request and related OTRS ticket I think that I identified intentional cheating of uploader, manipulating with EXIF data and licensing information, uploading of the fake photo as a real one. I think that the user should be blocked for such behavior but could someone give me a second opinion, please? rubin16 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Checked by Ankry. Image is fake. Speedily deleted, uploader indef'ed. --A.Savin 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 Info Cross-canvassing: There's a vandalism report on meta: m:Vandalism reports#Jeromjerom --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Status. User has acknowledged lying about "own work" with the photo. That was the core of the problem. (The user may have believed the photo was genuine. He may have meant by "own work" that he had rights to use it. Complicated, and a language problem. The full story is yet to be developed.) The meta report is unlikely to result in global action, but as a result of it, the user has been extensively warned and counselled, is communicative and grateful for counsel, and is unlikely to repeat the behavior. However, I recommend no action at this time. --Abd (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Archmedus and personal attacks


Block by User:Sven Manguard

I've just locked the user above as a sockpuppet of user:a1cb3's. He's a child with a passion for copyvio, both texts and images. Dealing with his uploads we should assume bad faith then I ask you to check and remove all doubt uploads. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Added notifications to talk pages. Thanks for keeping an eye on the shop! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: it's him again: special:contributions/3bc1a. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ blocked indef as sockmaster. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This anonymous IP made a bad-faith image deletion nomination based on some kind of one-sided personal vendetta he has against me (while I don't know and don't really care who he is) -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Syrie rayonnante.svg -- and is continually adding bigoted racist hate-speech taunting to my user talk page (apparently the worst possible insult he can imagine is to call someone a "jew"[sic]) -- see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonMoos&diff=127981738&oldid=127940753 , https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonMoos&action=edit&undoafter=127982032&undo=127982399 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably one of the long-term vandals/trolls floating around. Cleaned-up a bit --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now further pursuing his semi-nonsensical semi-bigoted agenda under anonymous IP 146.82.19.32... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done (hopefully finally) by Denniss --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Racist comments by 178.61.44.82 from talk page removed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose a block for Mamboitaliana (talk · contribs). After I had found all of his uploads to be either copyvios or under a non-free license on Flickr and had tagged them accordingly, he posted a personal insult to my talkpage[8]. Experience shows that nothing good be expected from users who show such a behaviour. I will not block him by myself, as I am directly involved. --Túrelio (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A casual review of this user's uploads shows what appears to be all copyright violations. Would someone with more time than I right now please look into this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, uploads deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And user warned. Yann (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

This seems an account created only for sending ads. All deleted already. Should we block? Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yann, it appears indeed very unlikely that something useful is to be expected from this account. However, you've just warned him/her and it is the user's first day. Hence, I would recommend to check if any more spam is coming and block that account then. BTW, the same user has written two articles that sound like ads at cs-wp. I have asked a colleague at cs-wp to look into this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Upload warring on football kits (again)

Towards the end of 2012, a number of football kit images were the subject of edit wars between users that wanted to include the logos and users that did not. I ended up giving very strongly worded warnings to Ricky Sen, Lemonade51, Bruno-ban, Walter Görlitz, Gustavo neto, Fma12, PeeJay2K3, and Principal adjoint. I have just discovered that these edit wars have started back up again, and that Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are in the thick of it, joined by new players Rizky Iconia, Zotteteen1, Buckhorns, Futbase (who was indef blocked by Ankry for overwriting files without consensus in mid June), and a host of accounts that I believe are either socks of Futbase or of one of the other participants in this mess. There are literally hundreds of images that have been the effected by these edit wars, and this has been going on for several years. It needs to end, and for it to end, the admins need to be willing to put teeth behind stopping the edit wars.

Here are some examples of the upload war: File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona0910a.png, File:Kit_body_fcbarcelona1213a.png, File:Kit_body_mancity0910t.png, File:Kit_body_fcb0910h.png, File:Kit_body_mancity1011h.png. Pick any recent kit from any major club and you're likely to find a 20 file long version history of this. Note how far back these go, and how the pattern is that it will be stable for a while, then flare up with a bunch of uploads, then be stable for a while, then flare up again.

As the warnings for Gustavo neto and Principal adjoint are two years old at this point, I don't feel comfortable issuing a block right now. I will note, however, that Gustavo neto has three edit warring blocks and a harassment block (for harassing Principal adjoint), although they are from 2012 and 2013.

