Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 56

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

More bulk category changes (truck -> automobile) and socking

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55#94.3.164.161_and_bulk_category_changes (just over a week ago). Now back as 5.69.17.191 (talk · contribs) (same ISP) and the same edits. No discussion when asked. Andy Dingley (talk) _automobile)_and_socking" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
✓ blocked 5.64.0.0/16 1 week. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My unsolved problem!

Hi. I uploaded many valuable free images from a website. But there is a freaky text in their exif data! An user suspect the pictures and wants delete them. I opened a topic in the village pump, but nobody didn't find an answer! If I can't find a reasonable answer, one of you will delete my recent uploads from . Please help to save the pictures by finding an answer for the question. Thank you.Saman-1984 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Since all of the DRs revolve around the same anomalous Michale Nagle copyright notice in the Exif, I've left a note on each of the related DRs asking that discussion take place on the first of the DRs (namely Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sukhoi Su-25 belong to AFAGIR (2).jpg). I also added a note to that DR pointing to the earlier discussion of the Exif at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#weird_EXIF_data.21 and the related earlier discussion regarding ypa.ir's CC-BY license at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Velayat-90 Naval Exercise by IRIN (4).jpg (which was kept).

If possible, I'd encourage you to contact ypa.ir to see if they can offer an explanation for the Exif metadata in the photos from their site. —RP88 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @RP88: . I will try. I hope they have a good answer.Saman-1984 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:శ్రీధర్ బబు

I believe this is a yet another predictable sockpuppet of User:Sridhar1000. Systematically duplicating files, reuploading bad quality images, uploading images with misleading and/or wrong names etc.. Please see Category:Sockpuppets of Sridhar1000 also. This time he is using a Telugu username (Verify in Google translate)--Praveen:talk 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mylkomeda

Hi, Mylkomeda (talk · contribs) has uploaded a lot of images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey ‎(SDSS), but SDSS policy isn't compatible with Commons. Images from other sources have been uploaded, either with CC-BY-SA or PD-NASA, without evidence of a free license. Help needed to do a complete review of the images. I also blocked this user for one week for persistent copyright violations after warning. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bobyr

The user in the past tried to nominate good pictures for deletion because they claimed they are outdated (the photos were of Samakrand from the 2000s). Now he decided to replace in other projects good photos with their low-quality newer photos of Samarkand. On the Russian Wikivoyage (voy:ru:Обсуждение участника:Bobyr‎) and the Ossetian Wikipedia (w:os:Архайæджы ныхас:Ymblanter) they were very clearly told to stop, but decided to continue. Today, they were blocked on the Russian Wikivoyage. Then they found here my photo of Tashkent and inserted a false info [1] - the building on my photo has a plate which clearly says what it is (it might be even readable on my high-resolution photo), and the Hazrati Imam mausoleum is a different building. I am afraid this needs to stop somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month --A.Savin 17:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was fast. The fact is, the photo is actually the mausoleum of Hazrat Imam... at least according to Google maps and OSM. Pleclown (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
However, it is according to Wikimapia [2]--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
And there is only one mausoleum at the Hast Imam square, which is [3] Kaffal-Shashi Mausoleum, the same as Hazrati Imam Mausoleum. As a matter of fact, Hazrati Imam (meaning Holy Imam) is the nickname of Kaffal Shashi.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
And, finally, the plaque on my photo says "Tilla shayx masjidi".--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is the plaque in the high resolution: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124524951@N04/21448179513/in/dateposted-public/ --Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Fæ

There might be some useful material here to read, but there is no consensus for the topic ban at the moment, and the late developments of the thread were generally unconstructive. Closing as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (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:Fæ has a long track record for claiming anti-LGBT-bias in others, using it as a weapon against users with whom he is in dispute. Despite some evidence that he had accepted his past behaviour on this wasn't acceptable, he has returned to form. I have been subject to this harassment for two years (note: I'm not using that word in the legal/criminal sense) and will be making a complaint to WMF.

As a liberal-minded Guardian-reading user, I believe anyone on Commons should be free to state their beliefs, gender, sexuality, age, race, etc. These things are irrelevant to our participation here and nobody should be abused because of them or seek some gain because of them. Whenever we are asked to make judgements (deletions, appointments to admin, reviewing quality images, etc) these aspects of ourselves (no matter how important they are to us) should play no part.

Fae's harassment of me has been going for two years now.

  • November 2013. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg. This clearly gay art nude (NSFW) was posted to Featured Picture candidates. Several users opposed since it is obviously technically flawed (bad focus). I replaced the 5"/5" preview image with a placeholder since it made the whole of FPC NSFW. Fae objected both to this "censorship" but also to the (quite normal) marking by others of the image as a "no hoper" (FPX) that would quickly be removed from FPC. On the FPC page you can see how Fae turns this into a LGBT issue. He clearly accuses me and others of anti-LGBT bias. "[non-gay works] I doubt would be suppressed due to arbitrary claims of being NSFW"..."I would be interested to know if if alternative gay related photographs published on Commons under Category:Files from Sasha Kargaltsev Flickr stream that feature nude or semi-nude gay men would also be subject to censorship if I nominate them here".
  • I post to Fae's talk page a friendly note about the use of a blank placeholder at FPC. Fae complains of censorship and anti-gay bias. He makes a clear threat: "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me". Further rants accusing me of acting like an opressive government: "If we are in the position that explicit homoerotic artworks such as the Warren Cup can be put on public display by the British Museum, in full view of children ... yet on Commons any gay related nudity would be censored, then the Commons starts to look more oppressive than most governments."
  • In a discussion on FPC talk, Fae once again accuses me: "Colin's unsupported action in censoring an LGBT artwork"..."We now know that this one incident of censorship in the years that FP has been running on Commons has only ever occurred on this image, and it "just happens" to be an obviously gay image by a gay artist." Fae plays the victim now "I find this evidence disturbing, and I hope the majority of the Commons community is equally disturbed by this action of suppression of a gay artwork...with repeated attempts to blame me in various ways for having the temerity to object to censorship". 'crat User:Dschwen replies "Uh.. what? Are you trying to pull the "homophobe card" here? Per Occams razor I'd say it is pretty clear that this image would qualify as NSFW because the guy has his freaking dick out for god's sake! I fail to see how the LGBT aspect is even remotely relevant in this matter" Further playing the victim "This sort of treatment is what puts off our editors from being openly gay on our projects or raising concerns when they have legitimate questions about bias on our projects"
  • What developed from that discussion was an opt-in NSFW tag that could be used at FPC by those people who wanted to use it. This was overwhelmingly supported at FPC. It has been used since then on a number of occasions without problem. The template that enables the facility was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw and got wide support.
  • Fae goes to the Village Pump Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11#How LGBT friendly is Commons' featured pictures process? to accuse all at FPC of anti-LGBT bias. Fae believes we should have "greater than 20 or 50 [Featured Pictures] to be LGBT related". The statistical incompetence on display in that discussion is breathtaking, but just adds further that Fae's judgement in this area is extremely poor. He sees bias, and accuses others of bias, where there is none.
  • Last month Fae attempted: to accuse me of attacking him with anti-LGBT language. He fails to mention the text is in quotes and is an example of unacceptable language, not language I myself used. The whole point of my comment at VP was that attacking and dismissing users for being Wikipedians (and making nasty remarks about them) should be no more acceptable than attacking users for being gay (and making nasty remarks about them). I accept I was clumsy in the way I worded it, and I apologised to Fae for that, but the reaction is unacceptable. Fae did not accept the apology.
  • On User talk:Fæ he accuses me of using homophobic language and claims it is "easy to understand" why I did that: "You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT+, I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know.".
  • I formally warn Fae that if he continues unfounded allegations of homophobia then I'll regard that as harassment and take it higher.
  • Now today at the Commons:Village pump, Fae attacks Jee: "I have not mentioned LGBT rights here, neither does the web application. You appear to be attacking me as you know I am a founder of Wikimedia LGBT+, rather than sticking to the facts. Don't do that, it is harassment and it is highly inappropriate.". This is absolutely typical. Nobody can read what Jee wrote before and think anything remarkable about it. Yet Fae turns it into a claimed LGBT attack and harassment.
  • When I close the discussion (which is about WMF job application for goodness sake, not Commons at all) Fae and others continue bickering. A closed discussion should have nothing further added. Fae objects to his text (added after it was closed) being removed he reverts and leaves a message on my talk about ‎Reverting an LGBT related objection. He threatens me with further LGBT harassment: " where I will be only too happy to join the dots to my LGBT related complaint about you"'.
  • Fae's lengthy block and then topic ban on Wikipedia (in images/BLPs related to sexuality) are further evidence that Fae is unable to use good judgement in these areas. Too often he sees anti-LGBT bias and attacks where there are none. This is used too often when Fae is in dispute with editors for this to be accidental. Instead I believe he is deliberately using this as a tactic to harass others and gain advantage or detract from the topic.

As a minimum, I suggest Fae is topic banned on Commons from making any complaint or negative comment that features LGBT. Clearly he will object that this prevents him making complaints in genuine circumstances. Therefore he may make his complaint, off-Commons, to a bureaucrat who will determine if it merits taking further. I think is is a measured and appropriate response. He will object that this will discourage others from making complaints about LGBT bias or harassment. Quite the opposite. All these unfounded complaints make it less likely that genuine problems will be dealt with appropriately. By removing this noise, the community will be able to spot and have care for those with real issues.

I specifically reject an interaction ban as I believe that is a cop-out to resolving the real problem. Further, Fae's problems with LGBT complaints extend beyond me but to several individuals, such as Jee recently. It would be hard to manage anyhow since there are areas where we are all active. I hope instead this minimal topic ban will lets us all continue to work on Commons and discuss images, and videos and illustrations and copyright and bots and so on.

So I ask the community to make a decision. If you read the above and agree with Fae that I've spent two years harassing an openly gay contributor with homophobic language and attempting to suppress and censor LGBT images then just ban me now. Such a person has no place on this community. But if instead you agree with me that these complaints are groundless and are themselves harassment then I hope you will agree some kind of ban or block is required. Please do not use this forum as an excuse to write mean things about either Fae or myself that extend beyond the specific issue of complaints of LGBT-bias/attacks. If anyone has anything to say outside of those areas on either of us, then open a separate discussion some other time. Let's keep it focussed. Thank-you. -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It was just two weeks ago (not 2013 and not on Wikipedia in 2012!) that Colin injected "more dramah from an editor [Fæ] who, based on his contribs, is obviously a raging gay with a huge chip on his shoulder" into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. Now, precisely the same thing happens when Jkadavor responds to me with "You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" in a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT rights or equality, and Colin has decided that he must be the one to jump on me and now escalate to AN/U.
There is a pattern here, and it is blatantly not me that has been turning discussions that have nothing to do with LGBT issues into an opportunity to troll and grief one of the most widely known openly gay contributors to this project.
BTW, "unfounded allegations of homophobia" is false and a parody of the facts. I have made no such allegation. I refute the numerous allegations of harassment and worse made in the ranty 1,628 words above. If anyone is interested they should carefully review the original discussions rather than rely on these repainted and cherry-picked events spanning four years. --Fæ (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I hate to comment on a topic which was closed by two admins as "off topic". But I can make a generic comment on the non discrimination policy. I'm a strong supporter of it which is not limited to sexual orientation. It is approved by the Board to apply on all WM projects and marked as "it may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies".

