Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65

User:FSUUpedia Restore Division

This user appears to be a division of a joke organization, uploading many copyright violations.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, my photos are not copyright violations and my user page is not a joke organization. I upload all of my own photos (3 of my photos are confirmed by an OTRS while the rest is not appeared in the internet or other social media networks, in short, my own and original photo of my work). I am not joke about my both photos and my user page. And thank you for that message on my talk page. FSUUpedia Restore Division (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User removing license tags

Magog tagged a lot of files from this user last night due to copyright problems. As of now, the user is trying to fix things by adding this rider to them-- "the creator of a work has been deceased for more than 70 years (UK)"--the license itself hasn't been changed. I can rollback all the files to Magog's tags, but I can't keep the user from removing the tags. We hope (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I'm trying to replace the templates so don't roll me back too with her edits please.... Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I've done everything you haven't changed. We hope (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Tm careless categorization

This user is making a mess by adding thousands of images from certain Flickr streams into Category:Politicians of Europe without caring whether these images depict politicians or not. Many of these images don't depict politicians. When I re-categorize by moving images into more specific category, or when I remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians, then one simply re-adds these images into "Politicians of Europe". I understand that this user also does mass-categorization work, which isn't necessarily controversial and might be of some help, but judging by this other mess, it's more harm than good. I suggest blocking, at least temporarily. User isn't responsive. For further explanation see User talk:Tm#Careless categorization. 62.65.58.165 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tm: Do you have a response to these concerns? We can't just ignore them. If you're categorizing a lot of non politician-related images into a politician category, that's a valid concern to be brought here and discussed. Daphne Lantier 06:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Tm has been hassled quite a bit, in this case about uploads from last year, so it does not seem especially urgent. It would be refreshing if rather than threats and gripes, there were positive suggestions about how mass categorization of these batch uploads could be realistically automated. If categorization in this area is too complex for automation, I suggest simply stripping the categories en mass, and leaving them in a to-be-sorted maintenance cat. At the sample I have checked, Tm already added one other meaningful category, and in that scenario the more general 'Politicians of Europe' can be dropped without any harm.

I never feel obliged to respond to IP addresses when they are obviously a long term user acting anonymously and quite probably sockpuppeting; especially with my experience of being unpleasantly threatened by a WMF employee with a permanent office block should I even accidentally respond to a WMF blocked user. --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you have a reason (e.g. behavioural evidence) to consider me as a sock of any related party. So please let's refrain from that sort of accusation and argumentum ad hominem. Editing without being logged in is allowed on Commons.

This came to my attention in relation to recent uploads (see examples at Tm's talk page). Uploads from last year however illustrate that Tm has no intention to fix wrong categories. Dropping 'Politicians of Europe' is exactly what I suggested, especially since another correct topic category is present for all images. But Tm sticks to adding politicians' category for all images from certain streams. 62.65.58.165 16:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The missing response by Tm says more than 1,000 words. A block for spamming is long overdue. --A.Savin 14:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A block for spamming would be a cause for revisiting the competence of the administrator taking that action. Tm's uploads are not vandalism or spamming, so perhaps you could be slightly less inflamatory when talking about improving a long term contributor's efforts? --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The only one who is infamatory is you. I only do my job to improve Commons. --A.Savin 16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you have made my point for anyone caring to read this far. In my experience, Tm is far better at avoiding inflaming problems than others writing here. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Now all content was moved to Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe, but this doesn't change anything. Regardless of (possibly) unidentified subjects, many of these images still aren't of politicians. To be clear, I never complained that images are in they way and need to be moved to subcategories, instead the main problem is that images are in entirely wrong category tree.

It still isn't clear why the politicians' category isn't simply dropped for images where no-one has checked which of these are of politicians. Where approprite polticians' category can be always added later, without adding misleading categories in the first place. 62.65.58.165 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe and others [[Category:Unidentified]] serves its purposes to identify unidentified subjects. Instead of "threats and gripes" as stated by Fæ, if you and other users made positive sugestions and editions like the one i made by creating Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe to sort this image and "leaving them in a to-be-sorted maintenance cat" to be worked, i would answer quicker. But threats and requests of blocks leave me with little patience to answer to the ones making them.

Also you claim that you remove this categories form images that dont depict politicians or unknown politicians. First your IP seems to come from Estonia on one extreme of EU, i´am from POrtugal, the other extreme and in between there are 26 other countries with hundreds of politicians, several well known in their country but unknown in the rest of the EU. Also you deleted the category from images depicting known politicians like Jean Claude Junker or identified like Jüri Ratas, so you cannot claim to only "remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians". Tm (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I turned to you with positive suggestion days before making a complaint here.

I appreciate that you now finally try to address this concern, but as told, moving images in that way doesn't really make a difference. The same way as in parent category, you ask to identify a politician, who on many images in fact isn't a politician.

I'm not complaining that some (foreign) politicians are unknown to me. Instead I have identified numerous known persons from different countries in this politicians' category that are not politicians. For some albums like this over half of the images don't depict politicians, nonetheless you categorize all as politicians. For some other events, odds that someone wearing a suit is a politician or a diplomat or a civil servant, are pretty much equal, nonetheless you categorize all as politicians. This illustrates that you don't check what you are doing, you are deliberately making a mess, and it's just careless.

I don't think it's fair to accuse me of not checking categories for all images that you didn't check in the first place. I didn't claim that I removed this category only when I identified (all) persons. I think that for a start it's constructive to remove this category en masse (the same way you added it), and this is what should be done, because this category is misleading for many cases. So it's easier to add correct categories later, if necessary and if present (non-politician) categories aren't enough already. 62.65.58.165 17:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You claimed you gave good advice, but you only complained and made a mess as i´ll explain below. I

In my talkpage you said that "I've checked whether some well-known person (politician or not) is the main topic and adjusted categories accordingly" and in here that you only "remove images that I've check don't depict politicians or where clearly no-one has checked whether they depict politicians", as i´ve shown in a example you´ve removed any change of put that images in the categories of the depicted persons. Instead you´ve removed from hundreds of images any change of knowing what is and what is not categorized by person, even when that image shows someone famous or at least identified (like you did eith images of Jean Claude Junker and Donald Tusk).

What you are now "proposing" is to hide that images, only categorizing them in events categories, doubling the efforts of categorization, as if someone made what you proposed no one would known what images are already with categories of persons, be it politicians, diplomats, civil servants. Also in case you dont know in the last year i´ve already categorized hundreds if not thousands of this images with event and person categories, many more than you did. When you removed i started by checking each image to categorized the depicted persons but you kept removing hundreds more images so that why i´ve added again a maintenance category so that in the future me or other user can properly categorize them. You are the one that is making a mess and an impossiblity to properly categorize this images, as explained above. Tm (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're accusing me of. I did exactly what you quoted. I added person specific categories (adjusted categories) where some person was the main subject. For the rest I didn't bother, and I went for at least removing a category that is likely wrong (that you hadn't checked in the first place). Also, as part of general cleanup I added event title as the missing description. For the given example the event title simply happens to include names of the two persons depicted (this isn't case for numerous other images from the same event). By now I've re-categorized 100s of images from this stream into more exact categories, too. Though, I don't think it's a competition, nor that it was relevant here.

I don't quite get what you mean by "hiding" images. Images being in wrong category is justified, because images aren't "hidden" that way? Also, it isn't necessary for all of these images to be put in person specific categories. For instance, images that don't depict persons, or where people are not the main subject, or group photos that are poor illustrations of specific persons. In any case, it's pretty much like always possible to add some additional (correct) categories that previous editors didn't consider necessary. There usually aren't maintenance categories for this purpose. If you really do consider maintenance category necessary, then please do have a proper maintenance category, instead of abusing a topic category. For instance use a hidden category entitled "To be checked if some person specific category should be added", or something like that. 62.65.58.165 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to admit that I've been edit warring a bit with Tm recently. This to a point seemed to be a way to communicate with Tm (since one refuses discuss things on talk pages), but apparently nothing constructive comes of this either. Even in edit summaries one's making no sense and it's starting to look that one's just trolling. For instance, here one ends up creating a category with very specific topic and intricate title for a single image, seemingly just to illustrate a point, and nonetheless ignores what's said on talk page about misleading filename and misleading categorization (still applys). Then on another page Tm adds a new parent category for fallacious reason, and after being explained the fallacy, one simply sticks to it, doesn't bother to check, and reverts. On a third page Tm reverts my move request without discussing nor giving any explanation.

As for the politician's category, now after bringing this topic here, Tm's been making an effort to categorize some recent images properly by checking what they actually depict, but others where individuals aren't named and it's harder to check, still end up being categorized as (unidentified) politicians of Europe, while this is likely wrong for many cases.

I've been working on images from this specific Flickr stream and I haven't checked much on what Tm is doing elsewhere, but I suspect that it's a pattern. Tm has little understand of what one's doing and one, at least to my understanding, fails to explain oneself. This is not only annoying, at the top of it one's obstructing others from making meaningful contributions (in this case by careful categorization). This shouldn't be tolerated. 62.65.58.165 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet spam deletion requests

The most controversial image on Commons

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUslim Flag of Greece.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:MUslim Flag of Greece.png
• File:MUslim Flag of Greece.png
• File talk:MUslim Flag of Greece.png

A bunch of IP editors are swarming these pages, making repeated deletion requests. There have been several in the past, and it's been kept each time. I've closed the requests, but more are likely to happen soon. I recommend reverting on sight, because this has been asked and answered. Guanaco (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They outdid themselves when they recursively nominated the deletion nomination page itself for deletion (twice!), but the cumulative effect is quite annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Protected. File admin only, talk page no IP. If needed we can up the talk page protection. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The off-wiki coordination seems to be taking place at http://infognomonpolitics.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_763.html and http://indobserver.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_546.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Too bad that none of them could figure out what the correct procedure was... AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment, regarding the "most offensive image on Commons" claim, I believe that would be File:Muhammad Prophet of God.gif, which was deleted for no other reason than someone got offended. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A.Savin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No chance of consensus, no need to continue Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Prior discussion for De-adminship

Quick summary of my relationship with A.Savin

Well, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia Commons, to have a luck to participle to the our projects of assessment for the images (QI, VI, FP). I met A.Savin in those projects, and I think we have learned to appreciate each other. As evidence you can look at his comment in my Rfa, although I sometimes found him a bit too direct in its relationships with others, I had pretty much the same benevolent looks on him.