Some advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking when the participants have yet to make a claim of harassment or similar (in 2014) would appear to be both a punitive and precautionary block, both things to be avoided under Blocking policy.
If an administrator wishes to stick their toe into this, offering a neutral mediated discussion to the participants in order to reach a consensus on avoiding future edit warring might be a mellow way forward. -- (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The word "precautionary" does not appear in the policy. According to the policy, blocks are "designed to be a preventative", and one of the things it explicitly is used for is preventing ongoing edit warring. There is no need for the involved parties to claim that they have been harassed. The edit warriors have had the option of discussing the matter all along but have chosen to edit war instead. It would seem that the involved parties can't quite handle the distraction of simply being able to upload new versions. If there is any discussion to be had about which version to upload, they may need to have that distraction taken away temporarily. LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There are 12 accounts listed here by Sven Manguard. I see no good reason to block all of them, while blocking fewer would seem inequitable, and considering the history, one would be looking to block all of them for a year or more to make a difference. To my eyes, mediation and consensus is a mellow path. BTW, many words do not appear in Blocking policy, though the policy does mention "blocks are preventative rather than punitive", no warnings have been issued in 2014, so any action here would seem hasty considering that discussion has not been tried since last year. -- (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoa there Fae, I never said anything about blocking all of the accounts. I listed the old accounts mainly to illustrate how only two of the people that I had to warn in 2012 are still doing it now (and also to illustrate just how many people have been involved in this at one time or another). I would very much like to see an RfC held on whether or not logos can appear in kit images (sponsor logos, manufacturer logos, and club crests have all been the subject of this edit war). Ideally, that would happen soon, and once it is closed, uploading over existing files with new versions that go against the result of the RfC would result in warnings followed by blocks, as would be the case in repeat vandalism or copyvio uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I was making a slightly more general point with regard to an equitable outcome. Accounts that are problematic for other reasons than just this dispute are a separate matter. In the old days I had a hand in revitalizing the en:WP:3 process, as well as RfC this lightweight form of mediation can be effective, and may be a lot quicker, so long as there is someone who wants to lead the mediation and is acceptable to all parties in the dispute. -- (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Back in 2012, if memory serves, none of the parties were interested in mediation. They all just went to ground for a while and apparently some of them started back up again a few months later. This time around, I started an RfC, Commons:Requests for comment/Football kit logos. Hopefully people will eventually go there and decide how, as a community, Commons wants to handle these. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Madrugasportv and FCBARCA13 indeffed as obvious socks of someone - created in July just to revert those images. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Denniss. The answer to that "someone" indeed seems to be Futbase, who had a small army of other socks as well. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Futbase. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for everything. I stop the edit war and I am ready to discuss but Gustavo neto (talk · contribs); Zotteteen1 (talk · contribs); Giovanni59 (talk · contribs); Ricky Sen (talk · contribs) and Kits Mailand (talk · contribs) continue the edit war. For me, I am in favor to keep the logos of manufacturers (Adidas. ..) but not sponsors like Pepsi .... I'm the Portuguese Wikipedia and I propose inviterles representatives of all the languages ​​of Wikipedia. Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) and Denniss (talk · contribs). --Principal adjoint (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Desculpe falar em português (who read that, please translate!). Não vejo motivos em bloquear usuários honestos. Existem muitos usuários na Wikimedia que tiram os logos por maldade, sabendo que é passivo de punição! Eu, Zotteteen1, Principal adjoint, Spiraal, Eduardo Stosick, dentre outros, usam os logos de maneira correta. Já Rizky Iconia, Buckhorns, Futbase, Camisafut, são usuários que não usam da razão e revertem vários kits antigos, sem criar os próprios kits! Não vejo motivo em me bloquearem, faço o meu trabalho honestamente. Obrigado por ler! --Gustavo neto (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There s not a logical thing. The logo is prohibited for selectiond pretext that the selections do not have a sponsor because of image rights. But on Commons trademarks sponsor or not is prohibited. So either we consider that the logos are too small to resemble trademarks and empowers them to selections and clubs is they are considered trademarks and are prohibited for selection because they do not have a sponsor but also it should be banned because the clubs trademarks are prohibited. Rather logos are allowed. -Principal adjoint (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Trademarked images are only prohibited on Commons if copyrighted. Trademarks whose copyright has expired, such as Coca-Cola and New York Yankees, or which are uncopyrightable, such as Dallas Cowboys, are allowed on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary, unwarranted deletion requests by editor

This is to report User:Carriearchdale regarding her recent requests for deletion of five photos that I, myself, have taken, uploaded, and which are being used in Wikipedia articles that I have created. In the past one week, this user has become fixated on me, and has harassed and stalked me on 6 articles on Wikipedia that I created, as well as now in regard to these photos. The user has made an unfounded report against me on the Wikipedia administrative noticeboard, and is now being seriously considered for being indefinitely blocked, which is currently being supported by nearly 20 editors. The user has already had some rights revoked by an administrator until a decision is reached. This is to report that the user's deletion requests of these photos, and the user's continued stalking of me in WikiCommons (in addition to Wikipedia) is unwarranted and has not reflected good faith. All of the user's actions toward me and my work have not reflected any good faith. The user's stalking and harassment is like nothing I have ever experienced on any online forum, and is quite over the top, as can also be read on the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. I appreciate your consideration of this matter, and hope that some resolution may be obtained so that this user is prevented from continuing harmful actions toward me and my work here. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) The report about which Carriearchdale made and which I referenced above can be found at: [9]. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked and found all deletions legitimate. They are either incompatible licensed images from fickr, unsourced previously published images or nominated for deletion as out of scope. Also I found no declaration of consent for theese images in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
In which category falls File:St. Joseph Church, Gowanda, New York, 2007.jpg, one of the images nominated for deletion? It may be a flickr image, I don't know, please provide the link if so; but none of the others are even remotely applicable here. Same applies to File:Gernatt's Richardson Road Pit During Expansion, Collins, New York, July 2005.jpg. I think you are discussing images that have been deleted in May, but this section is about the current deletion requests initiated by Carriearchdale, which would mean that your reply is not really to the point. Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It may be a silly question but did somone try to talk this over with him? Otherwise this report is very premature imho. Natuur12 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Too much words already spilled here. But no need of a quick sanction other than speedy closing or ignoring those DRs. Jee 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

edit coflict

OOPS, my fault. My above sentences were about already deleted images, not the nominated ones.
The history of your previous uploads, low images resolution, false photo creation dates and missing EXIF info are reasons for reasonable doubts whether you are the author and then you should be asked to prove your authorship as explained in COM:OTRS. Users uploading copyright violations are always suspicious to continue that unless they prove they do not.
Personally, the most suspicious to be copyright violation is File:Photo of Dan Gernatt Farms Company Image.jpg. If you are really the original author of the picture as you claim, could you provide this picture with higher resolution than present in the book to prove that? (taken from the original drawing, not from the book) Ankry (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to those of you, above, for your follow-ups. Also, as a new user who has been here for less than one year, I am still learning the ropes, and trying to do the best that I can. Please do not assume guilt simply due to my past mistakes or lack of understanding regarding Flickr photos that I uploaded. I believe, as you can see on my talk page, I now have a better understanding of what is acceptable based on images shared on Flickr and that are available for usage. That has been explained to me and I have abided by that. The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted. Regarding the Dan Gernatt Farms company image, I clearly stated on the image's page that this is a photo of the image that I took. There is no copyright or trademark on the image. Let me know where I can upload and I will. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Additionally, the dates are not false dates, but the date that the image was uploaded. I will go back and notate that on the photos. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Also, in reply to Natuur, I have communicated with this user on several occasions, both here and in Wikipedia, and the user only escalates their behavior (see link provided above to administrative report in Wikipedia). The user is bringing the same behavior over here. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh my, my, my the drama!!! So sorry to the commons here that [user:Daniellagreen] has brought her personal attacks and baseless allegations against me here to try and jumble up the debate as to whether these pics she uploading here are "her own work"