Here in that WMF job application, I believe, it is fully inline with that WMF policy. So the arguments raised by Fæ is surprising and negative to the affected. That's why I questioned his genuineness as claiming part of the "affected"; still making negative arguments.
The problem of Fæ is well explained by Odder in his RfB: "You have repeatedly mentioned the fact that you are gay in many such discussions, and many people before me have confronted you about it; many (or at least some) find it unnecessary and believe that you are somehow using this to suggest that people treat you the way they do solely because of your sexual orientation, and not on the basis of what you actually say. I have already told you this is not true, and I stand by my comment. odder (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" I've nothing more to add that. I don't care what Fæ; but what he says. He may be open and a founder of something. But it doesn't make all his arguments friendly and useful to that community. The truth is, most of his words and actions are negative for them.
I alredy mentioned my stand on LGBT matters in my first discussion with him.
See another neutral opinion on Fæ's arguments.
I have little expectation that Fæ understand his mistakes. Not much hope in "topic bans" or other admin/crats involvement as no one want to be hounded by him. He is prone to follow people in multiple wikis through user contributions or using automated tools. See the collapsed off-topic discussion "Disruptive campaign" at BN. He may be a very talented programmer; but the way he used his tools is disappointing in many cases. He has a bad habit to "investigate" on the activities of users (like admin actions, license reviews, OTRS activities) to whome he disagree. At firts look, it seems acceptable; but very negative and put pressure on people to quit. Who want to loss their mental happiness for a non-paid voluntary work?
I had stopped commenting on VP and Help Desk due to this continued attack. It was escalated, affecting the innocent users too, for the sake of me where I commented. It seems the same "issue" is going to repeat. If true, I'm happy to stay away from those boards, again. Jee 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Jkadavoor links to several pieces of evidence, taking these in turn:
  1. My question to odder was over 22 months ago. The question was "Speaking as a 'crat, do you support my freedom to identify myself as gay, in the same way as a female contributor would be supported to feel free to identify herself as a woman in our on-wiki discussions?". The question and odder's first response (it is worth reading the original thread) makes a presumption that an editor is spontaneously identifying themselves as LGBT in a Commons discussion. For the above linked "raging gay" comment by Colin, and the "You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" by Jkadavoor, this is irrelevant as it was not me introducing my being a gay man in discussion over the last two weeks, it was clearly Colin and Jkadavoor. You cannot have it both ways, forcing an editor to never express any opinion as a self-identified LGBT person, while at the same time injecting it in discussion as a tactic for argument, that until that point never mentioned LGBT issues, nor even identified anyone else as LGBT.
  2. The links to discussions about the NSFW template were in 2013. This is so long ago I do not think it of any value to rake back to respond in any detail. My objection was related to the hiding of images from view based on woolly definitions of what might be safe for work.
  3. My objection to Colin and Jkadavoor's disruptive campaign, amounting to repeated tag-teaming and forum shopping, which can be seen in that same thread, is more recent being June this year (six months ago), however it has nothing to do with LGBT topics and is irrelevant here apart from illustrating past disruptive tag-teaming behaviour by them.
--Fæ (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"You cry for LGBT and/or other equality rights" doesn't check whether or not you are a member of that community. It only talk about for what you arguing. I can argue for "equal rights" for any side tracked community even if I'm not part of it. And it makes no difference (other than some experience) on the weight's of once arguments. It was you try to escalate any discussion by stating you're open and founded something. Just remove any traces of it; if you don't want to be open. In my memories, I never quoted you as a member of a particular community. I repeat, being open doesn't make you are right in an argument. In fact, most of your arguments are utter nonsense and unhelpful for that community. Jee 04:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You clearly, unambiguously and intentionally introduced my LGBT advocacy as your first unprompted edit on an established discussion which up until then never mentioned any LGBT issues. This was your choice, not mine. I am not responsible for your behaviour, and I do not accept for one second that your doing this is a reason for anyone to conclude that I was harassing you. --Fæ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"...I do not accept for one second that your doing this is a reason for anyone to conclude that I was harassing you. " I think I'm strong enough to survive from any such attempts. I had survived comparatively more severe attacks in my OTRS time. It is up to the community to decide whether it is beneficial for the community (not for me; neither in my expense) to stop you. Jee 05:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Just weighing in here to state that I personally value Fae's contributions on Commons so highly that it would really deeply upset me to see him banned in any way shape or form on this project. Reading through all of the comments and clicking on the links etc. etc. all I see are frustrated comments of people who are trying to make a storm in a glass of water. I don't see anything dangerous to the project happening, and I certainly don't see any evidence of harassment, though I of course accept the fact that people may perceive it as such. Considering the value of Fae's contributions, it may well be worth spending some actual money to let Colin and others actually meet Fae in person so they can finally see that he's a nice guy, though he may be a bit "quick at the keyboard" on hitting the reply button. --Jane023 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Jane023, I have no doubt that Fae can be a "nice guy" and possibly gets along with people better in real life than online. I do recognise that Fae can make valuable contributions to the project and realise that would cause great reluctance to ban him. But I have no doubt this is harassment and that yesterday he also attacked my friend which is the last straw for me. You think this is small then perhaps you are quite comfortable to have your name repeatedly linked to anti-LGBT bigotry at every opportunity. Would you like "Jane's censoring of LGBT artwork" and "Jane's abusive use of anti-LGBT language" and "Jane, I have not mentioned LGBT rights here, this is harassment and highly inappropriate", and so on, all over the project? Is it small then? -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The blue bold text above, that Fae wishes to associate with me, are not my words. Fae wants them to look like my words and by doing so demonstrates clearly how dishonestly and harmfully he handles disputes, and tries to pin anti-LGBT sentiment on others. The link isn't even to the original text, but to a place where he once again puts words in my mouth. The actual diff is [4]. I was responding to Fae's remark "this thread appears mostly sustained by folks with a large footprint on the English Wikipedia and a much smaller toe on this project (based on sampling a couple of global contribution stats). Please keep in mind that it is bad form to import English Wikipedia dramah to this project" and "serious Commons discussion getting distorted by importing drama-du-jour directly from the English Wikipedia". Fae is clearly telling Wikipedians they have no place on Commons and ridiculing their concerns by using the word "dramah". Well you can read my response in the diff and see which bits are in quotes. The "dramah" word isn't in my vocabulary (it's mirroring what Fae said) nor is anti-LGBT language. Ever. I was giving an example of an offensive remark that someone else might make. It was clumsy but not an LGBT attack. The clear message from my text is "don't be bigoted" and Fae is an intolerant bigot wrt Wikipedians. But in order to detract from the real issue (Fae's intolerance of Wikipedians on a discussion they have every right to take part in) he diverts it into an anti-LGBT attack. Same with Jee yesterday. Fae's response to my text just shows how incapable he is of judging what is and is not an LGBT attack: that someone saying "It is no more acceptable to be bigoted towards Wikipedians than it is to be bigoted towards gays" (which is clearly a pro-LGBT comment, making it utterly clear that anti-LGBT sentiment is intolerable) gets their words twisted. It has to stop. -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Colin, my problem is that I agree with both of you, and as I said before, I have no doubt that both of you perceive the offences you both so eloquently type. Frankly, though I agree I would be horrified to see my username bandied around as an anti-LGBT person, I must also admit that the number of people who would see that on commons is increasingly few, and the number of people who would see that, and be able to interpret it the way you and I do are so few as to be probably restricted to the people I have had interactions with here and on enwiki. At the end of the day, the number of people who can navigate to this particular conversation in this particular space are few and far between, and have probably met each other in real life at meetups. I guess over the years I have adjusted my perception of what is intolerable. --Jane023 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jane. Colin is painting a picture to make it appear I have called him a homophobe or claimed that he is anti-LGBT. This has not happened and none of the links and diffs above shows that. If someone uses misogynistic language against a women editor, then she should be free to point that out on the project and call it what it is. Colin's "raging gay" comment was directed at me, nobody else, and he got away with it by wrapping it up as an example of homophobic abuse against me in a discussion that did not mention LGBT topics or homophobic abuse but just because I was there. Just as misogynistic or racist language should be able to be called what it is, without a immediate group-think assumption that the person pointing out the language is inappropriate is making personal attacks, the same should and must be true for anti-LGBT language if our anti-harassment policies are to protect and encourage LGBT editors.
Keep in mind that I have not raised this thread on AN/U, neither did I turn the discussions with Colin and Jkadavoor into being about LGBT issues, they did that themselves. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it is pretty obvious what you are doing Fae, despite your claims otherwise. I didn't use anti-LGBT language "against Fae" or to "attack" Fae. Fae claims I "wrapped up" an attack in a quote. How about "it's just a quote" and assume good faith? Honestly, it is like punching the newsagent because you don't like the headlines in the Daily Mail. His argument seems to be that nobody can mention LGBT ever without him regarding that as some kind of attack or harassment. His judgement as to whether such a mention of the word is reasonable or not is simply lacking. That is why I seek a specific topic ban. It seems the least impacting option while dealing with the root cause. I don't see how Jane can agree with both of us. And I don't accept the argument that because there are relatively few Commons users, this isn't a big deal. This isn't a private wiki, but a forum readily discoverable by Google. How can a situation you would be "horrified" to be in be called "a storm in a glass of water". -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Fæ, you've accused him of using homophobic and anti-LGBT language though, which is nearly the same thing. It's easy to claim "I never said that" when you didn't use precisely those words, but the intent and the meaning is virtually indistinguishable and you're being a bit disingenuous by throwing your hands up and denying it ever happened. And I still think you're also being disingenuous by failing to differentiate between Colin giving you an example of a homophobic slur that you would be offended by in the context of a wider discussion, and Colin actually attacking you with that slur. I respect your work here on Commons generally speaking, but it does seem like you fall into the role of victim too readily when LGBT discussions are involved. Diliff (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
How else would you highlight that using the word "gay" offensively in a deliberate slur targeted against another editor is anti-LGBT, apart from calling the words "anti-LGBT"? It would be shameful if this project forces LGBT contributors into the closet before they can contribute here, just in case they are hounded and targeted and then bizarrely and repeatedly accused of harassment, bigotry and victimization when they factually object to offensive language, or deliberate trolling/unnecessary outing. Just look at the facts, I did not turn discussions that had nothing to do with LGBT issues into discussions about LGBT language, I did not approach Colin or Jkadavoor to take part in the original discussions, I did not even identify myself as LGBT in those discussions, I did not even escalate the issue to this noticeboard instead I have been dragged here to respond to lengthy hounding allegations using links dating years back and from other projects. This was their action, not mine.
As said above, when inappropriate language or hounding that personally targets LGBT contributors just because they are part of discussion, then it must and should be legitimate to be able to point that out accurately, without punishing the whistle-blower for stating the facts.
Nobody has been called a homophobe by me, but I have been deliberately targeted by Colin and Jkadavoor as a known LGBT person when it should have remained irrelevant. I find it gravely disappointing that I have to keep on spelling out the facts, and that this problematic offensive anti-LGBT behaviour is not taken more seriously by the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem here, IMO, is that you're taking offence to things that should not really be offensive unless one is simply over-sensitive and prone to playing the victim which IMO you are at times. We are not and should not be given immunity from taking offence in any case. There are many things in life that people find offensive. Some people find the support for abortion offensive. Some people find the denial of a woman's right to her body offensive. You cannot simultaneously avoid offending both sides of that issue while actually maintaining a position on it. Please note I'm not taking a side on that, and I'm not saying LGBT issues are the same thing, I'm just saying the bottom line is, it's inevitable that you're going to find something offensive in your lifetime, and you cannot scream bloody murder every time that happens. Now I'm not saying that means open season with abusive slurs. Of course we should do our best to avoid offending someone else where possible, but not at the expense of robust discussion that just may happen offend sensitive personalities. Colin cites an example above where your immediate position was to assume that there was an anti-LGBT bias on FPC where I don't think there was any. All I see is a pattern of playing the victim and assuming bad faith towards Colin's motives and language. You say you 'keep on spelling out the facts', but I actually see it as you being a bit selective with the facts and interpreting events with a victim mentality. It's hard to speak in generalities when each individual clash needs to be looked at on its merits, and I'd be happy to look at individual cases if you really think it's justified, but that's the pattern I see here. I've had more than a few clashes with Colin in my time too, and I admit he can be a bit of a red rag to a bull when tensions are raised, but I simply don't buy your argument that he's been spouting anti-LGBT/homophobic language. I haven't seen any examples of it beyond the cases that I believe you've (wilfully?) misinterpreted. Diliff (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should examine that "wilful" comment a bit more. I did not make this an AN/U case claiming harassment, this was Colin. If you are looking for someone bending the facts to claim victimhood, you are looking in the wrong direction. --Fæ (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why the fact that Colin raised the AN/U case has any bearing on whether you're wilfully misinterpreting things or not. They're two separate issues. If Colin is also wilfully misinterpreting you, then feel free to state your case for that. Diliff (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, perhaps you'd like to respond to the rest of what I wrote above. Whether my 'wilful' comment was inappropriate and misplaced or not, the rest of the reply deserves the bulk of your attention. It's all too easy to take offence at one word and not see the forest for the tree. Diliff (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is developing into a realio trulio catfight, which is sad. I can't imagine a less homophobic place to be than right here in this discussion space. --Jane023 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jane023 to come here and make some comments. But I wonder whether you understand what is going here. This is very long running story and I'm not much interested to type much. But I can make one more attempt. Fæ has a long history to pretend he is a victim of harassment whenever some one use that magic word LGBT. But he failed to convince any single admin in Commons so far. But he come back/jump in with new stories now and then. When people mentioned the old case, his typical reply is "wow! it was on 2013; two years ago. That was about you use that word. Now use this word." The truth is that he didn't learn a single word from years of experience. I have no hope he will learn it in his entire life. But he may be busy preparing another RfA, thinking that people forget all foolish activities he had done so far. He need to be warned for playing games. Then only we can hope he will stop this mimicry. Jee 14:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody would think it prudent to open an umbrella for a single drop of rain, and that is what a en:Chinese water torture could be mistaken for if you only look at it for a few seconds. --Dschwen (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I ran long, this is so you know where to aim now

This is one of those difficult situations for me to write about because I see and understand both sides. I'm all sorts of various categories myself some of which are included on this drawing (see note here).[5] I too have been accused things that I didn't think I did; and I also have felt passionately about things that others do not share the passion and may push against me for my advocacy. So Fae, I hear you... Colin I also hear you. I hear two people with a passion for the project picking on each other for artificial constructs of language when we all know that trying to communicate with each other merely in writing removes all the visual and social cues which usually permit smooth conversation. I hear two people hurt and upset. Therefore we have two people who are close to each other in all things but their words here. I see the point, truly I do. Over the vast sum of human history certain sub-sets have and continue to be discriminated against. Some of what I have experienced in terms of racial, sexual, social and interpersonal discrimination in my life is beyond belief, but most of it is just the normal unthinking behavior of people too shallow to question their worldview and effect on others.
While I wouldn't insult certain male friends by telling them that they usually don't and probably will never understand what it's like to be female, I may think it when they fail to be sensitive to it. The problem comes in trying to coax, cajole, persuade, and guide people to have more understanding; sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't. Worse, sometimes it's the same person alternating between getting it and not getting it.
I consider both people here cherished coworkers. Both of them have raised points with me over the time here which I hope are closed happily or not. Here, Colin was upset enough to complain, Fæ defends. We all know how short a distance it is from defense to offense and back again. It's like American football - boring as it is - I don't see that either defense or offense is moving the ball here, it looks like a right pileup on the 50 yard line and one without too much hope of resolution until after the referees blow the whistle and everyone stands up. It's impossible to think covered and weighed down with all that rigid body armor, gatorade infusion and testosterone. No one can even tell who has the ball until they get off it.
Here no one is in the right. We have all written things we'd rather we hadn't, and we're all growing during the time we work together on the project. Over the past, errors have been made all around, apologies offered, accepted or not, discussions written, images uploaded, voted on and deleted. It's life on the project, we do a lot of stuff together and occasionally blowups happen. In school we saw it a lot, especially at the "middle school" and "high school" years of raging hormones where it didn't take a lot to start fisticuffs. But what I also learned was that while some people might hold grudges and let them shape their lives afterward others stand up, dust off, smile shake hands, learn something from the shape of the pebbles on the ground and do everything they know how to avoid similar situations in future. Having taught for many years (early education through university), I've learned that it's often the biggest school yard fighters who end up the firmest of friends at the end. They fought because they were similar, not because they were different.
In this specific issue, I do not support an official block for language, because as a red-white-and-blue-blooded 'Murican Goddess with a blazing copy of my First Amendment Rights in my right hand pointed to the stars above, I am in absolute and utter solidarity with activists, self-identified Guardian readers and their expectations of free speech. Like everyone here, both users here have free speech - and seem to have used it . I'm in 100% support of their rights. But having lived in the real world my entire life with the largest percentage thereof before the internet, I know this can all come with a big price. Here at this point - the price is hurt feelings all around and a lack of forgiveness.
Instead of any sort of formal blocks, I'd like to ask everyone to consider that: While we all have free speech and we respect utterly each other's rights to it, and we all know that free speech aimed at other people isn't always free of personal and social cost. It might create or cost you a friendship, or a romance, a lover might leave, the boss reconsiders, but it's technically possible to exercise the right to say whatever at any time. Like the friend, the lover, and the boss, the rest of the world then has the right to agree, disagree or ignore you,
but we have to defend your right to say it whether we agree with you or not in order to keep our own speech free, too.
In return for that, the cultural quid pro quo is that one doesn't usually say anything to make big waves or rock the apple cart too far from side to side without a great social necessity. Nor shout "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.
Commons is volunteer work, so it constitutes to me a work environment. I think in a professional situation - as here - it would be best for all of us to continue to strive personally to produce more courteous behavior, less didactic speech and fewer walls of text, while scattering more barnstars, poking thanks, and supporting each other personally while continuing polite dialog on details.
Executive summary: COM:AGF. Kiss and make up. We need both of you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"I too have been accused things that I didn't think I did". Ok the clear implication here is you thought you didn't do but well, perhaps you really did. No Ellin I've been accused of things I really didn't do. And I see from above you think I'm probably "too shallow to question [my] worldview and effect on others". I'm supposed to put up with two years of being branded some kind of homophobic bigot who suppresses LGBT images on Commons and attacks openly gay contributors because free speech? I've got news for you Ellin, your precious free speech didn't help the CEO of Mozilla. And both Fae and I live in a country that makes no presence to having free speech [the UK is the #1 place in the world to sue for libel]. Is it a subtle "artificial construct of language" when Fae writes "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me" in response to me replacing his NSFW image with a link on FPC. Or is that a clear accusation that I have an anti-gay bias and this manifest itself by me "censor[ing] a photograph from an established gay photographer". Or did Jee "[attack Fae] as you know I am a founder of Wikimedia LGBT+" and engage in "harassment". It isn't really subtle stuff one can shrug off. Well thank fuck I live in a country where such picking on an openly gay colleague, and calling him a "raging gay" would result in my swift dismissal from employment. But I'm also glad I live in a country where false accusations of discrimination result in criminal sentences. You talk of regarding Commons like a professional work environment. My professional work environment does not allow editors to engage in anti-LGBT bias, but nor does it allow people to make repeated false causations. We aren't school kids still finding our way in the world. Either Fae has a case that both me and Jee are harassing him because is is openly gay (in which case we should be banned imo) or he's engaging in unacceptable harassment that actually makes it harder for genuine complaints to be heard. Tell me, Ellin, is it acceptable for Fae to quote those words (the big bold blue text) as though I said them? And repeatedly do so. I typed them, sure, but they aren't my words any more than the author of a book is as evil as the bad-guy he writes about. When you read what I said in context, is there any anti-LGBT sentiment or is it actually a pro LGBT statement? Please, I haven't been accused of attacking gay people with anti-LGBT language in my long life both offline and online by anyone other that Fae. And he hasn't supplied any evidence that I've started doing so on Commons. Yet multiple users (including two 'crats) have accused Fae of wrongly playing the victim and wrongly accusing others. Hmm. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Colin, I'm sorry that accusations of homophopia cause you so much grief, no matter how mistaken they may or may not be, but I still wouldn't call you a "victim", because I don't see how they could affect your online reputation. This forum is just not very widely read, I'm afraid. Of course I would be sorry to see Fae banned, but I guess if this is the only thing that will give you any peace of mind, then maybe it should be done. Fae's work can be done later too, we don't have any deadlines here. You both probably should take a wikibreak anyway, judging from the amount of text typed here (yet another thing to measure: emotions of editors based on #words typed on talk pages). --Jane023 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Jane023, I haven't asked for Fae to be banned, precisely because I knew I'd get objections like yours. I have proposed a very specific topic ban related to the particular area that Fae has long-term problems with. I hope that solution would enable him to continue bot uploading pictures, etc. But your judgement is seriously flawed in two areas. Firstly that how widely read the forum is should have any influence. If I was racist or homophobic or made inappropriate sexual remarks, say, then I'd expect to be banned whether the forum was a local photo club of 12 members or an internet forum with hundreds of active users or a website with thousands or millions of readers. Similarly, if I repeatedly wrongly accuse others of such, I should be banned. It works both ways. Are you saying it's ok because my full name isn't published here for my future employer to find? And secondly it shouldn't matter if a person uploads thousands of images a month or a handful. If they are harassing another user (or multiple users in this case) they should see justice. Arguing that because Fae is highly productive he should therefore escape any sanction just stinks I'm afraid. Tell me, was my replacement of a NSFW image with a hyperlink an act of anti-LGBT bias and suppression/censorship of LGBT material and a hostile act against a known gay user? Or was my revert the other day of several off-topic comments by several users made to a discussion that had been clearly marked as closed, was that "Reverting an LGBT related objection" and "censorship"? Or were both actions utterly neutral and not in the slightest bit anti-LGBT. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jane, just to repeat a basic correction, there has been no evidence given of "accusations of homophopia", this would be a very different thing to objecting to anti-LGBT language. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Fae is not just objecting to anti-LGBT language. He said I was "suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me". Of using "hostile anti-LGBT language" to "attack" him. And "You (not me) deliberately injected the abusive use of anti-LGBT language into a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBT issues. It is easy to understand why you did that in response to an openly gay contributor. As a founder of Wikimedia-LGBT+, I will not gloss over the use of homophobic language by others, as well you know." I suggest Fay thinks he's being cleverer than he really is, that he knows using the H word directly would be trouble. But he has done it all the same. If those aren't a clear accusation of homophobia then I don't really know what is. If those statements are in any way true, then I should be blocked. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

More today. Block required?