My behavior has radically changed towards him following the events there:

This thread was already closed, several administrators had told A.Savin to calm down, as well as his point of view had been heard, and the wrong of INC recognized, there was absolutely no reason to push INC in its emotional entrenchments , especially as I was trying, in live, to calm down him and to persuade him to think more carefully about its rights removal , but this was not sufficient for A.Savin and he continued to pursue the stalking in the bureaucrat noticeboard to carry the final stalemate.. I was trying in good faith to help a colleague and A.savin came to carry an extra sword, I received in the heart part of this sword. We had some word there, and since that I’m a traitor and a corrupt, as it is surely the case for a non-negligible number of users and even of administrators.

I continue to think that profiting from the weaknesses of others instead of helping them, especially in moments of vulnerability, is a moral human fault, as well as it is in no way “to work constructively”, and in no way a “safe environment” prescribed in the Wikimedia policies .

As long as his behavior does not change, I’m quite happy that he don’t see in me a gentleman anymore.

That is the relational context. But my main topic is the thread made by A.Savin about Smial, this is why I open this as a sub-thread because it is for me the direct consequence.

 Comment This post is about A.Savin, not about Smial, so I moved it to a section on its own. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Policies

• Commons:Administrators/De-adminship "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal;"

"serious offenses",: I accuse him to fail seriously at one point of our Administrators official guideline. This point is:

Commons:Administrators#Community role "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends."

A few relevant links:

Code of conduct policy "The Foundation aims (...) to foster a productive environment free of (...) intimidation...."

Wikipedia:Harassment Though we are not in Wikipedia, our policies is linked to it. "Wikipedia has a policy of blocking users who post legal threats (...) words such as libelous or defamatory are best avoided for that reason."

Concerns

In the links provided above by Smial [6]

A.Savin clearly claims that the user avoids to do a number of things:

“Hören Sie bitte auf, sich bei jedem erdenklichen Anlass auf meine Fotos, meine Bewertungen, meine alten Diskussionsbeiträge etc.pp.”

Google translate:Please stop looking at my photos, my reviews, my old discussions, etc. at every possible occasion.

although it is not obligatory for Smial to obey, this request may be acceptable, if not followed by threat of consequences. Which is clearly an intimidation. And an intimidation that may include legal threat, look how Smial, a German speaker and the the first interested perceived this:

“:::No? {{cite|''"Bitte bedenken Sie, dass das Internet kein rechtsfreier Raum ist und ich mir bei weiterem Stalking Ihrerseits durchaus weitergehende Konsequenzen vorbehalte."''|A.Savin (A) 22:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)}} "Please keep in mind that the internet is not a place without jurisdiction. In case of further stalking by you, I reserve the right for further action." (Translation with google help, sorry, EN-1). Stalking ("Nachstellung"), is since 2007 a criminal offence in Germany. So you deny to have threatened me? --[[User:Smial|Smial]] ([[User talk:Smial|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)” 

Even if one argue that there is a maybe language misunderstanding about whether it is really legal threat or not. This stay obviously a clear attempt of intimidation, which is my concern.

Later Smial made this comment which I can’t traduce really, but clearly refers to its interactions with A.Savin.

Then A.Savin began made a complaint in this noticeboard. When A.Savin make a complaint here I suppose he is waiting for an administrative answer.

Not only to have intimidated a user , he is asking now that we break the nail. With what? a warning? a threat of block towards Smial?

In every way you return this story, in the best one can only realize that A.Savin is to years light to understand its administrator role.

I’d like to point also one defense of A.Savin  : “The only thing it would change is, that there will be no maintenance anymore on many categories of Russian topics mainly on Cultural Heritage objects”, sorry but it's clearly ironic when it’s coming from someone who denounces corruption at every corner of the street. It is a pity indeed, you have excellent sides and contributions, but we have also to think to the victim of this kind of behavior. You have proved that you are not ready for discussion or understanding. You can turn that into a battle between you and me but it is not. The community will judge.

I truly wish you, whatever the outcome of this, that you manage to rise above these difficulties. Best regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I spent time formatting all this, so if you want to discuss do it below

De-adminship straw poll

You can vote here to make your opinion on the potential start or not of the De-adminship of A.Savin. who does not seem to disagree with a week-long opening.

•  Support De-adminship Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A.Savin ist ein hervorragender Fotograf. Nur mit der Kommunikation harpert es. Diskussionen mit ihm sind nahezu sinnlos. Zumindest, wenn man eine andere Meinung als er hat. Das halte ich für einen Admin für nicht haltbar. Seine Kritik ist nicht konstruktiv sondern bockig. --Ralf Roleček 18:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose no abuse of sysop tools. A really complex case where both sides are not innocent. Overreactions and questionable comments on both sides. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment A.Savin sperrt auch schon mal in eigener Sache, statt auf das Urteil eines Adminkollegen zu vertrauen bzw. die Entscheidung eines unbeteiligten Admins abzuwarten. Aber kann ja sein, daß das auf commons übliche und von den Regeln gedeckte Praxis ist. Das wäre keine gute. --Smial (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose From the preceding discussion it is very clear that the author of this straw poll hounds A.Savin, and the straw poll is nothing but another instance of this hounding. --Alexander (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Steinsplitter. Further, I failed to see a prior discussion to solve any issues between the two parties before moving to this de-adminship request. The mentioned comment on Smial's talk is a bit old. Jee 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support If someone had the work and time to see A.Savin acts this kind of interactions would appear and he would have been de-adminship long ago. This is only one example, mine:

So i will tell how this users tries to get me blocked from Commons. First is started when he accused others, like it occurred to me, vandal and blocks for 15 days and them is called to reason to his mistake unlocks without an apologize and calls everyone else envolved corrupt, does not apologize for his mistaken

After being called, by me, a berserker for his behaviour and apologetic behaviour still dares to say that i´am part of a party of crooks and thieves intermixed with hints on sockpuppetry, tries to derail discussions envolving me (but not him) and get me blocked with a patetic excuse of me being a spammer and when called to reason for being infamatory he reserves counter attacks. Users that make this blunt mistakes and still think they have all the reason, makes severe accusations without proofs, blocks others for winning discussions and harass and grossly insult others, should not be an administrator. Tm (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support moving forward to a formal nomination. This is not specifically about abuse of admin tools, and there may be other parties at fault here. However, I can't overlook the use of implied legal threats, intimidation which is aggravated when the user has some level of authority with the site. I reserve judgment on a final decision, but I want it to be extremely clear that admins must not make legal threats. Guanaco (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose a dispute and not problematic use of the tools or behaviour that warrants desysop. This dispute has to be properly investigated and handeled and desysopping one person isn't the right course of action. Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose, no abuse of sysop tools has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No? --Ralf Roleček 20:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Warum fragst du mir und nicht der anderen? Meine Meinung nach, gibt es kein Misbrauch.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry. Mein Englisch ist sehr schlecht. Und deinen Beitrag habe ich verstanden, bei den anderen muß ich Google bemühen. --Ralf Roleček 20:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - As others already pointed out, this is not about misuse of admin tool but harassment, intimidation of other users and legal threat, all of which are enough ground for indefinite block or site ban. It appears that A.Savin's conducts is not compatible with their status as administrator on this project of ours. personal attack on fellow admin who acted in good faith, calling other users crooks and thieves are incompatible with adminship. It also appears that they had not been separating personal attack from legitimate criticism. Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per prior comments --Stolbovsky (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Intimidating behavior is unacceptable for a regular user, and doubly so for an Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose There would need to be an ongoing and significant history of problematic use of the administrator toolset to warrant de-sysopping of any administrator. That ongoing and significant history has not been demonstrated (remotely) so far. We do not expect perfection from our administrators; the occasional lapse of judgement is acceptable as long as the administrator uses it as a learning exercise and re-occurrences are very limited, few and far between. Nick (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support: Arrogant and petty user. If there were any fairness around, we’d be discussing blocking as a user, not just de-adminship. As it is, adminship cushions him from the kind of civility requirements non-admins are routinely held to, so let this be a first step in that direction. Bonus result is that de-adminship will defang A.Savin, since, as a non-admin, his toxic behaviour (even if unchanged) will cause less harm to the project and to the community. Being an excellent photographer should not be a reason for adminship, anyway, and surely not a pass card for untolerable behaviour. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Steinsplitter, Jee and Nick. This sort of poll does nothing except bring out users with prior grudges to get to vent their spleen. It is not uncommon for users to feel picked on at QI or FP when they see the same name turn up and oppose or where they feel negative votes are the result of revenge (if that is the case here -- the German is hard to follow). It is also not uncommon to see users ask another to stop picking on them (whether that is the case or not). If "I reserve the right for further action" is a reasonable translation, then it could simply be to escalate the matter from the users talk page up to a noticeboard like this. The word "stalking" is one that Smial takes offense to (being a criminal matter in many countries) and I would urge the community to try to find an alternative word for merely following one's wiki actions/uploads with closer scrutiny than one would appreciate. In the lack of such an alternative word, an in the absence of any evidence of real-life stalking, as opposed to wiki-edits, Smial should be given the appropriate slap in the face with wet fish for escalating things so. Really, this is two grumpy users who have fallen out over QI reviewing, and both have said unwise things. Who here has not said unwise things when annoyed? The fact that A.Savin is an admin is not relevant, and this does not warrant a de-amin.