First of all as a poster suggested above none of the file uploads have any EXIF data, which of course is quite questionable. Secondly I posted a response to uploader on each separate page that if these pics are all her own work then she should have no problem either uploading the negative or perhaps a scan of the back of the photograph that she says is her own work. With all the red on the north side of her talk page it appears uploader does have sometimes a misunderstanding of how copyright and the different CC licenses and such work here. But that is really neither here or there.

The CRUX of the situation in my view is that user:Daniellagreen has been claiming in and about the en wikipedia that she "took a photograph of a photograph' in several of these cases with her DIGITAL camera. DIGITAL camera and no EXIF data? come on lady! A couple of those photos are really well done, and are apparently maybe PR or promotional pictures she was given to use with the articles she did post a en wikipedia' The group of articles that she has been reported as doing when being paid to edit while not disclosing the paid editing to wikipedia as is the new policy. There is currently an ANI running there but what uploader did not reveal to you here is that SHE is the subject of the ANI report for being suspected of doing non-disclosed paid editing in violation of TOS. For anyone that has too much time, and not enough drama in there own life you can check over there at en wikipedia and read all about it.

My nomination for deletion of all five of these uploads stand as they are. Please everyone, do have a lovely day!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, and User:Carriearchdale, this is the drama the you, alone, have created, and as is further reflected at [10]. All of the claims and allegations that you have made and continue to make are false, unjustified, and unnecessary. Do you really not have anything better to do with your time? You believe that you are helping Wikipedia's reputation, but I dare say that you are seriously hurting it. I am praying for you, and will not engage in further communications with you here, either, as your claims are unfounded, offensive, unwarranted, and harmful. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm an experienced photographer, and a lot of my digital photos have no EXIF data. It's very easy to remove, either deliberately or accidentally, during processing - some simple image processing apps just ignore and lose EXIF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Zebedee. It is simply that I have never set the date on my camera, so all of the photos that I take reflect the date 2007, because that is when the camera was manufactured. It's as simple as that. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As Zebedee said, loss of EXIF data happens all the time to me when I crop or modify images. I usually upload the raw image with intact EXIF data for these issues just in case. Froggerlaura (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have uploaded the document from which I took the photo of the image of the horses in Dan Gernatt Farms. You will see that it is a document created by Dan Gernatt Famrs here [11], however the image of the horses is not copyrighted, nor trademarked. I clearly stated in the details section of the image that I uploaded that it is a photo of the image primarily used. If that is not acceptable, then it obviously should be deleted. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

to uploader, "Please do govern yourself accordingly!!!" Please do also have an exquisite day uploader as well to all others!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen by the above comment, just more of the same, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To further follow-up, I informed the user about this report last evening, inadvertently on her/his user page, as can be seen here [12], but meant to do so on their talk page. It should be noted that the user archived my comments and did not respond to me on their talk page, as is user's usual MO. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note continued harassment by this editor on my talk page, all of which information he/she has provided is untrue, unfounded, and misconstrued, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You should be advised that Carriearchdale has been indeff'd at en.wiki due to things associated with this incident. She has exhibited a tremendous lack of clue and is apparently continuing her war on Daniellagreen here. This came after her block on en.wiki. FYI. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that Daniellagreen is referring to this post by Carriearchdale on her talk page, which is merely a continuation of the harassment and unsupported allegations and accusations wildly flung around by Carriearchdale on en.wiki, where she succeeded in getting herself indef blocked.

Of course what happens on en.wiki does not necessarily effect what happens on Commons, but in this case, where the campaign of one user against another has been carried on cross-wiki, I do think that some recognition of the scope of the community indef-blocking there – where there were 24 supports for the block and 3 opposes, and a number of people changed their !vote from oppose to support – should be taken. As the closing admin there wrote:

As per the extensive discussion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims of paid editing without a smidgeon of proof being provided, and attempts to track down the off-wiki identity of an "opponent" are wholly unacceptable behaviours anywhere. Add to this a) an unwillingness to follow the simplest of Wikipedia procedures, b) extensive WP:BATTLE behaviour, and c) an astounding lack of competence, the community has determined that the severity of the actions and behaviours needs to be stopped to protect the project and its editors. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary.

As I said, this is not, and should not be, determinative for Commons, but it should certainly inform the discussion about Carriearchdale's behavior here, which has been almost as bad (if not quite) as on en.wiki.