Fae to Jee: "Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy. Thanks". Any attack on Fae isn't just because he's rather unpleasant at times but clearly because he's "the gay guy". You'd think someone at AN/U would keep their nose clean for a day or two, but to be actively harassing others with accusations of homophobia is well.. I do now think some kind of full block is required. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing is poking the bear until you get a response, then inflaming drama when you get one. Yes I'm a gay guy, yes you and Jee are following me about (not the reverse), provoking a response and driving me off this project. The community does nothing to ensure you behave better than this, and that is what saddens me. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Dillif's talk page is on both my and Jee's watchlist as we are close wikifriends. No "following" required. Do you ever consider that the "grief" you get is because of other things than being "a gay guy"? Because, it really really is. And if you are "driven" off the project it certainly wont be because of your LGBT status I can assure you. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not bad a person make mistakes; but unwilling to learn a single bit from it. It is strange Fae seek for advice frequently; but run into issues to whom he trust to get advised. Or is it he just playing games? Or he lost his control in quick responses? I don't know; but his comment "Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy." is indeed very bad. My understanding is gay people are smart and nice as everybody. I'm not going to trust him; otherwise I lost the respect in them. His comment supports my argument that most his words and actions are unhelpful for that community. Jee 17:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You two keep doing this until it becomes clear to enough people (as it eventually become clear to me) who is to blame in this recurrent feud. It would be nice if you, indeed, found other things to do other than hounding Fæ. Because even if Fæ was as bad as you paint him, or even worse, it is obvious which side is devoting more of its edits and time to the bickering. I suspect that an interaction ban affecting all three would result in no appreciable drop in Fæ’s activity in Commons while making the other two almost invisible to most of us. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What you are suggesting is simply censorship. I don't think you'd regard this as "bickering" if you were the one facing two years of harassment and the most unpleasant and utterly false allegations. Tuválkin you are the very definition of bad faith towards me. Whenever you turn up it is always with spite. No actual analysis of the facts. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So, according to you, Colin, when I suggest you an Jee be given an interaction ban with Fæ, that’s censorship, but when you suggest that Fæ should not be allowed to come near LGBT subjects — that’s all fine, hm? I can’t even…
You bet about “bad faith” towards you, but not as in prejudice: On the contrary, starting from a neutral/benign baseline from when I ventured in commons out of my BSicon cocoon, these few years I’ve been witnessing and experiencing the way you, Colin, deal with matters and treat other people, and I developed a fair amount of distrust and dislike to you, in spite of your collegial, polished surface — maybe I’m not the only one. I formed my opinion of pretty much everybody else here the same way, some ending up now with thumbs up and some with thumbs down, of course. My opinion of Fæ was originally clouded by the on-going smear campaign, and I was unsure of how much of it was fair and true. Turns out that, after also a few years of witnessing and experiencing the way he deals with matters and treat other people, I’m definitely counting him among the Good Guys. (And, avec ça, I bring my voice back to the OP.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK you can all cut the diffs now. Fae is on a well-deserved wikibreak. --Jane023 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"I suspect that an interaction ban affecting all three would result in no appreciable drop in Fæ’s activity in Commons while making the other two almost invisible to most of us. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:12, 7 December 2015" I noticed this before I went to bed yesterday; but decided not to make a quick response to it as I know this is just another random rant from Tuválkin as he usually do in VP.
So Tuválkin self declared that he and his friend are the most valuable contributors here and this make them eligible to ignore their mistakes. Tuválkin, I'm not questioning the volume and value of your contributions. But unfortunately it doesn't give you any preference to violate the basic code of conduct. It is applicable to the founder and follower. It is applicable to every "user" make a single edit here.
Regarding my contributions: I'm not the "#1" or "#top ten" contributor here. But I do have my shares. I'm a media contributor from a remote location compared to the developed countries and so my works have some value due to the reach than the quality they have. I'm not a guy sitting 24/7 in front of the computers in air conditioned rooms.
Other than a mere photographer, I spend time to understand my subjects which attracted a lot of academic interests. I can assure you that at least 100 new media contributors come to Commons inspired by my activities (not by my words). You can find some examples who publicly stated it in social media.
Other than silently contributing, I strongly supported the advantage of "Free Cultural Works" too in discussions. Unlike many file pages here with a warning "This work is not in Public Domain.", my pages welcome the viewers and re-users with a friendly note, "Thanks: Thanks for make use of my works; it is always appreciated."
I had constructively participated in license related public and in-wiki discussions and tried my best to provide a better and safe environment for both media contributors and re-users.
So Tuválkin, it is not my fault if I'm "almost invisible to most of us."
The above FB link shows the last photo I had taken before my camera (gifted by the Commons community) drowned in water when I fell into the water stream. I may come back or not; but I'm sure my existing works survive and widely used on and off wiki. Jee 02:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't vote. This isn't FPC or RFA. Solutions never come from voting. Discuss. This suggestion is simply censorship. I did nothing to deserve the homophobic accusations with the Kelvin and Aren photos (and was previously on good terms with Fae beforehand so there was no bad blood). Jee did nothing to deserve the homophobic accusations made against him. Who tomorrow? Perhaps Diliff is his next target, after Fae refused to respond to Diliff's questions, giving a "feeding trolling" accusation. Is everyone that Fae attacks going to be served an "interaction ban" to censor any criticism of him? This is a lazy solution or a convenient solution but not the correct solution. Fae's ongoing behaviour deserves a block and a long-term solution that addresses his failure to correctly identify LGBT attacks on this project. There's plenty evidence above and I am far from the only person Fae picks on in this way. But neither Tuvalkin or Kaldari have responded to these diffs, and Tuvalkin's comments are just spite. Are Fae's accusations correct or not? It isn't hard. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Having been harassed by Fae in the same way he does Colin I can understand Colin's frustration. Fae uses ever means at his disposal to attack and vilify those who disagree with him. It goes well beyond waving the victim card. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Jee is surely an intelligent colleague, so I can hardly imagine him to be homophobe, because homophobia always implies stupidity... It is obvious, because homophobe men are usually scared of any contact to gay men, as they think they may be raped by them otherwise ;) No joke! (As we know, "phobia" = "anxiety", so "homophobia" = "fear of homosexuals") So, for me it is very clear: homophobia = at least stupidity, and so it is very clear that accusing someone of homophobia is equivalent to accusing of stupidity. So, what Fae does is permanent personal attack on several Commoners, and creating drama here on Commons. His neverending attempts for an RfA are meanwhile legendary. For me, all this deserves a block of several months: someday it's really enough. Sorry. Just my 2c --A.Savin 07:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We saw this same behavior from Fae at en.wp. He plays the homophobe card pretty much every time someone criticizes him. It's extremely tedious. Although homophobia certainly exists, it is false to assume that every time someone criticizes a gay man they are doing it because he is gay and not because they have a legitimate point. As I have arrived at this discussion rather late I can't say I've read all of the above, but even based on a quick skim I would say that at the very least a two-way interaction ban seems in order here. A topic ban for Fae seems warranted as well, but in the interest of fairness there should be some way for him to report on it in the case of actual hate speech, while preventing the endless false homophobia accusations. I fully expect Fae will now attack me personally as he has done on several previous a=occasions, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong on that point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A commons tact?

It looks more like tact he used to disarm the people he disagree with. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bugatti_logo. See another example which happened in my OTRS time. He even lost his control and attacked the uploader: "If this turns out to be nonsense to sell more books, then it is a moderately good example of nonsense. --Fæ (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)". This behavior need to be stopped; then only other volunteers can continue here without fear. But I repeat; it is up to the community to decide whether it is beneficial for the community (not for me; neither in my expense) to stop him. Jee 05:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Late comment

Although I've been aware of this issue for a few days now, I got totally swamped in real life and could not contribute to this discussion earlier. And even now, having read all of the comments posted here, I don't think I've got a solution on how to end this rather unpleasant situation. In general, however, I do agree with the statement that Fæ does indeed have a history of being hugely sensitive—some might even say overly sensitive—about LGBT topics. He also does have a history of bringing up his sexual orientation as an argument in discussions in a way that might suggest other users hold views opposite to his because of it rather than because of anything else; I think that the comment that @Jkadavoor cited, and which I made at my RfB two years ago, recorded my (and others') feelings at the time quite well.

With all of that said, however, I can't avoid mentioning that most of the comments brought up by @Colin are at least a couple of months old, with some of them having been posted as far as two years ago. Unfortunately due to my current circumstances (busy real life), I haven't been closely following the most recent discussions, and can't make an informed comment on them. However, I think it important that we ask ourselves whether we can establish a continued pattern in Fæ's comments. My understanding is that comments such as cited by Colin and Jkadavoor are not as common now as they used to be in the past (happy to be convinced otherwise). Is this therefore worthy of a ban (or block)? Can there perhaps be another way to solve this problem?

I do note, of course, that an interaction ban between Fæ and Colin has been suggested above (and supported); however I am not convinced this is the best idea, as it appears to be sweeping the problem under the rug rather than any realistic long-term solution. What I do know for sure—and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Colin nor Fæ—is that the worst possible outcome we can get here is one where either of them reduces their activity in this project (or leaves altogether). Both of them have donated considerable amounts of their time and energies to positively influence Commons — and while each of them does it differently, I deeply appreciate their contributions. I would therefore caution people from coming up with any rash suggestions, and assume good faith on both sides. (On an closing note, I think that bringing up issues from other projects into this debate is rather unhelpful; let's focus on what happens here, please.) odder (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Odder for the comments. I've to accept that there is no other recent cases of conflicts with me and Fæ; but that may because of my reduced activity here. I had resigned from OTRS, had left VPs and ANs after my last complaint at BN. I had unwatched those forums too. Only recently I came back after seeing a Flickr related license issue. I just thought I can contribute something in an area I'm sound enough. Fæ may not happy with my re-entry.
I hardly remember any occasion I was accused of using anti LGBT language. This was the only case from his side too. He was criticized by others of playing that card; but not by me. I was preparing for my Christmas vacation; and all ended up nicely.
The attack on Colin was the only recent case, I know. I was away, and didn't participate. I saw Revent quickly closed it in a wise manner. Otherwise, it had done huge damage as he was able to convince a few people, at least.
It is a bit surprising that he complaints when somebody use a LGBT related word; but see no issue using it like "gay Machiavellian wizard". (Disclaimer: I'm not a native English speaker; didn't understand what exactly it is. Earlier I run into troubles by interpreting "circling the wagons". I hate English phrases.)
So I have to agree with Saffron that "Fae uses ever means at his disposal to attack and vilify those who disagree with him." Sometime it can be playing with the LGBT card; sometimes even notorious cards. We already spoiled a lot of time and resources by neglecting this harm to the community. Jee 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
As Jee notes, the attack by Fae on me was only last month, which Revent was good enough to close. Revent's comment "it was rather obviously a meant as an example of something that would be grossly unacceptable" I very much appreciate because Fae continues to use this example (above) in ways as those they are my words towards him. That I was, at the time, reprimanding Fae for his bigotry towards Wikipedians and intolerance of those who have different world-views, is rather ironic. The attack on Jee was what provoked me to start this AN/U and is recent. The comment "Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy. Thanks", made during this AN/U is I feel very block-worthy. But Fae has done what many users do when faced with an imminent block: he has taken a wikibreak. So we end up with Admins feeling they can't justify a block at this time.
Fae is clearly unhappy and feels he is being harassed by those "attacking the gay guy" and believes I and others want to suppress and censor LGBT images and attack LGBT nominators at FPC. He's got no satisfaction at AN/U for making these complaints so continues think he's under attack for being gay, and that those who have (allegedly) done so in the past, continue to be part of some anti-LGBT problem. Folks: these are serious block or ban-worthy allegations. If they are true, Commons should be ashamed to do nothing and to permit users to attack people for being gay and suppress and censor LGBT images. But if they are false, then the unfounded allegations should be clearly stated to be such and the person repeatedly making them asked to stop. You can't continue with the status-quo where nobody wants to do anything, and you shouldn't just sweep it under the carpet either.
I think as a minimum, Fae should be clearly told to stop making these unfounded allegations to me, Jee or anyone else. Whether that telling-off is accompanied with a stick in the form of a topic ban or threat of a block is up to the community. But unless Fae is clearly told "you are wrong; stop this" then he will continue to believe his complaints are true and that he hasn't achieved justice. He will continue to believe he can make such attacks whenever annoyed by someone.
On my part, I reject the idea that my contributions to Commons should make it harder for me to be blocked or banned. Some people might miss my contributions but they should ignore this. I don't get any comfort from being considered a "valuable homophobic contributor to Commons", which is what happens if one combines Fae's assessment with other's warmer assessments. Both can't be true. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, As far as I can remember Fae didn't use the LGBT card against me, but he did use several other false pretexts, and twice during last month (one is mentioned by Jee above). I think that the issue is not only LGBT, but general inability to respond to disagreements with rationale arguments. And the repeated attacks on several contributors are not acceptable. I have tried to find a way to meet the gap with Fae in answering positively on several of his requests for community input and help. I feel Fae never acknowledged that. Seeing my involvement, I won't do or even suggest imposing anything against Fae, and I think that losing his contributions would be a pity. I don't see any solution either. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Something to the effect of "Fae is not to accuse others of LGBT bias for a period of X, regardless of perceived merit. If Fae has a concern about another user’s comments, he may make a concise, neutral posting at a community noticeboard (e.g. ‘Could uninvolved parties please look at this [diff] and discuss?’)" seems a reasonable starting point. Fae's unfounded comments are clearly disruptive and an ongoing issue; formal attempts at a remedy need to begin. Start with a limited “topic ban” in this vein, and escalate severity as needed if it is not effective. No amount of "good" contributions excuses this (mis)behaviour. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A wise and acceptable suggestion for me. Jee 16:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks elcobbola and very much appreciate your support that some remedy is required. Can I suggest that "accuse others of LGBT bias" (although something he has explicitly done) could encourage a tedious argument that no explicit accusation of bias was made, merely talking about being "attacked" with "hostile anti-LGBT language" or "poking the gay guy". For example, when complaining of a "campaign to portray me [Fae] as a gay Machiavellian wizard" he was queried why he mentioned "gay" and replied "Because I am super gay." Rather than the obvious "because I want to portray myself as the victim of a homophobic attack" that everyone else sees (and Odder noted in that discussion there were "endless examples" of such). To avoid such tedious debates, could we expand the restriction to "not to make an LGBT-related complaint against another user, nor to mention his sexuality when being critical of another user". Perhaps there are other concise yet inclusive ways of saying this?
As for what he may do, it may also be worth exploring options. What you propose might work. It should certainly put a stop to making such accusations casually. There is still the possibility that harassment will continue by proxy -- that the posting, though appearing neutral, will simply be a match to the fire for others to fill in the blanks (especially if encouraged on IRC). Or that a well-meaning person asks Fae to give more details. Possibly it is worth trying, just to see if it works without such trouble.
There is also the question of what to do should the restriction be crossed. Many are reluctant to block either of us as they would miss the contributions. I don't think that's particularly healthy, but I can't change everyone's mind on that. What about a restriction to File: space?
I wonder if Odder has any comment on elcobbola's suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a pretty dreadful suggestion, actually. Firstly because it is worded quite poorly and provides a lot of room for interpretation (although Colin's improvement is quite straightforward and fixes this), secondly because banning a gay person from making complaints about anti-LGBT language and actions just sounds horrendous to me, thirdly because I do not see a continue pattern of such accusations (except those few sentences posted by Fæ after this section was opened), and fourthly because it just looks too ArbCom-lite for my liking at the moment. I should perhaps also add that I do not see the required consensus for such remedy at this time — is this is to change, then could everyone reading this please get involved; thanks. odder (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
My original request was that Fae should be able to make complaints via one of the 'crats. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative The problem is the clear and repeated use of false public remarks to harass and intimate and deflect attention. Your "ArbCom-lite" comment is just wind -- please just like you asked for "issues from other projects" to be avoided, can you please avoid bringing your prejudice here too. If there's a specific flaw in the proposal then mention it and suggest a solution: don't just say you don't like the smell of en:wp. You yourself said there were "endless examples" of Fae's problem behaviour and the recent cases show he hasn't changed one bit. What has frequency got to do with anything? Do you ever see a judge going "You don't seem to be burgling as much as you did before?" "Oh it's me back m'lud, I can't get through the windows so easily" "Oh well in that case I'll let you off". Lastly: there is a reason why most mature nations have representative democracy. The crowd is stupid and either depressingly craven or acts like a mob, and so we choose admins and 'crats in order to make the hard decisions (not to cop-out) and hopefully lead the community in their wisdom. What I see are those admins/crats seeing a problem and choosing to do nothing either because they fear repercussions or not taking my concerns seriously enough. I want a solution that helps not just me, but Jee and all the others Fae has and will attack. We elect 'crats and admins to find and enact those solutions. Doing nothing about what you call a "rather unpleasant situation" is not an option. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The wording was deliberately loose. Frankly, the point is not to fix or foresee every possible avenue of circumvention or area of comment, but rather to serve as a mere starting point -- a formal sanction just above doing nothing that can be easily followed and understood by someone acting in good faith (hopefully Fae) and easily referenced (i.e. not a nebulous archived ANU discussion) if not followed for future escalation. To claim it bans a "gay person from making complaints about anti-LGBT language and actions" is disingenuous nonsense. It specifically allows Fae to raise such concerns only without the inappropriate and disruptive labeling for which he is so often inclined. I would expect a bureaucrat, purportedly a leader of the community, to think and read critically and offer actual remedies for perceived infirmities. Эlcobbola talk 23:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I still support Эlcobbola's initial suggestion. Fæ may only need a small warning sign that his behavior is not supported by the community. The problem here now is he never get warned and so he may think it can be continued. Who knows, a slighter warning can make a big difference. He still allowed to reports "diffs" here; so no room for interpretations like "banning a gay person from making complaints about anti-LGBT language and actions". The only ban in Elcobbola's suggestion is to stop making his own anti-LGBT interpretations on every comment others made. He is still free to ask for community opinion without any prejudice. Jee 01:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I am posting this from mobile, so it'll be short. As one of the two bureuacrats to have actually participated in this discussion, I find it frustrating to have my comments described as " disingenuous nonsense," and have other negative comments thrown at me rather than see any positive attempt to solve this issue. Frankly, I'm done with this; get the other crats, who haven't had the willingness to post here, to help you; I'm over and out. odder (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
odder, I wouldn't use the word "disingenuous" to describe your "banning a gay person" comment but, like your arbcom comment, it is just spin and it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny nor take the discussion forward. How can you throw "rather than see any positive attempt to solve this issue" as a complaint, when you haven't made any attempt to solve it yourself? Lots of people saying there's a problem here, but few bothering to do something. I wish you all well when it's your turn. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If "disingenuous nonsense" is rude, "pretty dreadful suggestion" is also. Hmm, now people are quarreling each other, making the escape of Fæ, easier. All he need to do is to stay away for a week. :) Jee 13:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to volunteer to be the 'crat to receive any complaints about LGBT issues and or user-to-user issues in this situation. At present Fæ is on wikibreak; would it be possible to let this topic die the death it really needs to die and let's see what happens in future? There is no real reason to continue the discussion, the horse escaped, the barn doors are shut and hitting the horse with a stick a few more times won't put him/her/it back into the barn. Let's get with the spirit of the season and get back to work instead of endlessly swirling drama. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2015 (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.