I also note that Christian starts this with events from last year concerning INC. Not only is this old-news, but Christian is far from a neutral reporter on that case. Language like "he continued to pursue the stalking", "A.savin came to carry an extra sword, I received in the heart part of this sword", "since that I’m a traitor and a corrupt". This is not, Christian, the sort of neutral description of events, but it seems the de-admin of A.Savin has become personal to you. As it turns out, A.Savin was right, and INC should have lost the admin bit a long time ago and not been given so many second chances, like you were offering, and like many (including myself) had encouraged at times. Can you not see that your offer for INC to take a wikibreak and suffer no negative consequences would be insulting to A.Savin after INC had made outrageous bad-faith accusations towards A.Savin at an RFC? That's just human. Perhaps you should consider the similarities towards A.Savin pursuing INC's de-admin with your own of A.Savin here, after the community had already suggested the dispute should be de-escalated. -- Colin (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per others above. --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per prior comments --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:柳ワラバー

柳ワラバー (talk · contribs) This user repeats editing totally irrelevant to images. I'd appreciate your help.--Y.haruo (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely as vandalism-only account. Taivo (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bogumilo (talk · contribs) another sockpuppet of Yahadzija

Bogumilo (talk · contribs) is obviously another sockpuppet of Yahadzija, moving previously deleted files from another wikis. See Category:Sockpuppets of Yahadzija. --Smooth O (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 08:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mohamed Ashik uploads

If an admin would go over the user's (Mohamed Ashik (talk · contribs)) uploads as they seem to be copyright violations and not own work. feydey ^(talk) 10:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Wdwd. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

W. Bulach (talk · contributions · Statistics) - careless categorizations

Please just block this user. Doesn't listen or respond to arguments on user discussion page. Keeps on reverting my edits with an agenda to overpopulate parent-categories although the photo is already in a proper sub-category. So tiresome. --Vogler (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Have left a final warning since he hasn't had one. Please notify if this continues, but I will be monitoring his edits as much as I can. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Rodhullandemu: And he did it again. Blocked for 3 days. Feel free to adjust. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: I think there's a misunderstanding here, which is my fault. My edit time shows as 18:56, and if that were correct, W. Bulach's later edits would have been blockable. Unfortunately, we are still on British Summer Time here and my settings don't reflect that, so my warning was at 19:56, and the only edits after that were constructive so he really shouldn't have been blocked. I'll unblock and adjust my settings, if that's OK with you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. My bad. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. His edits weren't actually helpful. The lake he was editing is, according to his own geolocation coordinates, wholly in Western Australia, and he amended the descriptions to read Northern Territory. Nearly on the border, so confusing. I don't think that's worthy of a block so I feel disinclined to reinstate it. I will give him advice on his talk page. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Colombian PDFs

There seems to be a large influx of out-of-scope essays and similar documents written about Colombia and Colombian topics over the past couple days. Most of them come from different accounts, each with one or two uploads. I think there may be a misunderstanding of some kind, where students have been instructed that Commons is a good place to upload this kind of educational content. Guanaco (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Guanaco, do you have some links? seb26 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Typical examples:

• File:Conflictos armados.pdf
• File:Posconficto.pdf
• File:El sistema general de participaciones y.pdf

Also see Non-image uploads by new users Guanaco (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Harrassment from LTA Janagewen (user from en.WP)

The en.Wikipedia user formerly known as Janagewen has been harrassing me here at commons on my talk page. (I've earned his ire by being one of the more frequent reporters of his sockpuppetry.) IP rangeblocks at en.WP have been largely successful at stopping him there, so he's turned

These three IPs recently seen at my talk page, 221.9.18.242 , 119.53.119.232 , and 175.19.66.93 , are all in the IP ranges used by Janagewen (until they were recently rangeblocked) at en.Wikipedia, and geolocate and ISP data are consistent. Very wide rangeblocks have been necessary to stop his harrassment at en.Wikipedia. (The 12. IP is me - I wasn't logged in. I'm editing from a similar, maybe the same, IP now. This is a purely temporary IP for me, via a hotel's WiFi service.)

For the history of this LTA, please see Janagewen's block log at English Wikipedia, the long record of his subsequent IP sockpuppetry here at the WP SPI archive, and his blocks across multiple WP projects here.

His latest "contribution" to my talk page is particularly vile. Please act as you see fit. Jeh (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: Unfortunately blocking these IPs is unlikely to solve the problem. I'll watch your talk page and revert the harassment when I see it. If it becomes a long-term problem here, semi-protection is an option. You'd need to specifically request that since it's your talk page. Guanaco (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violators

• Jacksmackattack (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Monhoo 8874 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Please delete all their uploads, all are stolen from other websites but are uploaded as "own work".--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this up. I have deleted the obvious copyright infringements, filed a few deletion discussions and adjusted the attribution for cropped versions of some free Wikipedia files. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a problematic username

I realize you don't have as much "structure" here as you do on the en.Wikipedia project, but Jeh Born As Shit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) just has to run afoul of something. No? Jeh (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

UNTVdanielrazon

Violation of username policy as a TV anchor of UNTV --209.242.141.24 19:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked account. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing es

The following user camera I have been trying to the I have been trying to reach you I I have to get back to The following user says it is the same as the one you sent me the — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.37.85.221 (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You may want to write in your own language, as this is straight gibberish. Daphne Lantier 00:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

H-stt

Recently we had a discussion (here) about H-stt, who has been using his tools persistently for wheelwarring for the past few years. He has been warned many times about this behaviour, but they have chosen to ignore those warnings sofar (e.g. @Steinsplitter: has brought this to attention several times). Now I see that H-stt did another wheelwar on 25 July (see here). Over the past years H-stt has done only a few hundreds of admin actions, but a large part of them, maybe even half of them, consisted of wheelwarring. In the past years we have warned them so many times and we have requested them so many times to follow proper procedure, that I don't think there is a realistic change that they will stop abusing their tools. Maybe it's time to start a formal desysop? Or may we could send them one last warning and start a desysop if the abuse still continues? Any thougths? Jcb (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would support a desysop. This user has been warned plenty off times that he should follow our community agreed procedures if he disagrees with a deletion etc. And this is pretty unmellow. Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• When he posted at my talk that he had restored the files, I didn't realize he was wheel-warring. That's the first time I've had that done to any of my log actions. He said it had to do with Israel FoP. Perhaps he was taking advantage of the fact that I'm a new admin. Thank you Jcb for getting that straightened out. Daphne Lantier 23:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• I am not a fan of de-sysop'ing admins. But H-stt is causing problems for a while now. Would support desysop, per Jcb and Natuur. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Over the years Commons has become tremendously complicated and formal on one hand and fast and informal on the other hand. Both is necessary because of the huge burden posed by the sheer number of files to cover and check. We need to decide fast in the vast majority of cases, and for that we need rules. Almost all of the time, our decisions are right. But mistakes happen and everyone knows it. The question is how to react to those mistakes. One of my approaches is an informal one. If a file was deleted without much deliberation - either speedied or deleted per nom without debate - I can't see anything wrong with restoring a file informally. The share of files we talk about is minuscule, but the total number non the less makes a formal undeletion request in every case not really useful. So we should trust our admins to self correct their decisions and/or correct the usual small mistakes informally. If a file was deleted or kept after considerable deliberation, a reversal should usually be formal as well.

Daphne Lantier was very happy, when I pointed her to Commons:FOP#Isreal because she speedied the two files in question without regard to FOP as a limitation of copyright in the jurisdiction at question. Which is perfectly OK given her background. And she was totally OK with me correcting her deletion and thanked me on her talk page. I believe we both (re-)acted just the way trusted admins should. Please take into consideration, that I was explicitly called to adminship long ago, because MichaelMaggs believed my expertise with copyright law beyond jurisdictions warranted to call on me even though I always communicated that I will not be able to spend much time here, but are very willing to look at special cases.

So I still can't see any reason for Jcb to intervene and open this discussion here. But now that it exists, let's talk about some of the issues at hand: I think we might consider a) the role of admins with regard to trust and maybe b) the question of due process with regard to deletion decisions. I would be happy to talk about what it means to be trusted with the rights of an admin; and how we are responsible towards the uploaders of files and the authors at Wikipedia and the other projects who use files. I believe that we are biased towards deletion in case of copyright questions - rightly so in the vast majority of cases. Copyvios are the biggest problem of Commons. But a above, mistakes happen, copyright is not without limitations and sometimes a deletion is unwarranted. And I think we sometimes deal poorly with those cases. Both questions are connected by the issue of processes, formal and informal. But both do not really fit under a header with my or any other name in it, because this should not really be about me.

If anyone wishes to talk about any of those two issues role of admins and due process in case of the usual small mistakes, let's open a new header here or maybe at the village pump to include non-admins, because this should be a matter of everyone. --h-stt !? 14:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@H-stt: The problem is not Wikimedia Commons but your behaviour (1, 2, 3, 4). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@H-stt: If you're restoring a file that was deleted per a DR that didn't attract any discussion, you could relist it. If you disagree with a speedy deletion, restore it and create a DR about it. In general I don't have a problem with your use of the tools, but you need to use process so a consensus can be formed. If two admins disagree on something, it probably merits a wider discussion. Guanaco (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• While I have not had an issue with h-stt, having decisions that I have taken time to deliberate over summarily overturned without discussion by another admin has been a large factor in me de-prioritizing volunteering at Commons in recent months. I'm sure that these types of overrulings are done with the best of intentions, but I do think the "no wheel-warring, even if you think you are unambiguously correct" rule needs enforcing... perhaps they don't realize how toxic it can be. At the moment, I would support a de-sysop being opened, given what I think is a clear lack of understanding about "no wheel warring" demonstrated by h-stt's response above, but would probably vote not to remove if h-stt were to demonstrate a clear understanding and a commitment not to do this type of thing again. Storkk (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The proper response if one disagrees with the results of a DR is a post at COM:UDR, rather than posting in the closed DR (against COM:DP) and restoring without a good reason in the summary (wheel warring against policy). I question H-stt's judgement.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support de-adminship per Steinsplitter. Anyone willing to start a de-admin process? Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have started a RFDA: Commons:Administrators/Requests/H-stt (desysop)

Organized campaign to create false consensus, disruptive conduct, sabotage

Hi. Nearly two weeks ago I changed the name of this category considering it wasn't the most used name. At the beginning there was no discussion, excepting this comment from Enfo (Enfo is also user Enric, although I don't understand the meaning of using different accounts in a same conversation).

Answering him, I gave my reasons and sources in relation to the name's question; Perhaps when this user felt in inferiority, he went to ca:wiki asking for more user's presense, with such phrases as Ens hem de quedar de braços plegats? («Are we going to sit idly by?»), in order to increase the superiority's sensation (as we can see in the first paragraph). Another user (Sng), noting that «we do not have control of Commons», he proposed «to find a [handpicked] administrator and convince him to block this category», and avoid unwanted changes (as we can see in the fourth paragraph). I guess it is quite serious that from another project there is a plot to pick a "friend" administrator who could manipulate the normal processes of Commons. I asked Enric about this issue, waiting for an explanation, but he just said:

Do you know the sentence "Don't feed the troll"? Goodbye for ever!

The conversation on ca:wiki happened on July 26. Since that time new users have appeared in the Category talk. On Friday, July 28 a new user (Leptictidium, close to the forementioned user Sng in ca:wiki, as we can see here and here) appeared in the conversation, and after just three interventions, he stated violently:

«Okay, so we've reached the point where you just keep repeating ad nauseam an argument that has already been exposed as flawed. To save time for everyone involved, if in a couple of days no valid arguments have been presented in favour of using the acute accent, I will initiate the renaming to the previous name»

Leptictidium did not make any further interventions until today, in which he insists once on his line of action. Right now there is an ongoing debate as you can see on the category talk (but also between users, as we can see here and here) to find a satisfactory solution. But this user (Leptictidium) does not care it: he has estimated that there are no valid arguments (there are dozens of arguments on the table, while he has only made just four interventions, all in the line of "we have to change this, no more discussion, no valid arguments"). In relation to what I told previously about the ca:wiki plot, and as I fear a manipulated change on the basis of [false] "consensus" to rename it, I think this messages of Leptictidium is just a prelude to what will happen. As I disagree with this kind of artificial and manipulated methods, I considered appropriate to report this fact.