I suggest that Daniellagreen's complaint regarding Carriearchdale's harassment be taken quite seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor side issue: you write "The photos that are used are my own photos, and are not copyrighted." That is almost impossible, unless you are very old, took them as an employee of the U.S. government, or a few other weird cases. I'm assuming you mean just to say "The photos that are used are my own photos, and I have granted appropriate licenses," but if you mean something else please clarify. Again, with reference to Dan Gernatt Farms, you say "the image of the horses is not copyrighted" and oddly add "nor trademarked". Why would that image not be copyrighted? I'm having some doubts as to whether you understand what that word means. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite possible for people of my somewhat advanced years general age to be laboring under the apprehension that things still have to be marked with a date, the copyright symbol and the name of the copyright owner, and be registered in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, since that was the case before the law changed. Most people don't keep up with copyright law (a rather esoteric subject), and are probably not aware that copyright in now inherent in text, images, recordings, films, etc., etc. from the moment they are "permanent fixed" in some medium, so that almost everything is copyrighted, if it's something that copyrightable. The question is who owns the copyright - i.e. who wrote or published the text, who took the picture or first published it, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unquestionably, Daniellagreen has some to learn on copyright as it applies here but I don't see any mistake that wasn't good faith. Carrie, on the other hand, has shown that combining arrogance with an abject lack of clue leads to disruptive behavior, at enwp, and to a lesser degree, here as well. Dennis Brown - © 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That particular image may also have been published in 1988 without copyright/TM notice and not subject to the new copyright rules if renewal was not attempted. Note it says "1989 stud fee" which in the horse world could have been published in 1988 in advance of the breeding season. Unfortunately from my communications with Daniellagreen, she does not know when the flier was published [13] and this can not help the case. Froggerlaura (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
To follow-up, I really appreciate everyone's support regarding the recent situations at Wikipedia, as identified by several editors above, and the request that it be taken seriously (regarding the block placed on Carriearchdale due to those events). Also, I am not advanced in years, but just over the hill, by the way. The photos that were nominated by deletion by the infamous Carriearchdale are my own, and I have applied to appropriate attribution license, except for notating the detail on the horses' image (which I did very clearly) and stated that it was a photo that I took of the primary image. As Dennis Brown and Froggerlaura have stated, particularly in regard to the horses' image, I was unsure as to whether or not the image would be accepted here, which is actually why I placed my comments in a 'details' section about it. In good faith, it is my thinking that anyone can copy and redistribute the document that I uploaded for reference and on which the horses' image appears. I would guess that the document was published in 1988, as Froggerlaura adeptly pointed out that the document states a 1989 stud fee, however I have no actual evidence of that being the case, nor any proof of any publication in which such document was included. If I had made any action in bad faith, I would not have included a 'details' section on the image page, stating further information about it. Certainly, the drawing of the horses is not one that I created, but is a photo of the image. So, if that's considered a copyright violation, then the image should be deleted - I understand that, but uploaded here in case it could be used. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If you take a photograph of a copyrighted item, you technically own the copyright on the photo, but since you can't publish or license it without the permission of the owner of the underlying copyright, in practical terms it's almost entirely useless to you, at least on a website such as Commons which doesn't allow "fair use" of copyrights. You could probably get away with using it on a blog, since they're not well-patrolled, but it would still be a copyright violation and it would be subject to a DMCA Takedown Order if the copyright owner saw it and wanted it removed.

There is another pathway open to you. If you know who the copyright owner is, or suspect who it is, contact them and ask for their permission to use a photo of the drawing. You would have to explain to them our licensing rules, and they would have to show proof to the folks at OTRS that they were the copyright owner, but it can be done. (I've done it myself -- there's no "Freedom of Panorama" in the United States for statues and sculptures, even if they're on public land, so I contacted the sculptor of a statue I wanted to use a picture of, he contacted OTRS, and that picture in now in an article on en.wiki.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for your information on this User:Beyond My Ken. I appreciate the information about fair use. Honestly, I really didn't know how it would all work with this particular image, and just wanted to give it a try. As far as contacting those who may be the copyright holders, I'm going to bow out of that. That is something that I had thought of doing, but they would probably hang up the phone without another thought. Thank you, again, for your information. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, everyone, take a look at my talk page at Wikipedia as I've placed a copy of a "thank you" message to Jimbo Wales regarding all of you for your support! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I nominated 5 photo files that had been uploaded by a user because I felt that the files could be possible copyright violation. I did not nominate them because any one certain uploader had uploaded them. In the discussion pages of the five nominated photo many different editors have commented on both sides of the issue. I would remind everyone that on the template that pops up when a pic is nommed for deletion it states the reason the nominator had for the nomination:

Reason for the nomination: user/uploader states "this image is a photo of the primary version" This image may be screenshot of a non-free program, or other copyrighted material, or may be a photograph taken of another photograph taken by someone other than the uploader person. One can not claim the file as their own work unless the uploader took the original photo. Based on this rationale this file may be a COM:COPYVIO does not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons.

I stand by my nominations. I have no ill will towards anyone here. Anyone who states that I do have some ill will towards this particular uploader is mistaken...And as far as several editors coming over here to gang on the bandwagon, my only comment would be that on the en wikipedia and here at the commons user Daniellagreen has made baseless allegations, personal attacks, and made untrue statements about me and my character. Daniellagreen has made legal threats towards me here as well as at the en wikipedia, and I have left that to my trusted advisors to move forward on. I hope everyone will have a fabulous Friday!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that before she began this campaign of harassment (and I use the term advisedly) against Daniellagreen, Carriearchdale has never filed a deletion nomination before. There's no indication that she made the nominations out of a spirit of concern for Commons.