Behaviour of User:Medium69

User:Medium69 has started opposing my nominations again, this time on an FPC. I understood that an administrator had asked him to stop his edits on my submissions, as I have done on his. @Yann: @Thibaut120094: Could an administrator step in please. Charles (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

previous discussion from archive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Medium69: Yann is right, I think you should do the same and ignore Charles' submissions for a while. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This archived state section and Charles spring to put discord? Is that a director could once and for all be impartial and cropped Charles? --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I had not seen the new mention. It is golden question I stop voting for or against, for any user. I never give a negative vote without reason. And fortunately that those who vote against will not be banned from the vote. Otherwise what interest? --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

user talk page

see history of User talk:Archbishopharden, add out of scope text--Motopark (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Inappropriate username, blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pimbot1234

Please look at the uploads of this user. He uses Commons as a free advertising forum. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted --A.Savin 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bobyr 2

User:Bobyr recently vandalized one of mine files and was blocked for a month. They evaded block and nominated a number of my files for deletion. This is fine with me, the files are photos of 17th and 19th century buildings, all of them out of copyright, so that I do not want to make a big fuss out of it, they will likely be kept after the term exprires. However, for one of the photos, they failed to create a deletion discussion page, substituting instead there one of my nominations, for a different file (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kukeldash Madrassah side view.jpg). When I realized that, I removed the deletion template from the photo, but the user evaded their block again today and reverted my changes [6]. I request reverting their edit and protecting the file, since there is no valid deletion discussion. (The building is from the 17th century, so that even the deletion discussion would be pointless, but let them have it if they want so). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Now redundant, they evaded the block again and changed the name of the file on the nomination page. Let it run its course then, though it might be good to restart the original block - the user is evading it all the time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of conscription and the conscription map

There has been a disagreement on whether Norway and Lithuania have conscription[7], and what color these countries should have in Wikimedia's Conscription map of the world [8].

Conscription is defined in Wikipedia as "compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." [9] Compulsory enlistment means that people are forced to join the military. However according to this source[10] norwegian people are not forced to join: "As with male conscripts, the change is not expected to force women to serve against their will, but to improve gender balance". Also in Lithuania all recent recruits have been volunteers [11], so people are not forced to join there either.

Since Norway or Lithiuania do not force people to join the army, there is no compulsory enlistment and thus, Norway and Lithuania do not have conscription. These countries should be colored blue on the map, and not red, as they are now colored. I have tried to change the map multiple times, but have been reported for vandalism. Other people tend to think a country has conscription, if compulsory enlistment is possible according to the law.

We should use the correct definition of conscription when coloring the map and Wikipedia should also contain relevant information. It is not very relevant if the law makes it possible to force people to join the army. What is relevant, is if people are actually forced to join.

I hope some sensible people would comment on this subject. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Make that clear by adding a different color. Something like black with yellow polka dots: Conscription not enforced. Or is that a problem? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the map needs additional colors, but we need to find consensus on what is the definition of conscription. Maybe users User:Hansbaer, User:MarlinMr, User:Huntster, User:Entalpia2, User:Leonhfr, User:D.M._from_Ukraine and User:Yann could give their input on the subject? --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Conscription is defined by law. If their law specifically says they shall enforce conscription, we should reflect that, regardless of how loose their enforcement is. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Huntster wrote: "Conscription is defined by law." No it is not. Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment", and the definition does not mention the law. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
What mechanism – other than a law – would a nation use to make something compulsory? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Law can make it possible to implement compulsory enlistment to army. However, if for example there are enough volunteers, there is no need to use compulsion to recruit. Conscription is defined as "compulsory enlistment". If all recruits are volunteers, there is no compulsory enlistment, and thus, no conscription. Even if the law makes it possible to force people to army, it does not mean there is conscription. --Roopeluhtala (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to note that the user has a very strong agenda. Roope Luhtala is the former chairman of the Finnish fringe political party Edistyspuolue, with a very heavy libertarian agenda, and was one of the most visible leaders in the failed citizen's initative OhiOn to end conscription in Finland. (The initiative did not get even 10% of signatures required to get it handled by the parliament.) One of the arguments he is using is that very few Western countries have conscription. Thus, the approach he is advocating is likely to support his real-lif political agenda. The user, if he is the same as fi:User:Roopeluhtala, and the real life Roope Luhtala, has been involved in similar arguments in fi-Wikipedia. The intensity of his political activism is so high that there is little reason to assume good faith on this subject. --MPorciusCato (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

103.18.40.202

User 103.18.40.202 is a foul mouth who change or revert categorization without proper explanation and insult me in the process (see : [12]). I suspect that is the same as 187.189.250.235 because, the same kind of edition is made by both.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

103.18.40.202 blocked 1 week. Thibaut120094 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I need to contact administrators off-wiki

I received an email from another Commons user which needs to be brought to the attention of administrators. I do not feel comfortable making a privately-sent email from another editor public.

What is the best way to privately report this so that all administrators can see it? Davidwr (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure you don't need "all administrators". You need one administrator. There is no protocol to pass something to all administrators and keep it hidden from other people, and besides, 200 or so people really can't keep a secret. - Jmabel ! talk 07:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:OSX

User:OSX keeps removing valid automobile type categories from photos such as [13]. He says since they are not the subject of the photo, they shouldn't be categorized. Can an admin please ask him to stop removing categories from identifiable automobiles? Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I have fully protected File:Verizon Wireless Store, Griffin.JPG for 1 day (surely in the wrong version). Anyway, if we were on :en Wikipedia, both of you, OSX and Mjrmtg, would now become blocked for violation of 3RR. Both of you are longterm users. Were your mutual reverts really necessary? Of course not. I acknowledge that a discussion had been started at User_talk:Mjrmtg. However, as you didn't come to a compromise, you should have called for a 3rd opinion.
With the mentioned image, I don't have a strong opinion and I acknowledge it's a borderline case. Surely, the cars in the background (2nd file) shouldn't result in categorization. However, the 3 fully visible cars in the foreground might be worthy to result in categorization. If we have thousands of images for each of the 3 cars models, we might do without categorization. However, if not, one of those 3 cars might just be the one for which somebody is searching. --Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Continuing to revert each others edits like this will eventually earn someone - or two someones - a block sooner or later, even here on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I have brought up this topic before here and here. It is simply inappropriate to populate categories with junk. A level or curation is required otherwise Commons will cease to be a useful resource. Mjrmtg is not following Commons:Categories#Categorization tips which states that categories should be set based on the main subject and noteworthy features. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
For File:Verizon Wireless Store, Griffin.JPG, the main subject is the store, not the cars in the parking lot. Most images of locations in built-up areas taken near a road will contain vehicles as incidental subject matters. The systematic categorisation of these vehicles cause massive over-categorisation problems. Those looking for images of a Ford Edge (94 files in the category), Honda Accord (25 files), or VW Jetta (60 files) are not going to use an image of a Verizon store containing a glimpse of these cars. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
OSX: you have a point, and I personally would never have added these categories to the photo, but the funny thing is it looks like we have almost no rear-view photos of these particular models, so this photo might be more useful for the particular cars than I'd normally expect; e.g. if someone wanted a rear view of one of those models, it might be worth extracting from this photo. That said, I wouldn't want to see a lot of images marked up with such incidental stuff, and certainly if we have a few decent photos of the rear of a particular model of car, this would not be worth doing. My own take when people do things like this to my photos: the image is not made less useful by adding more categories; the question is whether the category is so peripheral to the photo that the category is made less useful by adding this image. Above all, though: this should not be the subject of an edit war. Flipping things back and forth serves no one. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Jmabel, I agree with you. If the car is rare and there are few or no other photos showing the car (or even if rear styling is not illustrated elsewhere), then it is appropriate to include a primarily non-car image within the car category. For example, Category:Kia Visto is only properly illustrated by three files, and is therefore supplemented by "glimpse" shots. I do note that all the above mentioned categories for the Verizon photo have the relevant rear views:
Extraction of cars out of photos of buildings is rarely desirable as the resolution is almost always low and the photographer has placed emphasis on getting the right photo of the building/place, not the car. Between the dedicated car photographers here at Commons, and also the Flickr users granting Creative Commons access, car photos are generally well covered here. Extractions are rarely required, and if so, usually only temporarily until a replacement can be found. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't look at all of those (need to start work) but at least for Ford Edge those are all roughly 1/4 or 1/8 views; a view directly from the rear might be needed for some purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot deleted image.

Hi Wikipedia Administrators,

I updated the image file for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_op_aurora file name File:Akash-OP-Aurora-in-LA-in-2012.jpg. image deleted by Bot on 11:22, 21 December 2015 Alan due to Copyright violation.

I updated the original file for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_op_aurora.

Please help me, why this image file is under copyright violation and how to upload the image without any copyright violation?

Satish Kumar (WikipediA User) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satishkr.in (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Satish,
the problem with this image is that you claimed it to be "own work", when a Google-search yielded a number of publication-hits. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tinydog015

User is editwaring on multiple files, eg:

introducing discouraged watermarked files in place of non-watermarked initial versions. Ankry (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, reverted. — regards, Revi 06:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Other concerns

User:A.Savin is good photographer but I don't trust him as administrator because:

  • claimed me as vandal without any diffs and thinks that this way of behavior is normal [35]
  • deleted a lot of uploads without any discussion [36] (violation of Commons:Deletion policy). Reason "many COM:DW of non-free content" is insinuation - most of deleted files are free, other reasons are subjective
  • in this deletion request he or doesn't know copyright law of Russia or wrote insinuation (where is PD-old?)
  • in this deletion request he attacks users instead of discussion about files and rules

--Butko (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you lying? I didn't insult you as vandal or otherwise; but I stated of course that your mass wrong edits along with this permanent resistancy to any discussion is approaching vandalism. These are two different things! And it is also a lie that I deleted anything in contrary to the deletion policy; the mass uploads were recently submitted by misusing Flickr2C, were without proper categories, usage; and many were DW indeed, so that there was no reasonable possibility to check everything out. Besides, what should all this have to do with the recent thread? If you had any problem with my activities in the past, why did you not complain then? Not my (recent) behaviour is unbecoming of an admin, but surely yours! --A.Savin 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not lying about your words. You wrote that you will block me to prevent mass vandalism. I am not lying about mass deletion with violation of procedures of deletion. You had to use procedure of regular deletion. Here is log of your deletions. Could you give me links to discussions on user talks pages of uploader or photographer or deletion requests? Could you explain which derivative works contains this photo or this? You a wrote "If you had any problem with my activities in the past, why did you not complain then?" You are kidding? I am complain that you didn't create any deletion request and your activities in past were silent and ignored notifications. I noticed your activities only when you started harassing me --Butko (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
So what? Yes, I have the right to block a user for repeated violations of Commons policies, and much more I have the right to warn him! Where do you see "harassment"? It is nothing but slander what you write here! And again: If someone (you for example) uploads thousands of flickr images within a couple of minutes, without pre-selection, categorization, many of them COM:DW and copyvio ... he should then not expect that all trhe mess will be checked file by file. Instead, it will be deleted as a batch, because it is the "lesser evil" for Commons if everything is deleted including some files that are maybe OK, than if nothing is deleted and there is plenty of copyright violation and promotional content amongst it. It is common sense and common practice here, stop your wrong accusations finally, and switch to the actual problem, which is also in your behaviour and your uploads! --A.Savin 22:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This is main problem with you. Accusings without any diffs, deletions without any discussions. Could you provide links to "many of them COM:DW and copyvio" in your log? --Butko (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You know very well that it is not possible for a normal human to sort all your mess for copyvios, promotional content, poorest quality trash and average quality photos. Uploading thousands of files into categories like Unidentified countries (photographs by Artem Svetlov) or Buildings in unidentified countries is a damage for Commons! When will you finally get it? --A.Savin 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You lying about copyvios. @Svetlov Artem: could you answer who is author of photos on your flickr stream? You lying about damaging. Uploading is first step. Second step is categorisation. But you delete files before this step. --Butko (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you know the policy COM:DW? No? Then please read it as soon as possible. You will be surprised that for certain motives it is not sufficient to be the photographer to claim the copyright on the photograph. And in this stream, there were numerous photographs of advertising boards and similar. And no, of course I am not lying that "the first and probably the last step" is evil for Commons :) --A.Savin 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I know. But you did'n answer to my questions 1) which derivative works contains this photo or this? 2) Could you provide links to "many of them COM:DW and copyvio" (numerous photographs of advertising boards and similar)? You deleted all photos which don't contain any boards --Butko (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to repeat myself again and again, as you apparently wish. I have said everything, so that an adequate person will surely understand. Fact is: I am deeply convinced that you are damaging Commons 1) with your careless mass uploads, 2) with your careless categorization behaviour, 3) with your mass uploads in favor of an illegal, misanthrope regime. So, I am deeply convinced that you should not be a sysop on Commons. Of course, you will never voluntarily return your sysop flag, so this discussion is idle. For me, any further conversation with you is useless, so EOD with you! --A.Savin 13:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You also speedy delete single uploads (non batch). For example, could you explain why you speedy deleted photo of Moscow Kremlin with reason "Out of project scope" instead of discussion by procedure of regular deletion? --Butko (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Out-of-scope files are subject to speedy deletions, and an uncategorized, unused, terrible quality shot of a place being otherwise photographed and uploaded to Commons hundreds of times is out of scope for Commons. Maybe it's useful for flickr, but for Commons certainly not! --A.Savin 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please read rules Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope: "Out of scope" files/pages should normally be listed at Commons:Deletion requests. But you use your voluntaristic opinion instead rules --Butko (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"However for files/pages which very clearly fall outside of Commons' project scope, the tag {{Speedydelete}} can be used." Any more questions? --A.Savin 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why File:Kreml3.jpg is very clearly fall outside of Commons' project scope? --Butko (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Btw, I wonder if someone who uploads thousands of propaganda videos of Donetsk separatists should be a sysop here. The Donetsk separatists are actually barbarians, they sentence people to death and execute them without any fair trial. Even Putin does not want to have anything to do (anymore) with them! Colleagues, should we really tolerate a sysop who is obviously a "man on a mission" for a terrorist regime? If yes, then what comes next? Maybe a sysop from the "Islamic State"? Really, not funny... (( --A.Savin 21:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
War in Donbass is notable event and I've uploaded files related to all sides of this conflict. And sentences above are one more example of your style of discussion --Butko (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
So far I've seen only videos from separatists' TV submitted by you. --A.Savin 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:PsichoPuzo