I wouldn't like to see that an organized campaign from outside could contaminate a normal process of this place, wikimedia Commons. I hope not, but I really fear that possibility. Regards. Manuchansu (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, maybe, but your original rename was wrong. Not sure why (ha!, just kidding — I know exactly why you did it…), but when you aim to ruffle some feathers, don’t act surprised if some feathers get ruffled. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Err, Tuválkin, so you recognized the facts are happening but you simply do not care because you seem to have a pre-supposed opinion about me, about what I did and why I supposedly did. It's the first time I carried on a category-rename and the first time I came to this place to make a report of this type, but I waited for something more than laughing on me. In ca:wiki they proposed to look for friend-administrator, but I could not believe that these people had so much influence. Manuchansu (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you name one or more of those administrator you considered as their friends? Why do you think they are friends? Can you point out where any of the administrator has acted against consensus in favour of who you consider as their friend? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology, it was just irony, because I couldn't expect such kind of chiselled answer «[ha!, just kidding — I know exactly why you did it…]». At least I didn't expect from this place. Manuchansu (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• You may be under the impression that I am an admin. That impression is false. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough, users that haven't edited in commons for months have came to the Guimerà discussion to support Manuchansu, possibly they noticed this discussion by chance. --Discasto _talk 15:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, in fact it's Manuchansu the one that is organizing a campaign. --Discasto _talk 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a campaign, it is a concern about the correct spelling of names. In the liked discussion the general consensus seems to be that several names have been misspelled, even during the people's life, but it's not a big deal because it was a common practice. So, there isn't generally one single correct spelling, while all the others are wrong: the usage eventually decides. Given that, the point made by Enric makes sense and goes in that consensus direction: before fixing the syntax of Catalan by Pompeu Fabra, there weren't really rules. Hoping that behind the scenes there is not a nationalist reason (e.g. Catalan accent is correct, while evil Spanish not, or vice-versa), the name of the category can be considered correct in either case and I recommend the usage of {{Category redirect}} for the other spelling of the name, rather than edit warring. --Ruthven (msg) 06:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User:HHubi / Special:Contributions/188.100.239.204 again

Last month 188.100.0.0/18 was range blocked for User:HHubi sock puppeting (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_64#User:HHubi_.2F_Special:Contributions.2F188.100.48.223_block_evasion.3F). They seem to be back: 188.100.239.204 (talk · contribs). MKFI (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done 188.100.0.0/18 blocked for 3 months, edits rolled back. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be more: Special:Contributions/178.6.202.1, similar edits. MKFI (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done 3 mo. this IP only. Not a range block this time. LEt's wait and see. Dynamic Vodafone.de IP, there'll probably be more where that came from. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And again: Special:Contributions/82.82.218.121. MKFI (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

More: Special:Contributions/178.1.184.149 MKFI (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

New abuse filter should take care of a vandal edits. Probably needs refinement over time. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:HHubi IP sockpuppets

The old thread does not seem to get responses, so I will start a new one: User:HHubi is indefinetely blocked, but is using IPs to edit Commons ("Categorisation in line to the file description by -- HHubi"):

• Special:Contributions/178.1.184.149
• Special:Contributions/82.82.218.121
• Special:Contributions/188.109.213.99

MKFI (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@MKFI: There's not a whole lot that can be done with these three ranges. These are dynamic ranges; the top and bottom IPs would likely require rangeblocks of whole /16 ranges, while the middle IP would involve blocking a /20 and a /19 as part of a /15 range. Blocks of single IPs would be good for less than a half hour probably. Daphne Lantier 00:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Any use for blocking Special:Contributions/84.63.31.35? MKFI (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a big dynamic range. He gets assigned several IPs per day. The ranges involved here are 84.61.97.0/24, 84.61.98.0/23, 84.61.100.0/22, 84.61.104.0/21, 84.61.112.0/20, 84.61.128.0/17, 84.62.0.0/16, and 84.63.0.0/17. You can see from this just how futile trying to block him would be. Only protections work in cases like this, but that's only if he focuses on a small number of pages, and that isn't the case here unfortunately. You can mass rollback him if needed using the following script in your common.js:

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

These guys can be a real pain in the ass, so don't worry about it too much. Daphne Lantier 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier and MKFI: FWW: I started to protect the pages that vandal HHubi edits, allowing only registered users to edit (indef). Hope that helps in the long run. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it won't hurt, and it may slow him down a bit. Daphne Lantier 03:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Just added a new abuse filter, that should help a bit as well. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User appears to be NOTHERE

• (Redacted)-have had to rollback the contributions all were vandalism to boards or files. We hope (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an LTA at enwiki. Vandalism only account. Please block: (Redacted)

Guanaco (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: is this LTA usually like this? Before I wake the people in San Fran. (Will block the account of course.) Natuur12 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Yeah, I've seen that same threat before several times. It's old news. Guanaco (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: tnx. Account is blocked by now. Natuur12 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: See User talk:Steinsplitter#Filter 141 not working and User talk:Steinsplitter#Filter 141 guy again for some background on this guy. He's been at it for a month or so. We've tried to filter him out, but that's not going too well. These are Category:Sockpuppets of PhoenixS15, though I'll leave the above untagged because of the name... Daphne Lantier 01:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Tnx. Will read up on this. Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: @legal knows about the threats he made for a long time, no need to rattle the cage in SF. BTW: The new filter seems to be working OK. Triggered 43 times from Aug. 5 - Aug 8. Hopefully he'll get bored. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

South Korean symbols

There has been a simmering edit war over File:Emblem of South Korea.svg and File:Flag of South Korea.svg. The users supporting the update in the colours have minimally discussed on the talk pages and there does not appear to be any consensus. Can an admin please take a look at this? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason we can't simply have different versions under different image names? - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That generally only solves the problem if one side is willing to let their version be "File:Flag of South Korea (alternate).svg" while the other version gets the default highly-used name "File:Flag of South Korea.svg"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Շաքէ Մանկասարեան

Can someone who can read Armenian have a look at the uploads of Շաքէ Մանկասարեան (talk · contribs)? Clearly the dates are all wrong and I gather this user has absolutely no understanding of licensing, but conversely a good bit of this might be public domain. He's asked questions coherently in English at help desk & elsewhere, but repeats the same question over and over. I suspect someone who can read what he wrote on the various image descriptions will have a much easier time than I sorting out what is going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Saroyan: Could you please help out? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I just checked the photos, they are all copyrighted and need to be deleted as copyright violations. I know her personally and will try to explain her in Armenian. Thanks!--David Saroyan (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much!! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Community ban of Daphne Lantier / INeverCry

Given this person's admitted sockpuppetry, invalid RfA, and deletion spree (all of which blatantly abused the community's trust), the time has come for a community ban, as mentioned in this edit. I hereby propose such a ban.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DL/INC ban Support

1. as proposer   — Jeff G. ツ 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DL/INC ban Oppose

DL/INC ban Neutral

DL/INC ban Discussion

I suggest this is closed as premature. The desysop RFA is not closed and the procedure for banning on Wikimedia Commons is very rarely used, compared to an indef block, and is never normally run as a simple "unpopularity" vote. I believe this process (having a yes/no vote) is inappropriate and the decision of what action to take should be based on any remaining risks, weighing the arguments and preferably a longer term attempt to calmly discuss these events with INeverCry when everyone has had time to cool off. --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully endorse a site (and global) ban for the record, but I agree that further discussion is needed, not a straight vote. We do not want to encourage kangaroo courts, we want to actually hear the views of the community here and decide on how to proceed based on an achievable compromise. Nick (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing as per Nick. Closing this harmfull kangaroo court. Natuur12 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Alexandra Sachelarie mass uploading screenshots of copyrighted music videos

Alexandra Sachelarie (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week recently for same reason as described in section's title, but continued to violate copyright. Please delete all her uploads and consider blocking her. //  Gikü  said  done  Tuesday, 15 August 2017 11:21 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Daphne Lantier has been determined to be a sock of INeverCry

For admins and user's attention: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry.

Daphne Lantier (admin on Commons) has been blocked indef. on enwp as beeing a sock of INeverCry (former admin on Commons) on English Wikipedia.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Thank you for that information. It is the basis for Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/INeverCry.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

sigh. I thought this is just one of those no-need-to-be-proven-or-told facts. CC @Nick, Natuur12, and Steinsplitter: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

+ 1. Sealle (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I started that RFCU because due process is important. Technically, Daphne would need to be desysopped in order for a block to be truly effective.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have found five admin-related interactions between Daphne Lantier and INeverCry. INeverCry nominated Daphne Lantier for administrator on Commons. In addition, Daphne Lantier closed four DRs created by INeverCry: DR 1, DR 2, DR 3, and DR 4. —RP88 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Question As a precaution, could an administrator consider reverting edits made by Daphne Lantier to Commons:Administrators/Requests/H-stt (desysop)? It seems unfair to allow contributions to open vote processes to stand when they may affect other users. For completed vote processes there is no need for action or review, unless the use of multiple accounts may have gamed the outcome. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an urgent block of the Daphne Lantier account, in the light of a deletion spree. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As well as reverting the damage and disruption caused by the deletion spree, I suggest that the user pages of INeverCry and Daphne Lantier are restored to their versions prior to being deleted and replaced. After this misuse of the sysop tools, the action to be taken here is unfortunately not in doubt. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: Block  Done. Agreed re restoration, but perhaps with the addition of the admitted puppetmaster and sockpuppet tags at the tops?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. No doubt templates will follow, my concern was that the history of these user pages should remain available to all users who were working constructively with the accounts. --Fæ (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: @Daphne Lantier: Please take a break and do something else for a day at least. It may be helpful to seek some advice by having an IM chat with an oversighter or 'crat you have found friendly in the past. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unrelated, but please restore File:BSicon CPICl red.svg (not the PNG). I think this was deleted in error by Daphne Lantier. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the log things seem to have gone off the rail at 04:27, 11 August 2017 with the deletion of Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton with animals, so at least ~1000 files will need to be restored. Older deletions may need to be reviewed as well. But I propose we start with restoring everything deleted in the log after Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton with animals. —RP88 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually is deletion spree started, at least, with Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton with people 3 edits before. Tm (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment It can be seen that Daphne Lantier account has been deleting pages and blocking INeverCry. I believe that this calls for an emergency removal of rights until there is the ability to unpick whatever is occurring. A sad state of affairs. I believe that the recently deleted pages should be recovered, and the user talk page of Daphne Lantier will probably require a steward to do it, with that number of edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Matjia left a comment over on Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard that Daphne Lantier's admin rights have been removed (after I restored Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, LOL). —RP88 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks was just looking at meta for rights changes as you were typing. He's gone of the tracks. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I have extended the block on Daphne Lantier beyond two hours to a day. The situation needs some time to unravel, and we don't want any other type of unravelling occurring during this time. Noting that Daphne Lantier infinitely blocked INeverCry  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what just happened -- so I am working on restoring the recent deletions by Daphne Lantier. INeverCry dedicated so much time to being a Commons volunteer that it would be a shame if the recent mischief by Daphne Lantier turns out to have been INeverCry's final act on Commons. I don't think I interacted with INeverCry to any significant degree, but it was impossible not to notice his hard work. :-( —RP88 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Krd#Special:Log.2FKrd --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Admin rights were temporarily removed by Matiia with the rationale temp, abuse of power. This is obviously an emergency response. We need to initiate a formal de-sysop at Commons. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that deysyop process is the only option AFBorchert. Going feral with tools and gadgets is a significant breach of trust. It is really unfortunate when a once trusted member of the community goes off the rails.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