Also, in reference to her comment about "editors coming over here to gang on the bandwagon", I have been a contributing member of Commons since 3 February 2008, at first under the account name "Before My Ken", then "Between My Ken", I have over 52,000 edits, and have uploaded over 5,000 of my own images. I am a bona fide member of the Commons community, not an interloper from en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the above editor's (Carrie's) comments are without merit. No legal threats have been made, and the above editor has actually made false allegations against me, without realization of their impact. I move that this discussion be closed, and that appropriate action be taken regarding the photos that the editor requested for deletion. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you assume that only legal threats can be a reason for image deletion? No. Unclear copyright status may be the reason as well. The discussion here may be closed, but the DRs have their own lifetime waiting for the community decission. Ankry (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. It should also be noted that Carriearchdale made a harassing threat to me on my talk page here in WikiCommons, stating that this situation will not turn out good for me - and she added emphasis to that. I believe that should be taken seriously. Also, absolutely no legal threats were made at all; Carrie has completely misconstrued the situation. Also, no problem regarding any community decision; I was just trying to be diligent and helpful. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Can be closed: Seems to be that two users continue their fight on Commons after enwiki pulled the plug. We'll have an eye and a half on the situation and I think most admins will block on sight if this continues. I advise both parties to ignore each other. If one finds another ones upload, please ask here what other users think and let them do the DR tagging. For the sake of the project, thanks --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that I'm defending myself and my work on Wikipedia. I did not ask for this situation to occur, nor do I accept blame for it. My only aims are to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestions, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This user ignores the discussions on the File Talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg and on his own talk page for weeks and restarts an edit war today. As there is no reflection or consideration of the arguments given and proposals made I understand his action as a breach of rule and conduct. Please check this matter and react to it. -  Maxxl² - talk 19:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again with the accusation of ignoring things, you've done this several times. Earlier today you accused me of ignoring you and that my "choice of silence" was an admission that you are right and you took it as a sign to revert the image. Previously, you also changed some image and I didn't happen to notice, and you accused me on my talk page of being ungrateful, ironically calling me a "friend" when we certainly are not. Then there is the issue of this shitlist you created about me, full of false claims of "stealing" other users works. You really expect me to work with you?
Now regarding the images, there is no consensus for it to be grey, it has been white for a significant amount of time and until there is a consensus it should not be changed. I did not "restart" any edit war, YOU did, by reverting the image without consensus and using my supposedly deliberate silence on the matter as a reason to. How do you know I was choosing to ignore the matter? It hasn't been mentioned on the talk page in weeks, I very well could have missed (and in fact that's exactly what happened) your notice on my talk page, or I could have even been on a short vacation. You don't know, but you're strangely attached to this matter which you have no previous involvement in and you are accusing me (as you have in the past) of things I have not done. That is my response. Fry1989 eh? 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The image has been locked. When you, *SGR*, and Fry1989 are able to reach a solution that does not involve upload warring, any admin may remove the protection. In the mean time, I suggest that you all spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting each other.
*SGR* and Fry1989: What the two of you did on May 21-22 is unacceptable. Eight reverts in 48 hours is upload warring - a type of edit warring - and edit warring is specifically addressed in Commons' blocking policy. Consider this your pre-block warning.
Maxxl2: Fry1989 not responding to you is not the same as him agreeing with you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but please discard it.
All of you: Thus far the discussion on the talk page has been civil, and it looks like it's making slow progress. I urge you to keep it up. If you absolutely can't resolve this, I suggest taking up Fry1989's suggestion about uploading separate versions.
Good luck to all of you in reaching an equitable solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I carefully watched for two weeks the activities of Fry1989. He was editing his talk page, other pages and images every single day. That means it is very unlikely that he has not noticed my proposals and references. I followed the en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus
My proposal to solve the edit war between the other two to have two different images where the one follows FIAV rule and the other the rule of the House of Luxembourg-Bourbon was accepted by "SGR" and had no reaction from Fry1989.
As the two images already exist, I reverted the impossible hybrid to the exact House of Luxembourg-Bourbon version which one can name the "official version". The other is the File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements 2.svg that follows the FIAV color rule which is widely accepted in european heraldry.
There is no need for a formal acceptance on behalf of Fry1989 as everyone here who is experienced with european heraldry knows that only the proposed two versions are acceptable. Only the version Fry1989 prefers is an impossible hybrid which should be reverted immediately. -  Maxxl² - talk 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I really am not obligated to confirm one way or the other, but I have been very busy the past week. I bought and had to set up a new PC, new internet service, I have had limited time to edit on Commons as I have taken extra shifts at work, and I was focussing on core matters that I have been editing and maintaining for years. I indeed missed your comment. However, even if I chose to ignore it, that is not a "YES" (or a "NO") to anything. Fry1989 eh? 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are right, Sven Manguard: talking to each other can help (and mostly does). That is what I dried several times ... Anyway, you are right (a second time): It was a kind of edit waring and I have to apologize for that (what I did before). But what we have now, is a fixed file that is wrong anyway (have a look at the editis in January 2011 and you will see Fry1989 said "I'm wokring on it") *SGR* (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
May I just ask a more factual question: as Fry1989 wasn't able for four years to name a source that supports or confirms his hybrid version of this CoA, is there anybody else who has found a source for this weird colour arrangement? -- Maxxl² - talk 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we have to wait endless to get an answer to the basic question? Again we sit back and wait until a user, that never has qualified to be an expert on the field of heraldry, has the grace to let us know his decision on a matter he is obviously stumped with. That is weird. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion

User:Jameslwoodward deleted a page I recently added (not a file). The deletor did not seek any discussion at any time. They mentioned that it had to do with "gallery". Afterwards, for reasons unexplained, User:99of9 advised me not to bring it up here [14]. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For information, the deleted page was Periodic table blocks, it was speedy deleted with the rationale "Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, articles belong in Wikipedia". @User:DePiep I advised against coming here because you were in discussion with Jim at his talk page, and I don't think he has done anything here against policy. This was a routine speedy ("cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussions and immediately delete files or pages" CSD galleries). If you're unclear about what gallery space should contain, see here. I hope that helps. --99of9 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't a COM:UDR undeletion request be a good option? And couldn't the contents (as described) just be moved to DePiep's user space, at least temporarily? That way, if nothing else, non-administrators like me could see it and participate more meaningfully in any discussion about it. -Pete F (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've now userfied it, but I really don't think COM:UDR is worth it, because it's clearly not a gallery. --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)There is no mention of "speedy" in the deletion summary. There is no mention of the page being in a "gallery" namespace(?) whatsoever. The deletor did not show any intention to save the page themselves, or by talk. All this before me stating that the page is clearly intended as a truthful contribution to commons. However serious User:99of9 tries to explain backgrounds (new mentionings at that), while previously advising against me posting here. The attitude for the deletion is not wiki, and the cover up is not better. The deletor could have done better. And -to me- there is no need for 99of9 to cover that fellow. 99of9 could have contacted the deletor, why not. Now please bring back that page. We need it. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Click on the redlink Periodic table blocks and read the editnotice at the very top. That is what you would have seen when you created the page. It clearly says "You are now in the main namespace, reserved for gallery pages (as opposed to e.g. discussion pages). If you are new to Commons, please read the introduction to galleries on Commons (Commons:Galleries)." --99of9 (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Info I have blocked the user DePiep for 6 months after he left a well thought out (not a spontaneous blackout) insult on the discussion page of Jameslwoodward. The remark block me for a week shows clearly that the user has been fully aware of the rules. This behavior could have lead to a full block as well, only his contributions to the projects as a whole prevent that from happening. <- For the record: I'll copy this into a separate AN/U. And no: This is not a big brotherhood of admins looking out for each other. If it would have been the other way around, I would have blocked 6 months as well, actually maybe longer.

Here are the reasons to close this discussion:

  • All necessary information was given in the deletion rationale which can be openly accessed by all users.
  • It is wishful thinking that deleting admins have to discuss every single deletion with the uploader. It is the uploaders responsibility to check the guidelines.
  • DePiep missed the chance to ask questions before creating the table in the wrong namespace. That's what the village pump is for.
  • There is no need to mention speedy in the deletion rationale since the admin is allowed to delete certain pages, just like the one we are discussing right now, without any discussion.

Can be closed by not involved user --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the content now hosted at User:DePiep/Periodic table blocks should have been originally edited at (or moved to) Category talk:Periodic_table or some such. I averr it is useful for any harmonization of navboxes or other such use. -- Tuválkin 12:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The user continues uploading non-free files taken from the Internet even after he was explicitly warned by Magog the Ogre and by me in his native language. There was a similar case recently with User:Григорий225; I do not have sufficient proof, but possibly he should be checked for being one of his sockpuppets. YLSS (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ blocked for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Changed to indef as sock of Григорий225. Эlcobbola talk 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fotoriety (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) single purpose accounts for voting at FPC etc., Fotoriety insults me and expresses assumptions and has starting and edit war here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango... Pleclown (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I did neither insult Fotoriety nor make assumptions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What about edit warring ? Pleclown (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain how Wladyslaw has the right or audacity to remove one of my comments on the FP nomination page and then accuse me of being in the wrong for repeatedly trying to restore it? This is very perplexing.Fotoriety (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
How about this? A compromise. Fotoriety, please alter your comment slightly to ensure that it does not come off as offensive to Wladyslaw. Wladyslaw, please stop edit warring over another editor's comment. Next time, simply report the edit your believe is offensive here and let someone uninvolved take care of it. Tiptoety talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Wladyslaw has continued to edit war after multiple requests to stop. As such, I have blocked them for a period of two days. Tiptoety talk 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The compromise proposal was not carried out. I have now removed the parts of Fotorietys comment about the creator, which was irrelevant for the assessment of the FPC. --Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Slaunger. Tiptoety talk 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Cirt – admin conduct review



FreeRangeFrog

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.

This user was usually a disruptive administrator on Wikipedia, performing unexpected edits and actions (e.g blocking, deleting, protecting, etc.)

Would someone indefinitely block the above administrator? 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1E8:6A37:2BC5:9931 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done - disruptive, anonymous editors may be blocked if they continue this sort of behaviour. It is quite clear there is no behavioural issues with FreeRangeFrog stemming from any of their edits, and this is a spurious request (trolling). Nick (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for trolling (see IP's edits) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2014 (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.

SLV100

Resolved

SLV100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user seems to be back to disrupting closed DR cases. See this fresh example of defacing a closed DR and inserting bogus speedy tags:

Should be warned (not blocked, since this user seems to be engaging also in good work on DR mantainance) and his contributions scrutinized. -- Tuválkin 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ I understand the reason for this report. - SLV100 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 Question @SLV100: What would the reason be and how will this report affect further behavior? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason for this warning was because I was "disrupting closed DR cases" (Tuválkin). I will refrain from performing such edits in the future. This was a misunderstanding on my behalf. In the past, my misunderstandings have been resolved with discussion. - SLV100 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to remember as a principle we generally don't delete old discussion, we'd rather start a new one. While started a new discussion it's a good practice to notify people that have participated to old discussions on the same topic. I believe that no administrator actions are required for now, as SLV100 seems to understand what was the problem. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 Agree Can be closed per PierreSelim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this happen. -- Tuválkin 08:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done SLV100 did it again. This time I'll blocked the user for 1 month, since he's not constantly on Commons. Maybe this will finally get his attention. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted SLV100's pagemoves. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The pagemoves are part of my "good work on DR mantainance" (Tuválkin) and there was no consensus to revert. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This user ignores the discussions on the File Talk:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements.svg and on his own talk page for weeks and restarts an edit war today. As there is no reflection or consideration of the arguments given and proposals made I understand his action as a breach of rule and conduct. Please check this matter and react to it. -  Maxxl² - talk 19:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again with the accusation of ignoring things, you've done this several times. Earlier today you accused me of ignoring you and that my "choice of silence" was an admission that you are right and you took it as a sign to revert the image. Previously, you also changed some image and I didn't happen to notice, and you accused me on my talk page of being ungrateful, ironically calling me a "friend" when we certainly are not. Then there is the issue of this shitlist you created about me, full of false claims of "stealing" other users works. You really expect me to work with you?
Now regarding the images, there is no consensus for it to be grey, it has been white for a significant amount of time and until there is a consensus it should not be changed. I did not "restart" any edit war, YOU did, by reverting the image without consensus and using my supposedly deliberate silence on the matter as a reason to. How do you know I was choosing to ignore the matter? It hasn't been mentioned on the talk page in weeks, I very well could have missed (and in fact that's exactly what happened) your notice on my talk page, or I could have even been on a short vacation. You don't know, but you're strangely attached to this matter which you have no previous involvement in and you are accusing me (as you have in the past) of things I have not done. That is my response. Fry1989 eh? 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The image has been locked. When you, *SGR*, and Fry1989 are able to reach a solution that does not involve upload warring, any admin may remove the protection. In the mean time, I suggest that you all spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting each other.
*SGR* and Fry1989: What the two of you did on May 21-22 is unacceptable. Eight reverts in 48 hours is upload warring - a type of edit warring - and edit warring is specifically addressed in Commons' blocking policy. Consider this your pre-block warning.
Maxxl2: Fry1989 not responding to you is not the same as him agreeing with you. I'm not sure where you got that idea but please discard it.
All of you: Thus far the discussion on the talk page has been civil, and it looks like it's making slow progress. I urge you to keep it up. If you absolutely can't resolve this, I suggest taking up Fry1989's suggestion about uploading separate versions.
Good luck to all of you in reaching an equitable solution. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I carefully watched for two weeks the activities of Fry1989. He was editing his talk page, other pages and images every single day. That means it is very unlikely that he has not noticed my proposals and references. I followed the en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus
My proposal to solve the edit war between the other two to have two different images where the one follows FIAV rule and the other the rule of the House of Luxembourg-Bourbon was accepted by "SGR" and had no reaction from Fry1989.
As the two images already exist, I reverted the impossible hybrid to the exact House of Luxembourg-Bourbon version which one can name the "official version". The other is the File:Armoiries Luxembourg Bourbon avec ornements 2.svg that follows the FIAV color rule which is widely accepted in european heraldry.
There is no need for a formal acceptance on behalf of Fry1989 as everyone here who is experienced with european heraldry knows that only the proposed two versions are acceptable. Only the version Fry1989 prefers is an impossible hybrid which should be reverted immediately. -  Maxxl² - talk 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I really am not obligated to confirm one way or the other, but I have been very busy the past week. I bought and had to set up a new PC, new internet service, I have had limited time to edit on Commons as I have taken extra shifts at work, and I was focussing on core matters that I have been editing and maintaining for years. I indeed missed your comment. However, even if I chose to ignore it, that is not a "YES" (or a "NO") to anything. Fry1989 eh? 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are right, Sven Manguard: talking to each other can help (and mostly does). That is what I dried several times ... Anyway, you are right (a second time): It was a kind of edit waring and I have to apologize for that (what I did before). But what we have now, is a fixed file that is wrong anyway (have a look at the editis in January 2011 and you will see Fry1989 said "I'm wokring on it") *SGR* (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
May I just ask a more factual question: as Fry1989 wasn't able for four years to name a source that supports or confirms his hybrid version of this CoA, is there anybody else who has found a source for this weird colour arrangement? -- Maxxl² - talk 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we have to wait endless to get an answer to the basic question? Again we sit back and wait until a user, that never has qualified to be an expert on the field of heraldry, has the grace to let us know his decision on a matter he is obviously stumped with. That is weird. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

...Well, looks like three days are not enough... *SGR* (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to you self-anointed experts? I have no interest in fruitless discussion with those who make it clear their consider my voice an inferior one. Fry1989 eh? 05:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, can anyone tell me, how to reach a solution, if one party "have no interest in fruitless discussion"? Everything, we were waiting for were "a source that supports or confirms [your] hybrid version". I would not call that fruitless. *SGR* (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DePiep (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

 For the record:

I have blocked the user DePiep for 6 months after he left a well thought out (not a spontaneous blackout) insult on the discussion page of Jameslwoodward. The remark block me for a week shows clearly that the user has been fully aware of the rules. This behavior could have lead to a full block as well, only his contributions to the projects as a whole prevent that from happening. I removed the insult from the talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this amounted to leaving a "f*** you" on Jim's talk page. This is rude and may be harassment, but it is not a pattern of harassment, nor does it misuse personal information, make defamatory allegations or similar. Were I to take time to search through administrator contributions, I have no doubt I would find this exact phrase being used by administrators in other contexts. The choice of block seems to have taking into account non-Commons contributions, which is not the norm for Commons, at least we tend to disregard blocks and edit history on other projects.
Specifying 6 months as a first block is unusual, this could have been left as an indef block until such a time as DePiep was prepared to ask for an unblock and be assessed by an administrator properly to recognize why their behaviour has been unacceptable. For this reason I propose that the block is amended to be an indef as this better fits the guideline for block duration given at Blocking policy.
If the suppressed revision is more disturbing than the block log indicates, this may justify the minimum block length, however in that case a clear explanation here of the nature of the harassment would be helpful and ensure that the minimum of 6 months is understood to be the most suitable block option. -- (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Fae, it not a maybe, it is harassment (per policy vandalism as well). As I stated above, it was a planned insult and not a heat-of-the-moment blackout. The planning part prompted me to extend the block to 6 months. A user with that many global edits should know better. If other peeps use the same phrase or not is not the issue here. Point me to those and I am happy to block as well. Admin or not, I couldn't care less. Do you think I block for fun? I mean, stating that the block has to be assessed properly? DePiep can use the unblock feature no matter what the block length is. Given the explanation above, in my humble book, the block is justified. On second thought: Changing to indef doesn't look too good for DePiep in the long run. One could think that there's even more to it - makes a bad impression. Just my 2cents, if someone wants to change to indef, I won't argue about it. Policy states: Blocks based on disruptive behavior should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behavior will not resume. There's another way out for the user if he wants to. As you know, I can always be argued with to change a block or overstretch AGF. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I read this as confirming that the block of DePiep was for using "F*** you" on Jim's talk page in a deliberate way and that there is no objection to changing this to an indef block and/or the block being lifted before 6 months, so long as the expectations given in Blocking policy have been met.
With regard to administrators using the F-word, I recall some names, but it looks like listing them here could cause un-mellow outcomes. -- (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Hedwig, for being protective of your colleague -- I appreciate it very much. One of the things that makes this job easier is the support we give each other. With that said, I have unblocked DePiep. I think that six months is too long for an angry retort, even one that was not quite in the heat of the moment. While I don't at all like users throwing expletives around, Admins must recognize the occasional need for rhinoceros hide protective clothing. I think that the seven hours that he was blocked has probably gotten his attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
squeeze @: & @Jameslwoodward: No objection to changing the block. I could have made that a little clearer. If Jim thinks the block is long enough, than it is enough. It was his talk page and not mine. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
DePiep did here what he did elswhere and what is probably his usual approach to collaborative work: A mixture of snark, valuable work, assumption that everyone else is dimwitted, unwillingness to accept existing conventions, and random, obnoxious tantrums. While six months seems too long, seven hours was perhaps not enough. -- Tuválkin 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons has weaker guidelines for blocking than some other projects, tending to accept norms rather than needing this to be set in concrete. It is rare for a first block of an account to be more than a week, unless the pattern of behaviour indicates that the account is never going to be used for anything else, such as a spamming or pure vandalism account. If you go through past first blocks for abusive comments or trolling, these are rarely more than a day. Further disruptive behaviour sets a pattern and it becomes harder for any administrator to presume the contributor is likely to change their behaviour without increasingly long blocks to get their attention. As has been indicated above, it is also common for long blocks to be lifted early based on a commitment to change, so stating a block length in a block notice tends to be indicative, but remains subject to appeal. In terms of a successful outcome, the good news is that contributors with a history on other projects tend to want to use their account again, so even repeated warnings, and if needed, blocks, do not always lead to contributors disappearing forever.
Okay, back to this case, a few hours is a short block, however this is long enough for DePiep to get mellow. If they continue to do the equivalent of telling admins to F-off, I have little doubt that the next block will be a lot longer so that they have time to discuss their behaviour and recognize that creating a hostile environment for the rest of us is itself a problem, regardless of the rights and wrongs of what might have annoyed them in the first place. -- (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Imho, short blocks are to trigger a change of behaviour, (short corrective block or cool down periods) long blocks are meant to protect the project against those who harm it. Just my two cents aboutblock lenghts in general. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
While Jim has a valid point that administrators should have "thick skin", I disagree with reducing the block to seven hours. In order for an online community such as Wikimedia to thrive there must be a hostile free work environment. User's who call each other names, engage in "down and dirty" conduct, and throw fits when things don't go the way they wanted end up creating wasted hours of work for the community (as is evident here), and often times run off those who act with general decorum. To my knowledge, nothing has ever been solved/improved by telling someone to fuck off. If this were a place of employment, let alone a collaborative (real world) volunteer organization, such a person would be terminated. While I am not suggesting an indef block, as it is not really supported by policy, seven hours seems inappropriate. Tiptoety talk 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
When I meantioned his behaviour elsewhere I mean not in another project, but elsewhere here in Commons. -- Tuválkin 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Two comments. First, User:DePiep has apologized on my talk page, which suggests to me that it was a fit of temper that I can certainly understand.
Second, why is it that several of you think that "fuck you" deserves a block, while WTF? has been through at least two DRs with significant support? My reaction to the two is similar -- in fact, I am probably more offended by WTF? applied to one of my actions than I am by the simple "fuck you". I suspect that this is very regional -- such things usually are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jim: For me, WTF? is a swearword, while "fuck you" is an insult. This may explains that. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this is opened "for the record".
I absolutely disagree with User:Hedwig in Washington's 'analysis' that my post was not by temper, but by calculation (as they repeatedly posted here). Bolding it does not make it more true.
I also abhor and reject the smearing introduction by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DePiep Tuvalkin [15], who only tries to suggest by association to other admins (note the es in the link). For this, this smearing editor did not ever produce a single reasoning-with-diff-proves-and-quotes in any such hot topic page (think enwiki WP:ANI). -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (just stroke a bad link -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
You are actually contradicting yourself be stating that the insult was made in the heat of the moment and not by calculation: Why would you call another user a smearing editor? That clearly shows your mindset and your inability to accept that other users could be correct once in a while. Insulting editors doesn't make your actions right. I'd like to stay out of this fruitless discussion pretty please. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't follow your reasoning, you're mixing up two statements. I repeat that Tuválkin did not and does not produce one single diff or quote when smearing me. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC) (Bad link, I had to stroke. ping @Tuvalkin: -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
I refrained from substantiate my view of DePiep’s role and value in the project because I didn’t want to “smear” s/his name more than strictly necessary, by bringing about old news. But, upon insistance, lo and behold how DePiep (while contributing a few good questions and some good work) managed to play the victim and drain off the patience of all active contributors of the BSicon project: Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Category:BSicon.2FNew_icons… (Actually in this regard he’s second only to Axpde, who is actually an admin: When an admin who works exclusively for a given subproject manages to foster unanimous dislike from people in that subproject, you know you have a problem — one worse than the matter at hand.) -- Tuválkin 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 Question Are we done here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocking on a basis of harassment can be done only if it repeated behavior as blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one. Block have to be last resort for behaviour. In this case dropping a warning in the talk page was necessary. Also the block duration was unreasonable. First we block for short time and then gradually increase it if the behavior repeated. Geagea (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)