Potential troll. Currently started the edition war in the Category:Symbols of Ukraine. Please, keep an eye on him. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Not potential, but well developed troll. All his edition in the Category:Symbols of Ukraine and its subcategories are destructive and misleading. --Kwasura (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kwasura: Makes a lot of rewritings of file descriptions, which he has no connection with. Possibly he is government employee and so the interested person. He makes a total mess in files I've made and uploaded.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@PsichoPuzo: :D Yes, mister, i am the president of Ukraine and will not give you to mess up with my country! :D But to be serious, esteemed user PsichoPuzo is removing the important information about the files from their description, trying to name them incorrectly, and claiming the authorship of the files that he never created, but just found, saved and uploaded from somewhere else. --Kwasura (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to see.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandal is calling me a "vandal" :D Nice! OK, have a look to @PsichoPuzo: recent "activity":

  1. Cropping the file's description everywhere;
  2. Trying to rename files incorrectly, where should be an appropriate name per official document 1 or official document 2;
  3. Claiming his authorship ("Self rework") of the files, created by totally different people, and deleting an information about the original creators of such files;
  4. Replacing correct (per official decision) files with incorrect. And then deleting the links to the correct information;
  5. et cetera, et ceter, et cetera.

Today was very "fruitful" day for @PsichoPuzo: I don't think i can clean up his mess on my own. Need help. --Kwasura (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You are genius, indeed.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision #182653303, File:Антимонопольний комітет України.gif, File:State Statistics Service of Ukraine.png, File:State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine.png, File:The State Agency of Ukraine reserve.png, some little part, just look for mess in categorization with redirects he left.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@PsichoPuzo: Thank you, sir. But seriously, can you prove that YOU, not the Ukrainian artist and heraldist Oleksa Rudenko, created this file, and many other files, which you are claiming as your "Self rework? --Kwasura (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Try to find the same in internet with earlier date of publication. Or prove the oposite first.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Here. --Kwasura (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And now look, what is the meaning of public domain, and what is the file format.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@PsichoPuzo: It is {{{PD-UA-exempt}}} per se, we all know that. But, are you trying to tell us that by using an option "save as .png" you became an author of this (and the other) work of the famous Ukrainian artist and heraldist? Please... --Kwasura (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And this is just too much already. --Kwasura (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Kwasura, please stop accussing vandalism to other users. Please the Talk page of these files or the Village Pump rather than the AN; administrators will not block any user unless clear and blatant vandalism, that this case is not. And the same for PsichoPuzo, use thet Talk pages. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: And how to be with the reversion of all my editing? This is not me who reverted them. He didn't added anything, he just deleted it. With all do respect, if it is not vandalism then what is the name for such actions? Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: You're not an admin, nor do you play one on television, so please stay out of Administrator's issues. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Andriy Greczylo, head of the Ukrainian Heraldic Society just replayed to me about the issues I am discussing here. The general understanding is that "the .svg file will have an author of the vectorized images of the Ukrainian symbols mentioned as the author of the particular .svg file, but it still will be nice to mention the authors of the particular symbol itself as the authors of the particular symbol. In regards to the .png, .gif and .jpg files, uploaders who are claiming their authorship of them (except the cases where the .png, .gif or .jpg files are derivatives from the .svg file) are becoming the impostors. An author of the original symbolic, not the uploader, need to be mentioned as the author." End of the message. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

Accusation of sockpuppetry against Tm and Tuvalkin

Pending

Here, in a DR discussion, User:A.Savin accused User:Tm of being a sockpuppet of mine (or the other way around). If User:Tm agrees, I would like this this claim to be tested by a check user and their findings to be reported publicly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Such a check would not be in line with the Checkuser policy, which requires the tool "be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects" (emphasis mine); similarly, our local stance is that "Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined." If A. Savin has evidence of sockpuppetry, he needs to open an RfCU and present it. Otherwise, the unsubstantiated accusations are inappropriate. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply, User:Elcobbola. I tried to find the policy on user checks by searching for "check user" but com:RFCU didn’t pop up (in hindsight, I forgot to filter the search for the right namespace). Let me retract the request for self check, then; I’ll await the results of the RfCU User:A.Savin is now expected to open. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There are always two possibilities: an RfCU, and a Duck test. The former is unavailable for users w/o CU rights, the second is, so I usually prefer the second; OK maybe I better would have wrote "sockpuppet or meatpuppet", because for me there is effectively very little difference, and a meatpuppet is always a different person and mostly also in a different household. --A.Savin 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I’d prefer to stay out of the matter and let it follow its course, but since nobody picked this up in more than 24 h, here’s my reaction to the above, adressing User:A.Savin’s two-fold statement:
  • A “duck test” for the hypothesis that me and User:Tm are one and the same person, or two people in collusion, will fail after any kind of analysis (through or cursory) of the interactions between us two: While neither of us is a deletionist and both of us usually demand high standards from admins (which, I think, is what irks User:A.Savin), we have severely divergent approaches to many aspects of Commons work, and that fact have been plainly obvious in the many times we clashed over file renamings, overwritings, (lack of) categorization, and more. I’m negatively impressed that User:A.Savin keeps insisting in his accusation — one thing would be a hothead rant in a DR, to be quickly withdrawn of left aside, another is to persist (and quite smugly) in such a transparently preposterous accusation (meaning he feels entitled to acuse without proof and feels above scrutiny).
  • User:A.Savin says that an RfCU «is unavailable for users w/o CU rights», meaning, I suppose, those users like himself. This is of course not so, as anyone may file in an RfCU, regardless of user rights; he seems to mean that only a user with check-user rights (necessarily an admin) could conduct the kind of test that would prove whether me and and User:Tm are indeed sockpuppets or not — that’s true but there are strict rules for when and how to conduct such tests: In his sentence above, User:A.Savin seems to be saying that, if he had CU-rights he’d simply check for me and User:Tm instead of resorting to a duck test — and that’s worrisome.
I await further input from uninvolved admins. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Blackwhiteupl

ResolvedResolved by Didym Techman224Talk 01:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. A Category Pirna is not the Gallery Pirna on Commons. And category paths are not pictures. And the next is that Wikimedia has created a template {{GeoGroupTemplate}} for categories. So you can see on a OSM map all located pictures of Pirna what you can not understand due no interest, as well as on Panoramio. That is as well as practice in all real photo archives. I deleted none other categories. The next is that all peoples searching optical or with text but the most search with viewing photos and not to have the right name. You are lying about me that I chose too many categories without the right paths. Iam creating categories because Iam uploading a mass of pictures. I have never chosen the category Pirna to other subcategories of Pirna and you see that you have 60 categories in the main category Pirna. You are wrong to think that pictures are categories. You have a difference about a picture and a category. A picture here can have a lot of other categories. Your tactic is to sabotage Commons that all should create a lot of empty categories and you see none pictures and only names of categories. The next is that a user or viewer can see how many pictures are on Commons of Pirna and you are having there 13,410 pictures of Pirna on Commons, in this moment. So everybody can read this without to count all in all in other categories. Other sense is that others can find all faster. Other users from Commons which are take pictures for here, can see on the map where they must take pictures and where not. They do not need to search in all categories and these had a lot of wrong pictures. If you refuse this logic you must report the one other user, who had created the geogroup template. There is the template for the located pictures of a main category. On Panoramio you have this principle to see all on a map and this is the reason why they have more photos than on Commons and here they have lesser and lesser uploads. If you do not want it you must delete here this template. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Geogroup --Blackwhiteupl (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Heis mocking that too much pictures about Pirna are there and I uploaded among 13400, 11400 Pictures to Commons here and should be blocked and all photos are reviewd by admins and reviewers. He is probably from the German interior ministry which is mocking to have no clerks to observe me. --Blackwhiteupl (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The next: I have uploaded 79151 pictures to Commons. --Blackwhiteupl (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The more files you upload, the more important it is to abide by our established procedures of categorization. You either are not able or not willing to understand Commons:Categories. Your statements don't sound very reasonable to me, and they're so full of misapprehensions and fallacies that I don't know where to start. Rather than read the rules, you come up with stories about the interior ministry observing you. Maybe acting in the public isn't the best thing for you at all in this situation. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
He is stalking me with lies that all my files would have been wrong described. What will be the next lie? --Blackwhiteupl (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally this was about the over-categoritation of thousands of files that can be easily seen in Blackwhiteupl's edit history or in Category:Pirna or Category:Originals. I don't remember ever having had any contact with this user before. Now that he starts making up nonsense like "he is probably from the German interior ministry" and "is stalking me with lies", I'd like to ask admins to also stop this defamation. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Fxfanbr

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

Jubair1985

Hi, I find the number of different DSLRs used by Jubair1985 (talk · contribs) a bit suspicious. Most of the files are the original versions with EXIF data, and except a few files, I can't find copies elsewhere. This user admitted last year "I collect some photos from internet and I mention those site names." Second opinion needed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan

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

Unfortunately I must report PokestarFan. We've had competence issues on the English Wikipedia that have led us here. A number of edits needed to be suppressed, numerous pages deleted, and several images removed and deleted for copyright violations. They are currently in their second block on the English Wikipedia. It would appear on the commons the editor is also running into copyright violations. They have had all three images deleted due to copyright violations and unfortunately I believe a preventative block is required until a time whereby this editor can demonstrate an understanding of how licensing and copyright works. Mkdw (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is another planet (of the same universe), but it serves as background. --Opus88888 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The three images deleted for copyright violations was here on the commons, not on the English Wikipedia. I mentioned their block there because it has relevance and shows a continuation of the same behaviour here. Naturally I fully expect their conduct at the Commons to be the primary source of evaluation. Mkdw (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir AWA

I'm not convinced this user's rather creepy focus on children's buttocks[37][38][39][40][41][42] is particularly helpful to Commons fulfilling its purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted/removed inappropritate categories. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Warned. Yann (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Weird

I have no idea what this user thinks they are up too but that are doing some bizarre page moves that I've not got the time to sort out I'm afraid. Blocked for a day to allow folk to work out what the hell is going on! --Herby talk thyme 11:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I cleaned the mess. Blocking for a day was needed. Yann (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiples copyvios

Phillip Cruzz (talk · contribs) and Wilmel92 (talk · contribs) this two user upload multiples copyvios by Google images on the Carnival Brazil. Possible case of ducks. Fabiano msg 00:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

All uploads by Phillip Cruzz probable copyvios. Fabiano msg 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Extortion racket - Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts (revived)

Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody: We should review the local contributions of these extortionists.

  1. Are any of these users administrators here?
  2. Should we block all of them? They've only been blocked en masse on en. User:Jamesally87 was blocked.

Specific users

For example, please see the discussion of bad faith editor Arr4, who has over 2000 edits here, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts . The sock likely pushed for deletion of files, as part of the extortion racket. Possible examples and concerns:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:D7K_6329_-_Sophie_Dee_(6746800711).jpg is very suspicious. (Also, Arr4 opened the DR, but the page shows that a User:Rahat, wikilinked to User:Ctg4Rahat, opened it, yet neither user exists; I don't see the normal evidence (e.g. logs, redirects) of a user rename.)
  2. File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg,File:Mosharraf karim.jpg, File:MosharrafKarim.jpg, all deleted.
  3. User_talk:Arr4#Your_bad_idea is concerning too.
  4. File:Tony022.jpg is claimed as the work of Ctg4Rahat/Arr4 BUT metadata says Chris Hardy took w/Canon EOS 5D.

The LTA entry on en says in part, 'There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation.' ... 'Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.'

--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (feel free to refactor above)

I think @Denniss: took care of blocking. File:Tony022.jpg deleted as copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Not at the time. Arr4 was eventually closed - on October 7th. Still wondering:
  1. Are any of these users administrators here?
  2. Should we block all of them?

--Elvey (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment In my opinion, administrators should only block those socks if they start to abuse it here. I believe that Wikipedia is different than Commons. Well, there are socks from the English Wikipedia that are good users here on Commons. For example, Druddigon, which is a sockpuppet of Mr. Wiki Pro at Wikipedia, reverts vandalism here on Commons. There are even two users that gave him a barnstar (including me), and he is even autopatrolled. So let's wait those socks, unless they are known for crosswiki-abuse. Also, Arr4 is autopatrolled and a rollbacker at bnwiki. So Commons is Commons and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. I am not defending Arr4, but my point is that we should wait until they abused. Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonjoheuerman

The name of new account Jonjoheuerman (talk · contribs) suggests that its by U.K. charity-fundraiser en:Jonjo Heuerman, which is rather unlikely to be true. I've asked the user to comment on that. However, as long as there is no confirmation of identity, IMO this account-name is not acceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Image from my own book that I uploaded was removed

Hi,

I uploaded an image from my own book to this page: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8_%28%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%B1%29

but was removed due to lack of permission. I had followed the process suggested by upload wizard. Please let me know how should I be doing this correctly? The book is a self-published book that my colleague and I authored and published.