With combined efforts from me, RP88, Hystrix, and Billinghurst (tell me if I missed anyone), we have undeleted 1600+ pages. Because of emergency and blocking the run of Delinker, I had coded a bot to revert all deletions after 4UTC today from DL. Many of the earlier deletions may be from valid DRs, but without a proper due process. If We have undeleted any of them in error, please tell us. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Danke, das wollte ich auch gerade ansprechen: viele von Daphne in der kurzen Zeit gelöschten und dann wiederhergestellten Dateien müssen nochmals überprüft werden. Hystrix (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I've fixed up all of the DRs that were closed by bot User:Krdbot in response to the deletion spree (these DRs were closed by the bot when it noticed the files in these DRs had been deleted, but now that the files have been restored the DRs needed to be reopened so that they can get a new close). —RP88 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've also performed a manual review of all of the notice boards and javascript gadgets that were deleted by Daphne Lantier. and they have all been restored and are functioning correctly. —RP88 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: m:Stewards' noticeboard#INeverCry/Daphne Lantier. Matiia (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh fuck. Well done Jonatan Svensson Glad for your investigation works. I am confused at the comment by User:Zhuyifei1999 on the Stewards board, which seems to imply they were willing to keep this secret as INC/Daphne was "a good admin". I hope that "keeping a secret" was only temporary until suspicions were confirmed, rather than an intention to hide this from the rest of us provided INC/Daphne did nothing bad. With hindsight, it is possible to see that INC gives up editing here once Daphne becomes an admin, and both users spend too much time on Commons to be wise. Daphne's repeat statement "I'm a new admin" should have triggered alarm bells as most socks play that game. Well they had me fooled. Certainly support a desysop being opened. Also think the community should discuss permanent block. Two years of sockpuppeting, nominating one's sockpuppet as admin, is just too much breach of trust to be permitted to edit here, never mind have any admin role. Time for them to find another hobby. -- Colin (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I see it as a fresh restart, which I do not really care about. INC master account has not been editing for ages on Commons, and I was unaware of the what he did on other wikis. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999, very disappointed in this reply. INC lost their admin rights "under a cloud" and the community made it very clear they were not willing to give them back (after a crat mistakenly did so). Plus the Daphne account is two years old. They had no cause to fool the community into letting them be an admin again. The consequence we can see from last nights chaos. I think you should resign too if you are complicit in this cover-up. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification:

• I don't have evidence for an RfCU, nor probably a few others who did not care to investigate closely.
• I personally have this suspension since early May; not sure about others. In this time DL did not explode till today after an RfCU was confirmed.
• I do not rate trustworthiness from how he became an admin, but whether his actions as an admin are correct.
• DL did a lot of work as the most active admin in last 30 days. I do not have enough motivation to collect evidence for RfCU and would rather leave him to do the dirty and tiresome admin work like many "good admins" do.
• AFAIK INC master is inactive on Commons; I'm not aware of abuse on other wikis nor it is of my concern.
• From what I know there are a few who was near filing an RfCU, but never actually did.
• Some of us assume this is everyone-knows but no-need-to-be-proven-or-told fact. We aren't trying to conceal the information.
• And if we don't find enough evidence for RfCU, accusing sockpuppetry would be inappropriate.

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As for me resigning, you are free to start a AN/U and/or de-rfa against me. I'm happy to clarify any unclear questions --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That you should resign is just my opinion. No point in escalating that unless anyone else feels likewise, and probably you are not alone in this cover-up. I a puzzled how you compartmentalise "trust". Read Commons:Administrators/Requests/Daphne Lantier. Which parts of that aren't complete lies by INC and Daphne? How can someone who so openly lies to us all be trusted not only with the admin bit but also OTRS. I can understand inaction if one's evidence is not strong, but I can't understand inaction because you think Daphne had not (yet) misbehaved. The whole sock/adminship thing is misbehaving. We expect admins to block socks, not be them. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's dissect it:

• Read Commons:Administrators/Requests/Daphne Lantier. Which parts of that aren't complete lies by INC and Daphne?

  I did not vote in it.

• How can someone who so openly lies to us all be trusted with the admin bit

  How he became admin is not my concern

• but also OTRS

  OTRS is not my concern either

• I can understand inaction if one's evidence is not strong, but I can't understand inaction because you think Daphne had not (yet) misbehaved.

  He did misbehave, a few hours ago. But not prior to that.

• The whole sock/adminship thing is misbehaving.

  As a said, my POV says it's a fresh restart, not actively socking

• We expect admins to block socks

  I only block socks when they misbehave, like DL did. If socks are willing to do good, not evil they are out of my concern.

• not be them.

  Fresh restart socks is one of the legit socks right? They are free to undisclose their socking nature as long as they do not use socking to their advantage (which I'm not really aware of).

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW: I feel the same as @Jcb: 's Special:Diff/254997520. I would vote keep as well if it wasn't for the abuse a few hours ago. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the WP pages on Sockpupet and Clean Start, no INC/Daphne does not count. I don't know if there are Commons versions of those pages. The very act of INC nominating Daphne is a breach of both sockpuppet and cleanstart. Clean Start means just that. Not repeating past actions and finding something else to do on the project. No, the Daphne adminship was deliberate deception of the community who had repeatedly rejected INC's restoration of admin rights. That you did not vote on the adminship is neither here nor there. Which part of "trusted members of the Commons community" are you not understanding? -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You're free to interpret it as such, yet you did not explain:

• ... is a breach of both sockpuppet and cleanstart

  The policies are very long and have many interpretations. What part did he breach? Please quote a single sentence that describes their activity on Commons.

• Clean Start means just that

  Just what?

• Not repeating past actions and finding something else to do on the project

  I don't try to stalk people just to find an evidence for RfCU. Being an active admin who process a lot of DRs doesn't count as "repeating past actions" does it? Many have been active, but that does not mean they are socks of each other does it?

• That you did not vote on the adminship is neither here nor there

  Idk what you mean by "neither here nor there". Not familiar with this idiom. Google says "not relevant" but my point of not voting is that how he became admin is not my concern.

• Which part of "trusted members of the Commons community" are you not understanding?

  Different people have different interpretation of trust. I have 0 interest in how he became admin, as I've said, only whether his actions as an admin are correct. As such, he did not breach my trust.

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Well one must always be careful when WP definitions get cited by commons pages (e.g, Commons:Requests for checkuser cites en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) as the projects have their differences. But "Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." INC's nomination of Daphne was misleading because the whole nomination treated Daphne as another independent person and spun a story about lost passwords. Daphne deceived us because they claimed to be a new admin, not a discredited one. And it was designed to circumvent a sanction -- that INC had repeated lost their admin bit, had promised to never apply for one again, and finally lost their bit when they unblocked a user in violation of community consensus. It was clear that the community no longer trusted INC to be an admin. That they then nominate "themselves" for adminship under a new sockpuppet account is a clear attempt to evade that sanction. Their adminship is exactly the issue. No trust -> not an admin. The en:Wikipedia:Clean start page says "a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may be identified and seen as trying to evade scrutiny." and this is exactly what we see from INC/Daphne. That is not what clean start is for. -- Colin (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for explaining your POV. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I must clarify that in this whole discussion about trust (as opposed to the discussion of why we did not reveal it earlier) I'm speaking for myself, not anyone else. If they feel the same it is up to them. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to beat a dead horse. January "events" resulted in a very hostile environment, causing anything a series of net loss for the projects with tons of unecessary drama. These loss likely were unavoidable but now there's no point in following the same path. Daphne Lantier's desysop is a pretty obvious consequence but starting a new series of "trials" makes a few sense to me. --Vituzzu (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh Colin, always a ray of sunshine on the noticeboards (*being sarcastic obviously*), Why do you need to blame everyone all the time? I only figured out a few days ago myself. I knew something would happen and the moment it did, i promptly reported the Daphne account to the Stewards on IRC before more damage could be done. It's a shock to most of us, I have never been an INC fan and you can guess why but why try to continuously blame other editors (mainly admins) all the time?. INC played a very good game, no one saw that coming, not even M. Night Shyamalan. The main issue right now is when will the commons community realise that INC is no longer someone we should tolerate. I have seen WMF globally lock editors for lesser abuse, much lesser abuse. Commons get a bad name cause we refuse to accept the problems and get rid of them, instead we keep feeding them till they blow up on our face and then we continue to do the same....Its funny cause commons personifies "feeding the troll". I think the solution is simple here. Remove admin rights from Daphne (through the normal procedure), globally lock the account and unblock the INC account, remove all its rights (bar autopatroll) and give him a final warning that he cannot get involved in anything on this project ever again. He can continue to be a editor but he is not allowed to request any other rights from now on, not even something as minute as file mover cause that can still cause a lot of damage in the future and if he ever does anything wrong, he will get a permaban here and a Global ban request on Metawiki. Time to move on, we are not a hospital or a hospice and users that keep becoming a hindrance on the project should be removed just as quick.--Stemoc 07:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Colin - I've suspected for a long time (and I know people who have suspected since the RfA). I was prepared to wait until sufficient evidence was present before presenting a fairly watertight case to the relevant checkusers and stewards for investigation (or INC/'Daphne' tripped up and made their deception clear). INeverCry completely shattered the trust of the community with their last attempt to have the administrator tools restored (for which I wrote at comprehensive de-RfA - now restored here) and there was absolutely no question of Daphne being a clean start or a good admin (they weren't particularly good in any case) they were malicious, deceptive and fairly openly abusing the goodwill of the community. The long standing policy of Commons (and elsewhere) is that allegations of socking without evidence are regarded as intimidation or harassment (and correctly so). You do have to wait until sufficient evidence presents itself before moving, unfortunately, it means you could be standing still for quite some time first. Nick (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with those who suspected and could not act because CU requires evidence and misbehaviour rather than fishing. I'm very angry with those who knew (like Jcb) and were happy to keep this a secret from the rest of us (who don't spend our time looking at admin contribs or logs or forums or on IRC). I think it worth quoting this from en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

"Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA."