Why did this happen and how can I fix it?

thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali fatolahi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 03 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ali fatolahi: If that is a book, all parts of the book (including the cover) is copyrighted by its author. If you are the author of the book, please send an e-mail to the OTRS and agree to license it under a free license. If you are not the author, ask permission from the book author to license it under a free license, and let him forward the permission to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please use Commons:Email templates for permission and send them to Commons:OTRS. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
An admin should take a look at the deleted file and help for a sensible OTRS request: It is very unlikely that the book author will licence the whole book (or that s/he’s contractually free to do so, unless it was self published (it was!)). But if the deleted file is a single image from the book, cover or not, it may be separately licensed by its own author, a comparatively simple process. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to give permission for the whole book. As User:Tuvalkin suggested, can an admin please take a look and help me to give permission for that one single image? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.21.196.68 (talk) 21:52, 04 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this about File:M-Shafiei-TheRaven-PersianEdition.jpg? Presuming you are the copyright holder, and that the file is in scope (it seems tangential enough to Poe's The Raven that it's not obvious to me it is in scope), then Walter Siegmund's advice applies: use Commons:Email templates for permission. There is no need to give permission for the whole book, you can give it for the one photo. The only caveat is that OTRS is very backlogged, and it could be as much as two months before the ticket would be issued. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

LiXuanze copying my user pages on another Wiki

I just returned from a vacation, and have noticed a problem created by this user on the Chinese Wikipedia. They have duplicated my Commons user page onto theirs, as well as duplicated my Commons gallery sub-pages ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]). This is very irregular and as I do not speak Cantonese or Mandarin I do not know how to proceed. Is there a Chinese-speaking admin that could provide assistance? Fry1989 eh? 17:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m sure you can just delete the subpages under your own wp:zh user page; an edit summary in English with a link to their originals in Commons would make it crystal clear. Should it bring the matter under attention from wp:zh admins, even better. Deleting this user’s own user page is trickier, but if any time someone else’s edits on one’s user page are justified it is surely in a case like this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It should be fine tagging them as speedy referring to this here. The user is blocked here on commons and enwiki. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall try that. Fry1989 eh? 20:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hold that. It appears User:Wcam has labelled them for deletion there. I'll wait and see what happens first. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A.Savin / Hubertl

Dieser Administrator hatte bereits massive Probleme in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia, vor allem wegen seiner Umgangsformen. Nun meint er, auch hier ähnlich aggressiv agieren zu können. In Wikipedia wie auch auf Commons hat A.Savin seit Jahren ein von mir ausgesprochenes editier- und Kontaktverbot auf Seiten von mir, weil es genug unangenehme Begegnungen gegeben hat. Nun meint A.Savin mich als Idioten beschimpfen zu können, dazu wirft er mir "Machtversessenheit" vor, "elende Machtspielchen", "blinder Haß". Er hat sich sogar erdreistet, im vergangenen Jahr mich per Mail zu beschimpfen, worauf ich nicht reagiert habe. Ich bin gerne bereit, dieses Mail hier zu veröffentlichen. Eine nachhaltige deutliche Ansprache und eine Bekräftigung des Kontaktverbots ist angemessen. --Hubertl 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Problem auf deutscher Wikipedia wegen Umgangsformen" sieht wohl eher so aus... --A.Savin 17:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It is Hubertl not me who offends people on Commons! Look: Added by Hubertl, removed by me, where a Commons sysop (Eleassar) is being called an autist by Hubertl. Somewhat I hoped that Hubertl would leave it that way and we would not needto open a user problem, but sadly I was wrong... --A.Savin 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


I would have preferred to leave this to other colleagues, but currently nobody seems to be inclined to take this issue. As I had my differences of opinion with both of you, I may be not too biased. Both of the disputed edits by A.Savin and Hubertl are clearly personal attacks.
  • Hubertl could have easily replied to Johann Jaritz without attacking Eleassar[52], the more as he actually confirmed Eleassar's position in the disputed DR. To publish negative (and completely unsourced) statements about the personal life (health and university studies) of another user, sysop or not, is completely inacceptable.
  • A.Savin's removal of the personal attack[53] was justified. On the other hand, it was not o.k. that A.Savin attacked Hubertl as an "idiot" in his reply[54] to a rather harsh post by Hubertl on A.Savin's talkpage.
  • So, both of you are reprimanded not to post personal attacks and to confine your comments to the factual issue.
  • In regard to Hubertl's claim to ban A.Savin from editing his talkpage: a full ban would impair A.Savin's admin-related duties and therefore is not appropriate at this moment. However, I propose a mutual agreement from both Hubertl and A.Savin not to post any comment on the other one's talkpage. In case of disagreement between you two, you should ask for a 3rd opinion, for example at COM:Forum or — in case of more serious issues — to bring them to COM:AN/U. However, this agreement would not pertain to the automated posting of notifications such as for a deletion-requests, permission-missing-template etc. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the fact that they must avoid talking or not. However I agree with Túrelio that all hugely insults, profanity, derogatory terms ... are totally useless and should be avoided, every opinion, ideas, point of views can be expressed very firmly while remaining courteous. If no it's better to say nothing IMO, regardless of who throws the first stone. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Insults in deletion request

Hello, on this page an unregistered user has requested some pictures for deletion. I don't mind him/her doing the request but I have serious reservations concerning the language used: "When questions relating to the meta:DICKish way the #monkeyselfie was trotted out at Wikimania began being asked the photo quietly disappeared from the conference; if that isn't evidence of the arseholish way the photo was being used at Wikimania I don't know what is -- yet, the arseholish photos are still on this very project!" - Could someone look into it? Kind regards Ziko (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling a horse a horse isn't offensive is it? I don't see anything actionable here. Natuur12 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Natuur12. Our assessment would have been different, if the wording had been directed towards a specific person/user. But in regard to what happened at this Wikimania, these rough expressions are not that inappropriate, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:OSX

Hi,

Could an administrator please take action against User:OSX? Reverting four DR closing without any motivation except for repeating his own viewpoint again is kinda disruptive, especially when you are the nom. (1, 2, 3 and 4) This led to two different closings (scope is a bit subjective so two different closings is hardly surprising) which made me practicly overrule Wdwd who already closed the DR's as kept. (I undid my closing's). Also, starting a lot of DR's for his own (and others) uploads just because he believes they are redundant isn't a good practice either since a lot of them are in scope imho. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though the reverted DR's have been fixed. These cars are not so bad to require all these deletion nominations. I supported OSX when he was nominating his own lesser quality cars for deletion, I don't think that many of this last batch are bad enough to waste time on. Joke follows: If you're going to go through a category worrying about "in focus, in shadow, in scope" etc., please go through COM:PENIS and its anatomical equivalents for a few weeks? I'd be delighted to worry about "too big, too small, etc." to clean out some of the +20,000 images of the exact same body parts, over and over. end joke. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The edits were reverted because they were done with the closing note, "no rationale for deletion". This is invalid because it is completely false. I had stated "low quality file", which correlates with Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a valid (or invalid) closing isn't a reason to revert it. If you read the link you provide properly you can see the following line of text: "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests." This implies that DR's regarding "redundant files" can be closed as kept. Natuur12 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The closures on these DRs feel more like supervoting than a closure of the discussion. wdwd (talk · contribs) should either have closed the DRs as delete, or voted to keep. By closing as a keep, when there was a policy-based reason for deletion and no argument against is unseemly at the least. That is regardless of the merits of the images in question.
That said, OSX should not reverted - the correct first step to challenge the closure would have been ask the closing admin. I also feel OSX is far too keen on deleting files, and the closure of these DRs as "keep" is ultimately correct even if procedural errors took place.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as supervoting at Wikimedia Commons. Commons != en-wiki and admins often have to follow their own instincts instead of reflecting the consensus in a DR since people are often ignorant about our policy's. Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I know Commons is not en, but the principle of a supervote can occur anywhere - it is better to !vote yourself than close something against the flow of a debate. Its not like there is a legal concern here that would trump consensus. The closures may be "following the instincts" of the closing admin (and I agree with final result), but they simply state that the rationale is invalid (which is NOT true). A closure saying "image is not redundant" would have been better - disagreeing with the nomination not saying the nomination is invalid.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No it isn't since the workload is already hardly managable. If the few admins closing DR's have to comment on every simpel case because their closing won't reflect the nom's statement it is unworkable. It is perfectly okay to close such nominations as "keep" instead of commenting. Lawyering over the exact wording of the closing at an international project when the closers native language isn't English is a bit harsh. After you have closed a couple of thousand DR's you will probably agree with me. Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
My point here is that it prevents the nominator from having any sort of valid argument should he disagree with it. You cannot really sanction him, when he is correct that the closure is simply not true. It would be helpful if we had a proper venue to challenge "keep" closures, to mirror Commons:Undeletion requests.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
We already have such a venue. It is called the closing admins talk page and renominating the file(s) if the discussion with the closing admin is a stale providing a link the the relevant discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:A.Savin

Accusation of sockpuppetry against Tm and Tuvalkin

Pending

Here, in a DR discussion, User:A.Savin accused User:Tm of being a sockpuppet of mine (or the other way around). If User:Tm agrees, I would like this this claim to be tested by a check user and their findings to be reported publicly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Such a check would not be in line with the Checkuser policy, which requires the tool "be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects" (emphasis mine); similarly, our local stance is that "Requests to run a check on yourself will be declined." If A. Savin has evidence of sockpuppetry, he needs to open an RfCU and present it. Otherwise, the unsubstantiated accusations are inappropriate. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply, User:Elcobbola. I tried to find the policy on user checks by searching for "check user" but com:RFCU didn’t pop up (in hindsight, I forgot to filter the search for the right namespace). Let me retract the request for self check, then; I’ll await the results of the RfCU User:A.Savin is now expected to open. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There are always two possibilities: an RfCU, and a Duck test. The former is unavailable for users w/o CU rights, the second is, so I usually prefer the second; OK maybe I better would have wrote "sockpuppet or meatpuppet", because for me there is effectively very little difference, and a meatpuppet is always a different person and mostly also in a different household. --A.Savin 21:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I’d prefer to stay out of the matter and let it follow its course, but since nobody picked this up in more than 24 h, here’s my reaction to the above, adressing User:A.Savin’s two-fold statement:
  • A “duck test” for the hypothesis that me and User:Tm are one and the same person, or two people in collusion, will fail after any kind of analysis (through or cursory) of the interactions between us two: While neither of us is a deletionist and both of us usually demand high standards from admins (which, I think, is what irks User:A.Savin), we have severely divergent approaches to many aspects of Commons work, and that fact have been plainly obvious in the many times we clashed over file renamings, overwritings, (lack of) categorization, and more. I’m negatively impressed that User:A.Savin keeps insisting in his accusation — one thing would be a hothead rant in a DR, to be quickly withdrawn of left aside, another is to persist (and quite smugly) in such a transparently preposterous accusation (meaning he feels entitled to acuse without proof and feels above scrutiny).
  • User:A.Savin says that an RfCU «is unavailable for users w/o CU rights», meaning, I suppose, those users like himself. This is of course not so, as anyone may file in an RfCU, regardless of user rights; he seems to mean that only a user with check-user rights (necessarily an admin) could conduct the kind of test that would prove whether me and and User:Tm are indeed sockpuppets or not — that’s true but there are strict rules for when and how to conduct such tests: In his sentence above, User:A.Savin seems to be saying that, if he had CU-rights he’d simply check for me and User:Tm instead of resorting to a duck test — and that’s worrisome.
I await further input from uninvolved admins. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
One more edit to keep this from being archived for 3 more days. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
From what I see, the discussion on this DR is far from COM:MELLOW. Could User:A.Savin stop accusing other to "damage Commons" and/or of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry ? Either you have strong evidence to support your claims and you provide them here (or start an RfCU), or you must step down and apologize to both users for your rude comments. Pleclown (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Pleclown, indeed in that DR User:A.Savin’s behaviour was anything but COM:MELLOW (and against COM:AGF, too). Please note that User:A.Savin’s ammend to the nomination (posted at 02:06) admits that «even if some of these photos are relevant», «surely no need for a series of >100 similar shots». My keep-vote addressed this amendment defending that «Culling of near-dupes should be done» — which is exactly what User:A.Savin himself suggested. Yet he reacted the way he did, and kept escalating the tone and content of his contention. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Re-adding my comment. IPs are allowed to speak here, this is not a vote and I am not bypassing a block. I just want anonymity.
+1 any admin that is trolling and refuses to acknowledge their bad behaviour should resign the tools or be desysoped. Savin has been disruptive and vengeful for years, everyone can see it.
--92.23.67.68 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects"
I think making baseless accusations of socking certainly count as causing damage to the Wikimedia community and that should be seen as damaging the projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a very serious accusation. If User:A.Savin has evidence, he should post it at COM:RFCU. Otherwise, he should retract his claim. Techman224Talk 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't seriously meant (just some trolling), removed, I'm very sorry s.b. felt offended. --A.Savin 18:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not do this: Closed DRs should not be edited; threaded contributions which have replies should not be removed, as it would leave said replies hangining in a void, making the thread uncomprehensible and the repliers look silly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And please do not change the title of this thread. Also you, an administrator, did not made "just some trolling", you made an very serious accusation of 2 other users of being a sockpuppet and sockpuppeter without proof. After being confronted about your baseless accusations, you
1- Didnt reply in the original DR
2- Deleted the original accusations.
3- You tried to change the title of this thread.
In resume an behaviour unbecoming of an administrator and a gentleman. Tm (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Not going to state here anymore; I thought some days are enough 4all to cool down; if you want satisfaction, contact a sysop of your trust. --A.Savin 23:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Satisfaction, for want of a better word, is indeed sought; the said contact of a sysop is this very thread at AN/U, still pending but with a semblance of majority opinion among contributing admins already sketched. Looks like, 3:1, an accusation of sockputtetry is somewhat serious business.
As for cooling down, lets all remember that this was triggered in by a DR where I essentially agreed with your (amended) position and still you got so affronted that I dared to vote against your DR (as you often do) that you went ahead with a ludicrous accusation of sockpupettry, maybe trusting all other admins would have your back, but certainly not in a cool-headed manner.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What do I see here? we talk about gentleman and I'm not in? I so fix this issue right now. For who talk about "gentleman" should not try nailed to the pillories others. Mistakes (of course when and if there are) are one of human characteristics. The votes of people that have nothing to do in a story are of course often suspect and always very frustrating although 1/ I agree that these votes are not less relevant 2/ I don't say it's, or it's not, the case here 3/ without proof, it's indeed better to choose carefully the words 4/ I have the intuition that plaintiffs can continue to live in spite of this small offense, so it should not be considered so terrible. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

¿Stalker?

Hi. I'm a Spanish WP user. The last days I have been stalked by puppets and unidentified users. You can see some of those stalkings here, here, por falta de etiqueta generalizada en Discusión:Mauricio Macri here. Simultaneously an anonimous IP (186.135.128.72) began to promote the masive deletion of images uploaded by me. Only those uploaded by me. The mentioned IP is very similar to one used by the people who are stalking me at the SP-WP. This one: 186.135.131.20. I search both with a IP-locator and the two are located in a little town of Cordoba (Argentina). ¿Can you establish if I am been stalking here? Thank you very much.--Roblespepe (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I received a new threat and I confirmed that's actually a stalking. Its a political threat. The message says that I'm a "zurdito", that I must stop editing "against Macri" and if not they will use rubber-bullets to stop me.--Roblespepe (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Roblespepe: Please e-mail emergency@wikimedia.org about this. Administrators cannot handle this threat. However, they may block the IPs that are threatening you though. ★ Poké95 09:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
IP blocked. Yann (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yann, I see that you blocked 186.135.142.44. Note that the deletion requests to which Roblespepe refers above came from 186.135.128.72. CU shows me that they are very likely the same user. However, some of 186.135.128.72's DRs were correct -- two have been closed as deleted, one by me and one by User:Christian Ferrer. The others were reasonable mistakes or differences of opinion. In addition, I have nominated a different file of Roblespepe's for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dakar2016-Ruta.png), and corrected the licensing on several others. It looks to me like the IP user's work was entirely legitimate. Threats, of course, are not at all OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

MehrdadFR

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#MehrdadFR
★ Poké95 10:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This user should be blocked for edit war and repeated offensive behavior (insult my parents, teachers and the ones who raised me, called me a "racist" and "hater", called me "pure Medieval bigot", delete my comments). The editor insists upload an incorrect map to spread propaganda of Iran's authoritarian regime. He is promoting edit wars in various Wikimedia projects to promote a lie and frequently insults those who disagree with him. Chronus (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone do something??? Chronus (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked you to learn basics about polite behavior and after you started with insults, and you only reverted edits and continued with insults against whole country. You're one who is vandalizing and starting edit wars, not to mention removing reliable sources and defending pedophiles. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And keeps going... Chronus (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Insults from both sides. Please both stop any personal attack immediately. --Krd 09:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Krd: "From both sides"? Do you read the absurdities he wrote me? You've gotta be kidding me. Chronus (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Krd. The behavior of both wasn't good. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

INeverCry

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.

Hey guys, INeverCry firstly start a attacking me here, just because I questioned his ambiguous votes. Them, I moved from there, as it was a totally personal and nothing related to the issue. Them he simply removed my comment questioning his vote at the beginning, vanishing the question about it.