Perhaps it is time to move/adapt some of these en:wp pages to Commons so we can agree on appropriate wording for this project. -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I've started a desysop request. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be closed as a desysop request already started. It is unfortunate; but no meaning in making more frustrations here. Jee 09:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we should not close this thread yet. Daphne Lantier has also been temporarily blocked by Billinghurst. We need to consider whether we let this block expire or extend it. And we should perhaps also consider this comment by INeverCry at en:wp: “No worries. I've got other accounts I can use.” --AFBorchert (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Extend that one day block to one or two week till that desysop is closed as we don't need to risk further disruptions in between. Just my opinion. (I don't see that EN edit as problematic. Instead I feel it as a cool headed, humorous response to Courcelles. They can be friends as INC is a longtimer here and in EN.) Jee 10:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Just sad. --Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: I'm trying to work out what level of access 'Daphne' had to OTRS. I know they definitely had access to OTRS Wiki (and made some edits) and I know they applied in April, with you handling their identification [10] but it doesn't appear that 'Daphne' was ever added to m:OTRS/Users. Their log suggests here that they were an OTRS agent for three days, but did they actually have an OTRS user account and access to the system during those three days. The obvious other question is why was their access removed after just three days and what level of access to non public data they had ? Nick (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some info. Jee 10:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jee. It confirms access to the system which is all I really needed to know. The remaining questions are now redundant. Nick (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The user had access to OTRS, and requested removal a few days later. --Krd 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We also need to decide what to do with the de-RfA for H-stt, which was Daphne and Jcb tag teaming to get an (admittedly) problematic administrator removed for cause. I don't know how on earth that can continue to proceed given H-stt was wheel warring against an administrator who shouldn't have been an administrator but at the same time, their behaviour shouldn't be given a free pass. I would suggest a bureaucrat should suspend the H-stt de-RfA for a couple of days whilst the INC/Daphne situation is resolved, all of the participants in the de-RfA are notified of what has happened and allowed time to change, modify or remove their votes if they wish to do so, then the de-RfA resumed for the remaining period. Nick (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Nick unless it turns out that Jcb and INC are the same person, I don't see any grounds to alter the process of that de-sysop. Unless there was some past H-stt/INC interaction that is relevant to the issue. The admin's comments at AN/U confirm their belief that the rules are for other people, and they have chosen not to defend themselves at the de-sysop page. If H-stt agrees to stop wheel-warring then I won't be alone in reconsidering my vote. Other than that, I don't see any option but to remove the bit and don't see this as a particularly controversial de-sysop or one that has been disrupted by the INC/Daphne events. -- Colin (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

AFBorchert, for what it is worth, I agree the en:wp comment is damning, and should be sufficient for further investigations now. The block length on en:wp was changed to indef as a result, and I think we should do the same. Total disregard for the community. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Colin: An indef for a sockpuppet that was used deceitful wouldn't indeed be unusual. Nonetheless I would like not to rush this. Daphne Lantier/INeverCry should be given the opportunity to issue a statement if they want to. And I am personally still quite stunned and sad as it took me by surprise. Perhaps we should first consider if we extend the temporary block of Daphne Lantier to a week. Then the desysop process will be finished and we have here some time frame to discuss the situation which cannot be solved by a simple block. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • They can use a user talk page (if such is enabled) if they wish to make a statement, but we've frankly had too many "I'm sorry I screwed up; won't do it again", and this time it was a calculated long term deception to the community. See no reason to enable the account for any other purposes in a weeks time. So they and their other sock accounts can vote at FPC? I agree with Nick on the other page -- this has reached global block/ban. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed the block to one week for now, otherwise the block will expire and per the above comments we have no consensus to let the block expire (yet). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • • @Steinsplitter: Something about this made me feel quite uncomfortable: The de-RfA is also scheduled to end in one week. Does this mean User:Daphne Lantier can't rightfully voice and defend self in the de-RfA comments, regardless of the outcome and existing votes?

        Daphne's account has been temporarily de-administrated, so I question the blocking policy and length of the block: Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume. Of course there's no consensus yet, but maybe incrementally 3 days or actually letting the block expire would be more fair. I believe a stern warning (while the de-RfA is ongoing and immediately thereafter) would be enough, and allowing useful contributions under Daphne's account could be potentially easier to scrutinize instead of sockhunting INC has hinted (using a sock would then of course become a bit moot).

        If the disruptive behavior was to continue after unblock, that would of course be voluntarily lifting the right to defend self in the de-RfA. Alternatively, maybe the de-RfA schedule could be extended if the intent is to keep it at one week. Either way I think Daphne has calmed, as pointed by tagging both accounts as socks and blocking INC (self) in good faith. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked into this incident, and what a surprise to wake up to. After some hours of trying to understand, here's what I can opinion and conclude:

• I note I have no prior knowledge of INC's actions in 2015 and the previous block entry abuse of admin tools, baseless accusations, disruptive editing to get a wider view of this conclusion. My knowledge of the users and experience of Commons starts from mid-2016.
• I assume the CheckUser process on enwiki has been correct and correlated Daphne and INC to be the same person.
• INC and Daphne's double-voting at RfAs on enwiki happened and is condemnable, but in the big picture not quite significant. I believe the sockpuppet block at enwiki was appropriate, but I hope INC/Daphne can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community at later point for a second chance.
• The two accounts haven't interacted (socked) on the same pages here on Commons. Daphne's RfA is a clean start, which clearly Daphne had to put effort into. I can also note the old account (INC) was not clearly discontinued, but Commons does not share enwiki's policies on clean starts so discontinuation doesn't seem to be mandatory on Commons.
• It seems quite likely INC was in a state of distress at the time of the incident, following block of both accounts on English Wikipedia. INC was not possibly prepared to handle the situation (and any person in distress may have more difficulty to appropriate), taking hostility from it and returning it back at the community at Commons (another place close to interests).
• Daphne blocked INC (self), possibly understanding of doing wrongs and regretting it or as a measure to calm down. At the same time, Daphne is a "clean start" and did not participate in socking here on Commons. I can assume good faith it will stay that way.
• I don't feel like INC/Daphne should be "punished" more for their actions in distress, quite the contrary. If Daphne or INC has instability related to health issues (claimed by User:Jkadavoor at desysop request for Daphne), I think the community could seek ways to help INC/Daphne. If the claims of health issues proved correct, then it would support the theory of increased distress mentioned previously. That's why I'd be inclided to vote neutral or a conditional keep to Daphne as an administrator.
• Daphne can still be an invaluable contributor to the Commons project, even if the administrator rights were temporarily or permanently revoked. As previously opinioned, I can assume good faith an indefinite block on Daphne's account is not necessary here on Commons. At the same time, editing in good faith on Commons can be a pathway to regain trust and editing privileges at enwiki.
• Because INC's account was disrupting on Commons and the two accounts were proven on enwiki by a CheckUser, I believe the indef block on INC is appropriate and should stay. In other words, this may be considered a "forced discontinuation" for a purpose of clean start.

If there's something I missed (which is quite likely), I'd like to comment on it to have a chance to review my views. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 12:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• INC self-claimed health issues on meta:Special:Permalink/16128381#INeverCry.40Commons. Unless he is lying at the time (unlikely), there is no doubt about it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think from INC's own words, quoted from the meta request you linked, I suffer from Bi-Polar Disorder and Panic Disorder. I don't think that being an administrator is a good thing for me. Doing less stressful work, like category sorting and license reviews is probably a much better and healthier choice for me. speaks for itself, so I can now support the removal of administrator priviledges as self-will but also further assume good faith for Daphne to be an invaluable contributor to Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 13:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Other than that INC once replied to me that he is physically disabled and rarely go out of his apartment. He said he see the world through our photos. My guess is that he has a difficulty to manage his time and loneliness; that's why he return again and again here. (Another link. Anyway he is not suitable to be an admin and I've no idea how to help him. Jee 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nonsense. We know INeverCry very well as an administrator, we have seen him come and go, make enormous problems with ill advised administrative actions, we have seen him abuse the administrator tool set, and we have endured problems with him resigning and then returning. I detailed many of the issues at the de-RfA request I drew up and nothing has changed, other than we're now dealing with wilful deception and deliberate damage to the project in addition to all of the existing problems.

  The Daphne RfA, which you're forgetting was established by INeverCry, an act of deception from the very start, not the act of a clean start account, was held with users who know the INeverCry issues inside out and back to front being completely in the dark of the history and track record of the person they were voting on. I don't know why we're having a de-RfA, the Daphne RfA is completely illegitimate, the administrator permission should be removed permanently on the basis of the previous revocation of INeverCry's administrator permission. The RfA should really be deleted as being the work of an abusive sockpuppet, we shouldn't even be wasting time on a de-RfA (though I ask we don't do that, for our own records).

  What I find incredible in all of this is the 'ah well, they weren't so bad' statements. Yes, yes they were, their behaviour has been abusive and abhorrent, they have shown a complete and total disregard for the community, but that has been a recurring theme with INeverCry, not giving a shit about the community, the attempt to regain the tools in January was another sign, as was the regular 'I'm going to resign' routine which happened every time he did something controversial.

  We know INeverCry isn't suited to being an administrator, it's not copyright infringement which is fixed by reading and understanding our policies and copyright legislation. It's not vandalism and immaturity which is cured by growing up and growing older. This is a permanent temperamental issue which has not changed and which does not look likely to change in the near future. The fact Daphne's parting gift was significant disruption which spread across many WMF sites is evidence, as plain as the nose on your face, that this person not only should not, but absolutely cannot be an administrator now or at any time in the near future.

  And if all that isn't enough, we know INC gained access to OTRS, signing a legally binding document concerning their identity and submitting that to the Wikimedia Foundation, before gaining access to non public data. This is someone who not only has caused us endless issues here on Commons, but who has displayed exceptionally poor judgement across multiple projects, most recently only hours ago with their deletions and other actions.

  This isn't just slap on the wrist territory, this is such an egregious breach of trust and the norms we expect on all WMF sites, that I am pushing for a global ban of some sort. We need to make it quite clear this level of deception cannot be remotely thought tolerable. Nick (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Though the part about OTRS may feel like contributing to uncertainty of trust of a (temporarily) former administrator, I don't see evidence the access to non-public information at OTRS was abused in anyway during the short period of 3 days. The WMF team could verify it if they suspected abuse of the data.

    As for the attempts to regain the tools through socking and in non-transparent way, fair enough because I was not previously aware of this.

    From the basis of your opinion, there's not much I see here to be against retaining Daphne as an editor on the condition Daphne doesn't sock or participate in further RfAs to repeat past actions. Regardless, I'd be willing to hear a statement from Daphne and hopefully voluntarily resign once and for all.

    2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The person behind these accounts seems pretty clearly to have planned for potentially being banned at some point in the future. I don't particularly care what their real name or gender is, but if we assume INC was the main account (set up in 2009), their alternate accounts have included at least User:Jeff the Obscure (2015) (not a hidden alternate), User:Daphne Lantier (2015), and User:Rosario Berganza (2013), the real-sounding names seem specifically chosen to avoid links being drawn to other accounts. And their suggestion that "I've got other accounts I can use." strongly suggests there are (many?) other sleepers out there. These are not the actions of someone who we should be anxious to welcome back into the fold, IMO. Storkk (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very well stated Nick. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• (ec) Sorry but it is not a clean start if one sock nominates the other sock for adminship. His help to keep the backlogs short was greatly appreciated and some of us had an understanding for weaknesses resulting from health issues. But deception and dishonesty cannot be explained this way. Apparently, INeverCry/Daphne Lantier wanted to have the tools back no matter the cost. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. -- Colin (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I am sad to seeing this whole mess. Well, I see that User:Nick already left a note for James Alexander, Manager, Trust & Safety, Wikimedia Foundation. I am not sure this rise to the level of Office action, unless proven that IneverCry/Daphne Lantier abuse their OTRS membership privileged in addition to this scandal. However considering that both accounts signed the confidentiality agreement as OTRS members, I doubt they use the same signature to sign the document. It is difficult to draw any conclusion on this since I have no access to the signed document. BTW....I don't know if using different signature by INC to sign the confidentiality agreement with an intent to deceive qualifies as signature forgery or something like that. I hope SuSa can look into this in detail to determine if Office action is necessary. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor english, so I write in german: Ich habe Zugriff auf das OTRS, wenn auch nur sehr, sehr eingeschränkt: Ich bearbeite seit Jahren die Anfrage zu den Fotowettbewerben in Deutschland: mailto:Info@wikilovesearth.de und mailto:info@wikilovesmonuments.de landen bei mir. Alle anderen Tickets sind für mich gesperrt und nicht einsehbar. Aber: Die anwesenden Agenten mit Nick- und Klarname sehe ich. Mit wirklich böswilligen Absichten könnte man das ausnutzen. Siehe dazu [11]. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Further multiple account abuse

Just to make the community aware Special:CentralAuth/Herbert_Delvig is another account which has been confirmed to be INeverCry. This account, when blocked locally, undertook a vandalism and intimidation/harassment spree which resulted in the account being locked. The English Wikipedia SPI page and Commons self-disclosure are available to view. Nick (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

With all respect, I am afraid we are moving towards a community ban. I hate saying this, since INC was a respected community member, and has done a lot of good stuff, but vandalism using socks can not be tolerated.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for bringing this to our attention. While we await James Alexander's response, can we propose a site ban here? Although, we do not have a banning policy here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It certainly seems INC is determined to give his fellow admins a lot of mopping up to do, and to make edits containing harrassment/abuse that mean a permanent ban is the only option. I think that having a 10-day vote where all the same comments as at the de-sysop are offered is only adding to the oxygen of attention-seeking. Some may force that option on us, but is there a better way? Commons is very open to abuse from any user with lots of time on their hands and experience with the tools. The sooner INC gets the message this is over, and they get no further attention on the noticeboards, the better. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this can be the grounds for account to be blocked indefinitely (any administrator can change block settings to indefinite), but I don't think a formal ban is needed as there're no ban policy in Commons and a community ban here would not add anything that hasn't already been done, or is being done. (new socks can be blocked on sight for evasion.)--GZWDer (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, then we have no choice. I have changed the block to indefinite. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism/trolling using IPs

In addition to the socks we have now since two vandalizing and trolling IP addresses that appear to be associated with INC/DH:

• 47.33.7.25 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) (self-identified as INC)
• 2600:6c4e:7003:600:fc12:ec7d:6247:6455 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) (see this comment)

Both IP addresses share the same location ([12], [13]). --AFBorchert (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: , you can add to the SPI record or if you are keen for a global ban, then take the case to meta. I see no benefit in keeping this thread open, apart from giving someone who is behaving badly the emotive reaction they appear to want to see. This is childish vandalism and the standard process for handling that is effective, and minimises disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: I am not keen for a global ban, this would not help much. As the vandalism persisted, other admins have to be aware of this as well. Most of the vandalism occured between 5 and 6am GMT – a time where only few admins are actively watching. This is not about the person behind the vandalisms but about the protection of this project and its users. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just block the accounts, revert the vandalism and ignore. Please don't protect user talk pages (particularly mine) or in any other way give them the oxygen of publicity that they would like. Nick (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Piscopro

They have made many copyright violations as shown here: [[14]]. Has been warned by User:Ronhjones who is an administrator but continues to violate copyright. I recently tagged their upload: [[15]] with no permission and license. Many of their uploads have been tagged for the same reason and deleted. --It's Kong of Lazers talk 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done This file is PD-textlogo, but I still blocked this account for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:JulianLiliana

User:JulianLiliana continues to add copyrighted images, despite this warning. At least one of the images was added back after being deleted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've left them a final warning on their talk page. Next time they will be blocked. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Dienthoaiquangcao37

• GalaxyOptimus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Dienthoaiquangcao37 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 1.54.217.205 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)

I don't see any rationale for the undos of my deletion noms by User:Dienthoaiquangcao37 like [16]. They have not responded to me on their talkpage. Bri (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the undos and warned the user. Guanaco (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also 1.54.217.205 was doing the same thing. Reverted. Guanaco (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Dienthoaiquangcao37 blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure about GalaxyOptimus, he has been inactive for over a year so I did nothing. FYI: Category:Sockpuppets of Dienthoaiquangcao82, he also edits using Vietnamese IPs. His area of interest are cell phones, tablets and related stuff. --jdx ^Re: 05:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:92.12.204.97's recent changes

Issues with this user's work:

• Created many categories about bilateral relations of Pakistan (both military and non-military) that are either empty or contain only other empty categories and/or maps that do not show bilateral relations (they just highlight the countries on the map). Some are misnamed, with the countries not in alphabetical order (for example, Category:Military relations of Pakistan and Fiji). Category:Military relations of Pakistan currently contains only one non-empty category out of 81.
• Named or renamed categories about India to "Republic of India". These include Category:Relations of Pakistan and Republic of India and Category:Military relations of Pakistan and Republic of India. Shouldn't these use the standard "India" instead?

I started addressing these things one by one, but I thought an admin might be willing to address them as a group since there are so many. Here is what I thought might be possible:

1. Delete the empty subcats of Category:Military relations of Pakistan.
2. Doing step 1 would leave only Category:Military relations of Pakistan and Republic of India in the parent category. Move this to Category:Military relations of India and Pakistan, making any needed changes to sort keys.
3. Move Category:Relations of Pakistan and Republic of India back to Category:Relations of India and Pakistan, making any needed changes to sort keys.
4. Doing step 1 would leave many subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Pakistan that are either empty or contain only a map highlighting the countries. Remove the maps and delete the categories.
5. If any remaining subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Pakistan have the country names in the wrong order, rename them.

Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: I see that all of these have been done except step 4. I don't think these categories are helpful if they contain only a map (in fact, I don't think the maps fit in these categories at all). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are suggesting now to delete all subcategories of Bilateral relations of Pakistan which contains by only one locator map? This would be more an editorial action and probably isn't up to the decision of a single user (admin) to do this, as this was a common thing to put these kind of files in such categories even without the involvement of this anon. - [17][18][19][20][21]. --XXN, 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not saying to remove the maps from all such categories, though. Most or all of the Pakistan categories were recently mass created by the IP user. It may be standard to include the maps in bilateral relations categories, but mass creating such categories where the only thing in them is the map is not useful, IMO, since the maps don't really illustrate the relations. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Auntof6: : Technically both "India" and "Republic of India" are correct, just as both "United States" and "United States of America" are correct. (See CIA Fact Book. I agree with Auntof6 that we should standardise on one or the other, but this decision has already been made for us - Commons use of the short form of the country's name is almost universal, so any category name that contains the text "Republic of India" should have that text be changed to "India". Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I know they are both correct. The IP editor renamed one or more to add "Republic of", and also created one or more with the "Republic of" verbiage. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Begaoz

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

I think some one should take care of this user. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 2606:6000:fd22:7600:7197:d093:11f7:8d46

Would an admin please take a look at the contributions of IP 2606:6000:fd22:7600:7197:d093:11f7:8d46? I'm not sure how it's done on Commons, but on English Wikipedia clear personal attacks such as these can be removed per en:WP:NPA and a user warning template left on the concerned editor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Edits hidden and the whole /64 range blocked for a day. --jdx ^Re: 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jdx. Does Commons have user warning templates for this type of thing? Just curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Be civil}} seems to be suitable, although warning anonymous users IMO doesn't make sense because vast majority of them use dynamic addresses. --jdx ^Re: 10:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that and I agree about the dynamic IPs. Such warnings don't not seem have much of an effect on English Wikipedia as well, and are only probably added for procedural reasons before starting a discussion at one of the adminstrator noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Agreed--It's Kong of Lazers talk 17:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC).