He obviously have issues with me, as he already made a very questionable block (for 2 days just because a wrote that one volunteer is a girlfriend of other, and they are actually engaged ¬¬) , and made this attacks for free. Now his is reverting my reinsertions [55] [56] censoring my voice, just because it's very fishy his support, as you can see by his answers about it. -- RTA 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: "Care to waste some more time with these games? I've got all the time in the world amigo" - INeverCry [57], obviously he want to continue bother me, just because he have time... I don't have, and I think that posture is prejudicial for the community, -- RTA 19:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly trolling INeverCry. I suggest you drop it and stop trolling or face having a topic/interaction ban or worse, being blocked on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You're a good photographer. When you insult me or Beria, the only person you're disrespecting is you, yourself. --The Photographer (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If I knew that my nomination would cause all this turmoil, I would not make it. :( 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Its not about your nomination, I appreciate all your nominations, including nominations that you have made of Rodrigo pictures. This has nothing to do with it, this is like a puzzle. You need to know all the pieces to know that we are talking about. This has to do more with respect to my wife. --The Photographer (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done and closed. Nonsense / revenge allegations. Don't try to revive 2014 grudges. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


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

User:PokestarFan 2

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

PokerstarFan continues to run into copyright violation issues. At some point competence is required and the cleanup following this individual is wasting the communities time and energy. Mkdw (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done The user has now 6 deleted files, (s)he has never been warned and never been blocked. I warned him. His/her only extant upload is maybe out of scope, feel free to nominate for regular (not speedy) deletion. I do not see need to do more. If (s)he uploads one more copyright violation, then (s)he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Nebo-Neron

Nebo-Neron (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
The user is systematically uploading scanned photographs from a family archive as his own works. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done The user has now 6 deleted files, (s)he has never been warned and never been blocked. I warned him. I do not see need to do more. If (s)he uploads one more copyright violation, then (s)he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden may benefit from being asked to calm down

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.
Resolved

I'm just going to leave this here. Act upon it, if you think it warrants action (which I think it does). - Thekohser (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't need people putting oil in the fire. Yann (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Yann, in what way and manner is this matter resolved? Has the user in question, regardless of being right or wrong in his plea (and regardless of the obvious value of his contributions), apologized for his intentionally offensive, recurrent language and tone? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It’s this all over again: Someone gets offended for being subjected (fairly or not, no dispute) to usual, boilerplate actions, takes exception over tone-less explanations of that fact, goes up the walls in an unprovoked escalation, threatens to leave… — and the community is expected not only to accept this demand for exceptional treatment (instead of discussing changes to possibly unfair procedures and policies/guidelines), but even to refrain to as much as deplore the situation, just to avoid the solo rampage to reach even more extreme levels of bezerkness… Doesn’t look good to me at all. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the VP page is a textbook example of how Commons completely fails to deal with the "Angry Customer" problem. User:Jean11 took it upon himself to enforce his interpretation of some guideline and, without discussing with any of the users involved, chose to demote dozens of users' attribution categories to "hidden". Many of these categories have existed for years and Adam's since 2012. User:Adam Cuerden believed hidden categories were invisible to logged-out users (they may well have been at one point, hence the name, but no longer). So he believed someone was completely removing the mechanism by which visitors may discover his works. He also (rightly in my opinion) believes he, as a creative, deserves the same recognition we would give to a painter (Category:Paintings by Vincent van Gogh) or non-Commons photographer (Category:Photographs by Nadar), whether notable or not. In response he is told that "The rules are apply for everybody, for Adam Cuerden too" yet it seems these "rules" aren't written in stone. We get told nonsense about categories only applying to the subject (clearly false). Old grudges are brought up against Adam. He is lectured on the category system and told that Commons is only a place to store images, no more no less, and not to expect any credit. (This by someone who was still learning his alphabet when Adam started restoring images for Commons.) And Adam is told to "calm down".

Now anyone who does that (or who mentions the "mellow" word) should be sent on an "Angry Customer 101" training course. This early Google hit is a typical example. Let me quote "The first thing an angry customer wants is to vent. To do so, they need someone to listen—and, for better or worse, you are that person. Listening patiently can defuse a situation, as long as the customer feels acknowledged in his or her complaint. Hear them out. When they are done talking, summarize what you’ve heard and ask any questions to further clarify their complaint.". It is our job, as a Community, when someone comes to the Village Pump angry about some injustice, to professionally deal with that "Angry Customer" situation. It is our job to calm them down by how we listen, what we say and what we do. It is absolutely not our job to tell them that they must calm down all by themselves, and ask nicely, before we will start listening. Google "tone argument" to find out how that doesn't work. The condescending response that Adam received from many was, as Yann puts it, simply putting oil in the fire, and it is not surprising the result is a descent to crude insults and threats to leave. That is the community failing at "Angry Customer" big time. Or "How to lose a major creative talent from Commons, in a dozen edits". (And no, I don't mean that the quantity of one's contributions to Commons excuses bad behaviour, but there's a time and place for handling persistent problems if necessary).

The words "Adam Cuerden may benefit from being asked to calm down" is almost quotable as parody of dreadful "customer service" by this community. You can all see plainly that Adam is upset and angry. As someone who has given thousands of hours to the project he's a "valued customer". So figure out what he's upset and angry about and deal with that in a professional manner. -- Colin (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Colin, Adam is not a customer, he’s a collegue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You are missing the point. And your rant above is also missing the point. Adam isn't arguing for exceptional treatment. He's arguing to retain something he and dozens of other users have had for several years, that someone wiped out in a bureaucratic and fairly mindless action. It is clear the so-called guideline has little community support based on the conversation at the VP. It is up to you, and everyone else dealing with this, to act professionally. If the tone disagree with you, then unlike the customer-service agent, you are quite capable of completely ignoring the situation. Instead you, and others, chose not to help but to snipe and make things worse. Being professional means not being bullied into agreeing to unreasonable demands, but also means not verbally refusing to help someone in pain just because they used the F-word. And Commons needs to learn when someone is constantly a PITA and needs encouraged to change their ways, or when someone is acutely upset about some injustice (whether rightly or wrongly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 2016-01-19T08:30:36‎ (UTC)

As Colin explained much better than I could do, the complains here do not help to solve the issue. There is already a discussion on the COM:VP about this. Yann (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Kwasura and Latin to Cyrillic renamings

Well, this has to be stopped. The user moved dozens of files (an example) from Latin names to Cyrillic names. They first used criterion 2 (incorrect names); after that they stopped to indicate any criteria altogether. I talked to them at their talk page. They agreed this is not the optimal way to proceed, asked my opinion on which names would be the best, and continued moving. Nobody cared. I stopped operating Delinker requests. Still, nobody cared. There was a discussion at User talk:Natuur12#unnecessary moves with hundred of linkfixes, Kwasura said that it would be good to find a solution and continued to move files. They are still doing this. I am afraid the filemover flag has to be removed; if the user continues, they should be blocked; and all files they moved should be moved back. I do not see any other way how this disruption can be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, I certainly do not want to upset anyone, but given example is not the correct example. There are situations then files are named incorrectly, (some more, etc.) or makes no sense and Latin letters are used. What to do in this situation? If Cyrillic letters are not allowed in Commons I will be happy to have everything renamed in English. There should be no exceptions, of course. I would like to hear an advice from an administrator, not from other users who might be simply prejudiced. Perhaps some users (bless 'em) would love to see me blocked. There is huge systematizing and informative work done too. But, of course, it doesn't meter. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Ymblanter, even though I favor using non-Latin letters in category names where/when appropriate, whenever the "move" action is used against consensus (and User:Kwasura cannot claim xe was unaware of lack of consensus), then the flag should be removed immediately: The ability to move to a new name is understood to be used after a case was presented (namely by users without the said flag) and discussed favourably or when the renaming is trivial. And of course, the flag can be granted back upon further discussion and clarification, as happen several times in the recent past. Bringing a user to AN/U for a matter of bad moves while xe still retains the flag seems to be a case of skipping steps. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And I am certainly happy to have a discussion and except broad participation from administrators and other users. I was thinking a lot about «the only rule for filename harmony is that there’s no filename harmony», but isn't the «harmonize the file names of a set of images» one of the legitimate reasons for the files to me renamed? I wouldn't be having no problems at all if harmonizing the images in English, or would I? So, the problem seems to be in using Cyrillic letters when harmonizing the names. And then I was thinking even more. It's not about Cyrillic script either. Welsh and Hungarians are using Latin script, but no one can read their text but them. So, I finally decided that it is English language after all. But Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project, where media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script. And harmonization is legit. But it makes some people unhappy and makes me so confused. I am here not to fight or argue. If some policy is unclear or questionable - let us talk about it and find out the solution for generations of other users to come. But, please, let us not to sacrifice the harmonization. Or is it the bad thing to harmonize the file names of a set of images, so that only one part of all names differs? As I spoke previously, I have no problems harmonizing everything in English, I just couldn't find the correct policy about it. I hope we can find out one. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Kwasura, here’s not the place to discuss filenaming guidelines. Here admins deal with the much less interesting subject of what to do with you and your file- and category-renaming ability now that you, as reported by User:Ymblanter, used that priviledged flag to move files and categories against what you were explained to be the usual way and the inherent consensus. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe if I at this point remove the flag myself it would be a highly controversial move. The user does not agree that the moves are bad, and the majority does not seem to have any interest in the issue. If the thread dies here and gets archived, I am going to unwatch the Delinker logs and let this be it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kwasura also acted rather poorly in the matter of the file currently named File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg, creating endless "controversies" which seemed to mainly exist in his own mind... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, hello @AnonMoos: ! How are doing? :D --Kwasura (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pabllo Garcia

Pabllo Garcia (talk · contribs) multiples copyvios, multiples warnings and one block. Fabiano msg 00:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Pabllo Garcia. Gunnex (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User Jhonny Balth adding images and adding fake flickr review tags

Jhonny Balth (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) uploaded multiple images from flickr and is adding bogus flickr review tags. Don't trust any of his images as abusing the process here to add copyvio images. Also note he has been blocked before for uploading non-free images. It looks, by the name on the flickr account used, that the flickr account is his as well, so looks like deliberate flickr washing is being attempted. I noticed that he is not adding a new flickr review tag showing passed but is modifying the failed flickr review tags to say passed. If there is an automatic process to catch flickr review tags being added by the wrong accounts, it is missing modifications of existing tags. Maybe something to look in to to catch this loophole in the process. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Herbythyme. I extended the block to undef. Adding bogus flickr review tags is not acceptable. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Commons' views on its users.jpg

This seems to be turning less into a deletion discussion, and more into an opportunity for User:Oxyman to repeatedly attack me - even after I said I didn't mind if it got deleted, except that I was worried it would make the discussion it was used in harder to follow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't be fully blamed that no one wanted to discus deletion of the file, they were too busy trying to placate you, I feel I have legitimate concerns about how this file and your uncivilised (not just my word) actions were used to get your own way and the way everyone else is so scared to offend you. Is it only you that can express an opinion? Anyway the discussion there really had died down, so I don't know why you feel the need to restart it here Oxyman (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that Commons has policies against legal threats and actions, I want to bring File:Lawsuit on wiki.jpg and File:Reminder of the Lawsuit on Wikipedia and wikimedia..jpg to your attention. 23.241.199.3 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See DR, simple checks show this is nonsense or a poor scam attempt, and the image is out of scope. --Fæ (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Taken care off. Don't take bait, don't feed. Natuur12 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

copyvio

[58] some one can see this contribution ? --Chatsam (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The EXIF data are consistent, so these are probably not copied from the web. A permission from the artist is needed. All files are already tagged. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:HijoDeBarrioObrero

HijoDeBarrioObrero has resorted to personal attacks in response to my bringing their (poorly sourced and poor quality) uploads for deletion. The user has gone from removing deletion templates and lashing out to direct insults:

Ytoyoda (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User blocked for 1 month, DR speedy closed and revision deleted. --Didym (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bwag

Bwag again tries to insert his right-wing POV speech ("Migrationsansturm") in the image description of File:Wien - Westbahnhof, Migranten am 5 Sep 2015.jpg (see [59]). Please explain him - again - that we are a neutral project. Chaddy (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days, reverted. Yann (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User blanked user talkpage after warnings

User blanked user talkpage after warnings see history of User talk:Loktionov12--Motopark (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted by Yann. Seems to be quiet now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive and persistent uploading of out-of-scope content with nonsensical names, descriptions and categories – and a free set of sockpuppets!

This is getting kind of ridiculous:

The user is completely incommunicado, and apart from uploads and edits to her own user page, the only other edits are to user pages of "other" users, which in likelihood are sockpuppets, given the nature of the uploads (same nonsense, same LG-A235 camera phone) made using those accounts:

Some of Mariavallebrizuela's uploads are also used on other user pages and sandboxed on Commons and other projects, making them likely sockpuppets as well:

—LX (talk, contribs) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have confirmed socking via CU on en.wiki and via similarities in edits/uploads, blocked and tagged them. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Co9man and other sockpuppets of User:Mushroom9

This user is blocked for copyright violations and socking at English Wikipedia, and seems to have taken several unfortunate habits with them over here. The main account has no contributions on Commons, but as confirmed at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mushroom9/Archive, the following accounts are sockpuppets of Mushroom9 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ):

User:BigJolly9 is the oldest account with activity here. Out of the 182 first uploads made with this account, 173 were deleted, many as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BigJolly9 (no comment from the uploader), others as a result of misrepresenting licenses on Flickr. Subsequent bulk uploads also required bulk deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Margaret Bourke-White (no comment from the uploader).

User:Co9man is the longest and most recently active account here. It seems to be used primarily for bulk imports from Flickr without any regard to copyright or project scope, as seen by User talk:Co9man (which is incomplete as it has been blanked without archiving multiple times) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Co9man. To quote one of the precious few replies from the user: "You are correct, the original uploader does not have the authority to license the images. I was aware of this, but using the Flickr2Commons tool is far simpler and much quicker when uploading such a large number of images ... The PD-1923 template can be used for all images taken before 1923. Hopefully, there is some automated way to do this [and checking this beforehand might have been a responsible and sensible thing to do]. The rest we [in hindsight, this should be read as 'someone else'] would have to go through, one by one, and fix the licenses." This was discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/04#Mislicensing on bulk imported Flickr images (with notification of Co9man but no participation) and still hasn't been fixed. Instead, the uploader has moved to new sloppy bulk uploads.

I believe this qualifies as "abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt" (Commons:Blocking policy). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done All blocked, Tagged Co9man (sock with the most activity here on commons). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was aware of who he was the very first day he created his account here, but i let it go because he did great work for the next 3 months..I think a person should be judged on his deeds, not his past.....Anyways, the last few weeks it was obvious he was not completely following some of our polices regarding licensing and as much as it pains me to say, this block was the only move left..--Stemoc 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User refusing to accept that deletion request has been closed as kept

Hi,

Yesterday I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bus in Poundswick Lane, Wythenshawe.jpg and decided to keep the file as in scope (note that this matter here is not about whether this file should be kept or not). See this edit. Two hours later User:Davey2010, the nominator of the file reverted my edit both on the nomination page, the file talk page and the file page itself and posted to the deletion request that he did so. He did not notify me in any way or request me to reconsider (as outlined in Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions). After this I explained to the user that reverting deletion requests is not common practice and indicated that the file could be renominated. The difference being that in a renomination the edits from my administrative decision are not reverted/hidden. After two reactions on each other the user decided to hide our conversation (relevant edit) removing most evidence of the issue I had raised (that reverting a deletion decision is not common practice/not allowed). Up until this point I tried to be as friendly and civil as possible by requesting the user to undo his actions (rather than reverting myself). As this did not seem to work I restored my closure of the file (leaving the nomination open for another admin to look at) and the template on the file talk page to indicate the fact that the deletion request was not fulfilled. After these actions the user reverted my actions again, ignoring all my comments and the link to the procedures outlining what to do in case you disagree with the closing admin (renominating after asking the admin for reconsideration). This time accompanied with the edit description: "grow up for fucksake". I've tried to solve the issue as much as possible with polite requests and when these did not work a little stronger revert. I however do not feel comfortable to take stronger measures myself (threatening with a block for example) as I feel that taking these measures could pose a conflict of interest. I hope that somebody can explain to this user that reverting nominations and hiding comments of the closing admin are not excepted and that requesting reconsideration and if that fails renominating is the way to go if you disagree. Basvb (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

After writing this request I found out that while I was writing the user left this message at my talk page. Here it is outlined that he did not know that I was an admin (I mentioned "another admin" in the discussion and I assumed that from the fact that I closed the request it was clear that I would (normally) be an admin). Although in this edit the user indicates that he understands reverting or "warring" isn't the most constructive he does not indicate that he intends to undo the actions which I deemed unacceptable. Making it feel like a sort of: we can end this reverting as long as my version stays. Basvb (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely disagreed with the closure as I believed "well categorized, could be used" wasn't really a valid for closing something as Keep especially when the image was of poor quality, I admit I did hat our discussion there as it was clearly obvious it wasn't going anywhere and figured it was best to hat it in the hope we both could move on and let an admin close it,
Last but not least - Until now I had no idea Basvb was an admin - Had I been aware I would've discussed it all first but as there was nothing on his userpage that stated this I obviously had no idea and just assumed he was a non-admin,br>
I'm not blameless here but Basvb should've stepped back and said "Okay I'll let another admin close it", I made my reasons clear on why I believed it shouldn't of been closed as such so it would've been better if Basvb stepped back, I reverted the templates as obviously I reopened the discussion .... Seemed silly having a "This file was Kept" when infact the FFD was reopened...,
Anyway As I said above had Basvb made it known he was an admin I would've handled this in a completely different way. –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Leaving the discussion open and pointing out that it was in the archives of the DR page as well as pointing to the possibility of a renomination was me leaving the second decision open to another admin. I at no point tried to stop you from reopening the nomination. I simply requested for my procedural actions not to be reverted. I see that scope issues are reasonable here, and although I would say in scope I would fully understand if somebody else decides that this is not in scope. I'm all in favour of allowing for a second opinion. But that should not happen in a way which hides indications of the first opinion. Maybe I should have been a bit more blunt on several occasions and simply said: don't edit/delete/hide other discussion contributions especially when they are an admin closure of a DR. If you would be willing to restore my last set of edits on both the deletion request page and the talk page of the file and to unhide all of my comments there will be no more reason for this request and we can simply leave the DR open for a second opinion, which I never tried to stop in any of my requests. Basvb (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If a discussion's closed then it shouldn't be commented on further .... but as I said I found simply renominating it to be a complete waste of time and to be fair it would've been disruptive for me to then renominate seconds after your closure, If you reverted me and stated in the edsum "You can't revert admin closures" I would've then come to your page ... Instead at the time I was none-the-wsier .... Anyway I don't see the point in flaffing around & closing everything now so I think it's best if another admin just comes along and closes it, I should also point out to anyone reading this that I've never reverted an admin here nor at EN.WP .... There's some AFD (and other) closures I've disagreed with but you live with it and move on ... Or renominate it a year later , –Davey2010Talk 01:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I restored Basvb's closure. @Davey2010: Please refrain from reverting adminactions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter - please read the entire discussion before making stupid statements like the above!.. –Davey2010Talk 14:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Please change your language and read COM:MELLOW. Calling other users comment "stupid" is not friend. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter - I stated 2 or 3 times that I had no idea at the time he was an admin and I even stated "I should also point out to anyone reading this that I've never reverted an admin here nor at EN.WP" .... So how do you expect me to react when you come out with "Please refrain from reverting adminactions" ? .... –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I expect a basic level of kindness :-). You removed the closure. Don't do that again, please. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: - Jesus christ Steinsplitter what part of "I had no idea he was an admin" don't you understand ? .... I was not aware only admins close those discussions .... I close tons of AFD discussions over at EN and I'm not even an admin........ As I've said for the millionth time If I knew at the time he was an admin I would never have reverted would I .... I'm clearly talking to a brick wall here. –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I shall not revert any admin closures ... There we go ... Can someone close this before I lose the will to live. –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Davey2010 started a new deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bus in Poundswick Lane, Wythenshawe.jpg (2nd Nomination)), likely to make a COM:POINT. Imho the user is playing the system. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter - The hell you going on about ? ... I was told by Bas to renominate it and as there's no DRV (and Bas wouldn't change his mind) I had no other choice but to renominate,.... I'm not making no point (Although the image is awful I'm not really making a point....) and I'm certainly not playing the system, You might wanna read COM:AGF!, Also as I said on SS's talkpage I don't plan on renominating the file again and again .... I simply disagreed with the first closure so I figured It'd make sense to renominate it and it should go without saying but whatever the outcome this wouldn't be renominated, If disagreeing with a closure is a crime then I'm guilty as charged. –Davey2010Talk 15:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For better or for worse I've closed that file request as Keep/Withdrawn and I don't plan on ever renominating it again, I suggest this gets closed and everyone (myself included) moves on from this glorious mess . –Davey2010Talk 01:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mywikimediaaccount (talk · contribs) has uploaded dozens of coats of arms for various cities, most of them in Canada. While some of them are old enough to qualify for {{PD-old}}, many of them are not. Canada's copyright terms are 50 years pma. I have been slowly going through them to try to ascertain when the images were created and whether or not they are copyright violations. Despite numerous warnings on their talk page, they continue to upload these images without regard to copyright. Could an admin please intervene? Thank you. --Majora (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Info --> Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mywikimediaaccount. Gunnex (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Adolf hilter

Is the user name ok with our policies? Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I think you prevented the creation of accounts and enabled autoblock. Yes, I know there is global rename to solve this, but how if that user doesn't know that global rename feature? Well, if that user wants to contribute on Commons and cannot edit nor upload because of the block settings setted in the block, then autoblock should be disabled and account creation should be allowed, to allow the user to create an account and edit again. I believe this will be 99.9% harmless, as the problem is just the username. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Creation of accounts and autoblock removed. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the particular account hasn't edited in well over a year anyhow, and the one deleted upload was an out of scope personal image with a rather offensive description on the file page. Almost certainly a long-forgotten throwaway account. Revent (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Every time when we try to solve any problem with User:Wesley Mouse, I feel some pressure from this user. Every time he accuses me in something. This time he accuses me of stealing, which I did not commit. Between us exist a language barrier, and I find it hard to communicate in English with him. Please, could you explain the problem, which is set out on his talk page. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 06:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • If the problem is a language barrier, then the solution is to avoid communication and/or simplify what it is you are trying to say so that people can at least try to understand you. Quite simple really. The other problem that Alex is failing to understand is that he is claiming File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg to be his own published work which can be seen at User:Alex Great/Work, which holds the header "My Work" and contains the aforementioned file. However, the original file itself was uploaded by myself on April 12, 2015. Alex is still claiming the file to be his work and therefore claiming authorship by placing such on his "my work" page, without correctly attributing that someone else uploaded the file. I don't mind the file being placed elsewhere as I released the file under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". But Alex should at least show that he did not create the file and that someone else did.
Also he accused me of being incapable of working with SVG format, which in my eyes is very much a bad faith comment to make against anyone. I have worked with SVG files for 5 years now and been taught by an experienced user on how to handle, create and modify such files. Alex has been known for a while now even on English Wikipedia for his actions to "claim ownership" of map files and changing established colour schemes without putting forward any proposals so that others may discuss the proposed changes. How difficult is it for someone to simply put forward any proposals, rather than jumping the gun and doing things on a whim without taking into consideration that others may disagree with the proposals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the standard of operation around here, is to seek a consensus? Alex has demonstrated that he lacks the capability to work on consensus building. Also Alex, if you're going to complain about a user then it is polite to notify the user that you have made a complaint, and where the complaint has been submitted, so that they are able to comment. I had to search through your contributions in order to find this complaint. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Where? Where said that Pan Celtic map is "mine"? Where? "My work" means only that I worked with it, or interested with work with it. If I put userboxes at my user's subpage and named this page as "My userboxes", it means that I created this userboxes? No, it's not. My work ≠ created by me. Accused you? Realy? If you don't understand that I fix bugs at your map. You revert my version and said "That is a lie as its impossible to "codyfied" any image onto an already existing file". You realy think that SVG map is imposiible to codyfy? I don't understand you. What about consensus? I discus some changes if this changes ic critically changes map. But it's not. I fix bugs at map, redesign Spain communities and unified colorscale with another winner maps. You think that I need a consensus. When I tried to discuss you every time said me that I need to discuss any changes at English WikiProject. Why? I discuss it at Commons, because this maps exist at Commons. I do not know English as very well, but I try. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 14:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have never said you must discuss at English Wikiproject. I said you need to discuss proposals in general, at a venue that is more appropriate. As you are proposing changes to a file that may have impact across various other Wikipedia, then one needs to discuss the proposal with others. So in this case, as the file is at commons, then you should have opened a discussion on the file's talk page and then if required, notify various Wikipedia projects too so that they are aware there is an active discussion taking place. Not everyone checks commons has frequently as you. So letting people know about a discussion is a polite action to carry out. But you never opened any discussion. You just made a change because you like it. All the winners maps used the same colourscale as is being used on the Pan Celtic map. However, you changed the colourscale on all other maps to a version which you prefer, rather than seeing if others agree that a change is required. Therefore you made mass-changes across various maps without A) discussing the proposal, and B) without seeking a consensus with users at commons on whether a change is required or not. Follow procedures and discuss proposals, rather than just going about things without taking into consideration what others may think. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The color scheme has been changed at one of the same map in 2014 by Cmglee. No one objected after the colors is changed. Plus, this change has been a discussion on my talk page. In two years of existence of these colors, no one user has not complained. As long as it does not suit you at the Pan Celtic Winners Map. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK a discussion of sorts took place. But not in a neutral venue such as the file talk page. Holding a discussion regarding mass-changes on your own talk page is not exactly the best place to carry out such debates. Mainly because not everyone would be aware to check your talk page for a discussion taking place regarding the proposal to change the colour scheme. Also, one may wish to note that the discussion you linked to in your archives is not exactly a fair and open debate on any such proposals. It is merely another user who first assumed you are AxG, and then giving you praise and a change that you made without putting forward the proposal to make such changes. So I would strongly suggest that a new discussion be started in a neutral venue, as the proposed changes are going to have a bigger impact across similar files and other Wikipedia languages too. For example, French Wikipedia may object to the change, or Dutch Wikipedia may have a better proposal. But to make the changes based on your personal point of view is not acceptable. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

They could roll back the consensus version and to begin a dialogue, which they did not. The discussion in this topic is of a different character. You accuse me of lying and stealing. And you're claiming that the page with the title "My work" it is the same as "Files Created by Alex Great". At the same time, you do not even bother to read the description under sections of this page. "Конкурсные карты" = "Competitive map"; "Ниже перечислены все конкурсные карты, которые меня так или иначе интересуют." = "Below listed all competitive maps that I somehow interested." I respect the authors of all maps and every time when I have to edit the description of the file, I always put the original author, if possible, and if it required by license. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 04:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And they are all descriptions written in Russian. How do you expect someone to know what they say? Remember that not everyone can read Russian, and I for one cannot read the language, nor do I have any interest in learning. Perhaps the mistake here is on your part in having text written in a language that not everyone understands. Maybe providing an English translation would have been helpful not just for myself but for others who do not read Russian text. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review COM:OVERWRITE. "When in doubt, or to resolve inter-user conflicts, upload as a new file." Wesley Mouse, Commons is a multilingual project, please see COM:LP. Our contributors have the opportunity to work collaboratively with people worldwide. You may find that Google Translate and similar services help you understand those whose first language is not English. File:Europe countries.svg is a source of File:Pan Celtic Festival winners map.svg according to the metadata. Consequently, the source field of the latter's information template is incomplete and misleading. Please use the {{Derived from}} template when appropriate. The author field should list first the author(s) of the base map, e.g., Júlio Reis (User:Tintazul). Your authorship may be indicated as "*derivative work: username". Perhaps one day the helpful and much-missed derivativeFX tool, will be resurrected. COM:MELLOW has suggestions for working constructively with others. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Walter Siegmund, I think that the best way it upload new file already. At least it will not violate anyone's interests. I fully agree about authorship. But, Walter, if I put template {{Derived from}} than I still must put the name of the original author? ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 07:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wsiegmund: I feel that Metadata has sourced the wrong file, as I never used File:Europe countries.svg. The original version is File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg, which I then zoomed the map so that is only shown the British Isles and the 2 Celtic regions in north-west Spain. The latter version that I used was created by AxG who is an established and knowledgeable editor when it comes to maps. Hence why I knew the file would have no hidden errors or bugs. I appreciate and understand that Commons is a multilingual project. But I shouldn't have to keep frequenting Google Translator. Alex already noted that there has been a historical factor of a language barrier between he and I, so he could have easily have noted the Russian text and what it meant a lot sooner so that it would have saved this waste of time coming to an admin board. And it would be appreciated if an admin would explain to Alex why it is important to notify a user that they have a complaint made against them - and not the way Alex carried out his conduct by making a complaint and not even notifying me that A) a complaint was made against me; and B) the venue that the complaint was submitted. If it were not for me having to check his contributions, I would never have known about this complaint, and admins would have assumed I was being ignorant.
In future Alex Great, if you are to seek admin help and complain against someone, be polite and let that person know. It even states that at the notes section at the top of this page to notify the user(s). You failed to notify me. In the meantime Walter Siegmund, I shall correct the description section accordingly. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, affected individuals should be notified of discussions that occur here. Administrators generally check. It may affect their perception of the initiator of the discussion. Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos, in the author field of the information template, please place the name of the original author of the work first. Below that you may add "*derivative work: Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos" to indicate your contribution. While the {{Derived from}} template may suffice, you can't expect all readers to follow that link or to interpret it correctly.
Although it isn't part of this discussion, Commons:Threshold of originality may apply to the work discussed above. In particular, for File:Arkansas_map_by_Sean_Pecor.png, a US appeals court decided in 2007 that "additions to the preexisting maps such as color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity" and are not copyrightable. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Wesley, Why did you deceive people? A) Read the last sentence of this edit. B) See the first sentence of #Misunderstanding Topic, where I ping you when put [[User:Wesley Mouse]] at the text of my claim. Did you found this topic when I written it? Yes, it is. Once again, I tell you. I filed a complaint because you disrespect me. You have repeatedly accused me of lying and stealing. @Wsiegmund: thanks for the advice. I will try to correct the description of the iploaded bu me files. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Alex Great: I have not deceived anyone, I have spoken the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The last sentence of your edit only reads "I have to complain to administrators". You did not inform me where you was going to make your complaint. Writing [[User:Wesley Mouse]] is not a ping, and that is why I did not receive any notification that you had pinged me in a comment. I only noticed my name linked after I had to check your contributions based on your comment that I quoted earlier. To ping someone so that they receive a notification would require you to use the {{Ping}} template. As you did not used this, then I did not receive a ping notification from you. And there has been no disrespecting of you whatsoever. Alex, have you forgotten that you have noted there is a language barrier, so you perhaps you have misunderstood. It is clear to anyone has fluent knowledge of English, that I was merely trying to establish what it is you meant, as well as informing you that I know how to work with SVG format, and I also asked you in my comments as to why you were claiming to be the original author of a file. The file itself shown my name as the original uploader. So to claim you were that person was basically stealing to some degree (although not unlawful theft, due to Commons:Threshold of originality). It was yourself who was being disrespectful towards myself. Using words such as "codyfing" (which is not even an English word). I had informed you that it would have been impossible to "codyfied" anything, unless it was done during the original upload process. All you had done was upload a new file to an already existing image. There is no "codyfied" action in doing that. You also used the word "usurped" in the wrong context. That word means to "illegally take force". I never said in any of my comments that you were illegally taking force; so I found it somewhat confusing as to why you were trying to accuse me of saying such comments. I think it be best that if we are to hold a written conversation in future that you be a little more explanatory. You know that you struggle to understand English, and that you have little experience in communicating in fluent English. So if you wish for things to be more understandable, then be more patient and not assume that everyone is going to understand your poor knowledge of English communication. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, ping works fine. I received an alert. Secondly, I said that I would complain to administrators, but you don't know where? Of course at Administartors noticeboard. Thirdly, you are the only user in the whole of Wikipedia, who does not understand me. Fourthly, you are too carp at words. Fifthly, we can finish this debate, because I believe it to nothing lead. Sixthly, I have no idea how to solve the problem with the Pan-Celtic winners map. So I think, just upload a new file (no new version of existed).
I think that's it. And I'm sorry for my English. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. The reason you received an alert @Alex Great: is because I used the correct template {{ping|Alex Great}} in order for it to send you an alert. If I had used [[User:Alex Great]] then you would not have received an alert whatsoever. If you had used {{ping|Wesley Mouse}} then I would have received an alert. However, you used [[User:Wesley Mouse]] which doesn't send an alert.
  2. You could have submitted your complaint directly to an administrator's talk page, rather than at a noticeboard. And an admin noted to you above that you should have followed procedure and notified me of the location of your complaint. Something which you did not do.
  3. I am not the only person in the whole of Wikipedia to not understand you. Others have had to ask you to be more clear in your words as they too have struggled to understand what you mean.
  4. I'm too carp with words? What do you mean? Carp is a fish. I am assuming you meant I am crap - which I would like to remind you is a derogatory, attacking, and insulting word to use against any user.
  5. The debate shouldn't have even been started in the first place. More so if you knew yourself that it would lead to a stalemate situation.
  6. You now insist on uploading a new map file? Why do that? Where would the new file be used? You intend to make the current file redundant and orphaned so that it becomes deleted. That is a spiteful manoeuvre to make and one that can be perceived as a selfish threat in order to gain your own way.
  7. At least my English is perfect enough for others to understand clearly; and I am not relying on a mechanical translator to make it look poor and incomprehensible. A consensus debate should be initiated on the talk page of the current file in question. That way others can see both sides to the debate and reach a consensus decision on which version would be more suitable. Uploading a new version with the aim of having the current file permanently deleted is a waste of time and a malicious attempt to gain "ownership" in a petty childish fashion. We follow procedures and reach consensus, we do not act in vindictive ways which would be seen as file-wars. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
3) Who had to ask me? You speak for others or express your opinion? 4) I mean that idiom that hardly to translate into English from Russian. 5) At this point it still came to nothing lead. 6) What are you talking about? I can upload any number of files, and it will not be deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, because you think that orpahned file is a reason to deletion. Do you remember what happened with OGAE winners map.svg? "spiteful manoeuvre"? Are you seriuosly? 7) Do not jump to conclusions. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_56&oldid=264579486"