Mads591 (talk · contributions · Statistics)

This user has uploaded only one file (File:Thor Lemming Pedersen.jpg), the file description contains defamation, offensive material. I think the file should be deleted and the user blocked. --GeorgHH • talk   12:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done File deleted as vandalism; at best unused personal image and at worst defamation. However the uploader transferred this from da:wp so may not be familiar with Commons policies, so I haven't blocked, but will leave a warning. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

License review/deletion dispute

No administrative action required. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I am in a license review and deletion dispute with a license reviewer. He made a false claim and I argued against it with proof, and now he isn't replying. How can I go about resolving this issue (as to not just leave the deletion nomination discussion sitting there with no movement)? TBMNY (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

These aren't real time conversations, and they typically last for a week. The DR will stay open for a week (possibly longer), and the closing administrator will read through it and take into account each comment before closing. It is possible, but not required, that Guanaco will still reply. By the way, if you raise someone's behavior here, the courteous thing to do is to inform them, as the instructions at the top of this page state. Storkk (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I've commented more about my licensing concerns at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conor McGregor Posing.png. TBMNY, I hope you understand that my actions here aren't anything personal against you. I'm just trying to ensure that our licensing policies are followed, and that we don't mislead possible reusers with invalid licenses. I'll accept the closing admin's decision about the images, in any case. Guanaco (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not worth discussing this dispute here. Next time, use other venues first, like the problematic user's talk page and DR. ★Poyekhali 10:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only is your comment redundant but "problematic user's talk page" suggests that Guanaco is the problemartic user in this misunderstanding whilst this isn't true. (Nobody did anything wrong.) Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I understood it to mean "the user you're not happy with" whether they're actually problematic or not. I think everything's fine now; can we close this? Guanaco (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Yann undeleting files they voted on

No administrative action required and this isn't going anywhere. Wikicology (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Yann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has failed to abstain from using their Sysop tool (in this case undeleting two files) in which they voted for in the DR and undeletion page. I wouldn't have had an issue if a third party admin (like @Ankry: had done, but ended undoing their action), as there wouldn't be any COI/bias.

This isn't the first time Yann's understanding of copyright or sysop actions has come into question[22][23][24]. Clearly he needs to refrain from some cases, Australian works (even the most simple ones such as the Australian Aboriginal flag that is made up of shapes) are copyrighted regardless of where the file/photograph is taken or hosted and sadly this comment is telling that his understanding of copyright for Australian created works is very much lacking.

The response he gave wasn't much better, basically refusing to acknowledge that they should abstain on the basis that "admins can't give their opinions" and that he has "been doing that for more than 10 years"[25][26].Bidgee (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

While I opposed the undeletion, I do not think it is misuse of tools as:

• Yann ignored his vote in summary
• there was majority voting for undeletion, even whie not counting Yann's vote.

IMO, it is the same like if Yann removed his vote before. Ankry (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, There is no conflict of interest or biais, that's an invention of yours. I closed this request only based on facts and copyright law. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This has nothing to do with australian copyright law. Protected elements are protected elements, nobody I guess objects that here. Now, that alone is not enough to oppose taking and publishing picture of people wearing basic clothes containing copyrighted elements. If the suject was wearing a star wars tshirt, would you delete the photograph ? if he was wearing a multi color rainbow protected design, would you be deleting the picture? Would you delete a picture of a singer with a tshirt containing copyrigthed elements of his band? In all possible case, if the subject is the tshirt (like an emphasised crop on it and the head being cutted; example here ), it would not be de-minimis, but you can reasonnably expect that a photograph of writer wearing a tshirt in a book fair (The Utopiales is a science fiction book fair in France) has the person as subject and not the tshirt he is wearing. T-Shirt are also utilitarians, the condition of this serie of photograph (with Raphael are particular) as he asked me for a few photograph, as he knew I was doing a press cover for wikipedia, so we just went on the 4th flour to have a more natural light and to have Nantes as background, I was not going to ask him to remove his tshirt or hide it... Esby (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

TOO in France may be low, but I don't think it would be so ridiculously low that this flag would be above TOO. Australian law is indeed irrelevant here. I think initial deletion was an error and restoration was the clear outcome of the UDR. On an average day we delete more than 1000 files. Only a small number of admins do most of these deletions. This means that inevitably some files will be deleted in error. It's necessary to follow proper procedure when requesting undeletion, but I don't think we should make the procedure at COM:UDR more complex than needed. Undeletion should be as simple as deletion. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment English Wikipedia generally does not allow you to close a discussion if you've expressed an opinion on it. This is Commons, where we have no such expectation. Admins are expected to close copyright-related discussions using their best judgment rather than strictly consensus. So I don't see how this is a user problem. The correct way to approach this would be to post at User talk:Yann explaining the copyright concerns. If the dispute can't be resolved there, you are free to open a new DR. Guanaco (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Pissing Contest

Hi, I dont usually post here but I am getting seriously fed up off seeing what seems to be a rather big pissing contest, going on between @Meow: and @ChocolateTrain: amongst others on here over the way various images of [tropical cyclones are presented. I have no clues when it comes to images but what @ChocolateTrain: has been saying on his talkpage seems to make sense to me as Meow just seems to be aragont. However, as i am no expert I would like the opinons of people here in order to sort it out. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I only choose the proper way to contribute to Wikimedia projects. I do not have beautiful words to defend myself, but he cannot deny that I gave much help for him. Sometimes I feel so depressed that people don’t respect my efforts, but I have tried to accept the fact that I have received nothing but hate. 🐱💬 16:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You havent recieved "nothing but hate" and people do respect your efforts, which is shown by the featured picture that you like ramming down peoples throats. However, you have also made a rod for your own back by the way you conduct yourself, which is why I asked for someonne to check the way your conduct yourself. This includes telling people that their contributions dont count and telling them that they are wasting their time. However, there are moments where it is interesting to see you edit - for example on Winston where you found that it wasnt the strongest TC by 10-min wind. I would also rather see this pissing contest sorted rather than it go on for much longer and that is why i have brought it to the attention of the adminsitrators on here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My 2c. ChocolateTrain needs to stop overwriting Meow's files and upload them as a seperate file if they feel to urge to make modifications. If someone objects against overwrites, just fork the file. Plain and simple. @Meow: could you please explain in more detail why the original upload of this file is wrong? (Not trying to blame you, merely trying to understand this part of the issue brought up.) Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not looked into the behavior of the two users, but from a technical perspective, the original version uploaded by ChocolateTrain has been clearly upsampled, which uses up pixels without actually improving the resolution of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Carolus

Hello. I do not know why, but this user seems to want to systematically alter my editions. I tried to discuss with him, but it is quite difficult to answer something like "If you do not stop creating ridiculous and false categories for Belgian Articles, i will send you a formal warning.", so I mention this case here. I created Category:Sash of the Order of Leopold (Belgium), which seems legitimate to me, for the reason I explained on Carolus Talk page. Moreover, he does not follow the correct procedure for renaming categories, as I also explained to him. I think the conflict could go beyond this category, because he also remaned Category:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor), a category I created for a specific picture. Thank you for your help. BrightRaven (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You realy have guts? How dare you categorize an official image of the King to something ridiculous like Category:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor) and claim this is 1915? In the beginnnng of the War? you ar so wrong, you should be blocked! You realy have guts to categorize one of mine images to a person who has no connection to the belgian Court.--Carolus (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In passing however the above user appears to be blocked indefinitely on nl.wp and quite possibly for puppetry. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And what is your point? This has nothing to do with this image?--Carolus (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for information: the name of Category:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor) is based on the only official source for this photograph: [27]. BrightRaven (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This portrait was taken in 1909 after the death of Leopold II of Belgium, in an official serie of portraits, by the official court photographer. Your ridiculous source is simply wrong, and completely untrustworthy. Claiming this is made in 1915, during the war is even more idiotic.--Carolus (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Imho, Carolus is clearly not collaborative: he systematically erase our discussion on his talk page: [28]. BrightRaven (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carolus: please remain civil. Being rude isn't going to help you to resolve this content dispute. Being rude and uncollaborative might get you blocked though regardless if you are right or wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I serious need to laugh, with that specific source, says "made in 1915"? Can this be taken serious? I have the opinion BrightRaven is trying to push her vieuw every time, without knowing anything at all, so i do not see, what she can ad to this? The result is very doubtfull categories, who are imho not even an addition to commons? Creating a category with "sashes" for Grand Cordons, makes wiki just ridiculous, and then she starts to categorize images that are not even hers, and date them 1915? Serious, i do not understand why this lady has the right to add such nonsense to Wiki? --Carolus (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems (if I read the talkpage) that both users find the idea that the other person might be right, incomprehensible. Perhaps the situation would be more served by adding a third person to the discussion. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind please that no one "owns" Commons images once they have been freely licensed here. As such anyone can categorise any images. It would certainly help if you could consider your tone in this discussion. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Herbythyme, just to clarify your statement in case anyone gets the wrong impression, the only images that "no one owns" are ones that have become in or have been placed in the "public domain". All other images very much do remained owned by their creators (artist, photographer, videographer, film studio, etc) and subject to copyright protection, etc, thouh obviously with additional benefits of a free licence to use. I think what you meant is that nobody owns the "file description page", the textual content of which is always released under CC BY-SA 3.0 when we press the "Publish changes" button, and colaboratively edited in accord with the WMF terms of use and project policy/guidelines. -- Colin (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Colin - yes that was my meaning in that anyone can amend categories, descriptions etc freely (unless there is vandalism). There is no ownership in that sense of the word. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wel; thank you i consider my tone every time, and i do not own any categorie, but that lady should take resposability for creating wrong categories, not me? Unless you want all official portraits of Kings and Queen of Europe being in false and ridiculous categories? Wel, Herby, that is your choice, not mine. --Carolus (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment BrightRaven, I didn't understand this edit. It is a photo of a Monarch, probably of Albert I . "His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor)" will give the impression that Elizabeth J. O'Connor is the Monarch here. Jee 14:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

for Beeing more clear: i am talking about a category, not about an image, everyone does understand this, right? this edit is completely non sense? It might be possible that one image is of this person (Elizabeth J. O'Connor)? But why does this justify all images to be put in this category? There is no link with the other images BrightRaven tries to push inside? There is no proof the other images are made by this Elizabeth J. O'Connor?? C'mon? please delete such nonsense. (--Carolus (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes. And a category tree already exists. I don't see the need for a new category like "His Majesty, the King of Belgium". Just use any existing one. (But this can be achieved with a more friendly discussion. ) Jee 14:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: would a category name like "Mona Lisa (Leonardo da Vinci)" be equally confusing? I see this as the title of photograph, chosen by the photographer, was "His Majesty, the King of Belgium"... there may be different versions of that photograph. Storkk (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Storkk, there is a lot of difference. Mona Lisa is well known unique where as "His Majesty, the King of Belgium" is a title held by several people. So "Mona Lisa (Leonardo da Vinci)" is clear without the "by". Here "His Majesty, the King of Belgium" is not a unique painting or sculpture; just a photograph of a King. So "His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor)" looks more like photograpgh of King Elizabeth J. O'Connor. Further why we need a category of photographer if he is not well-known without a {{Creator}}? Jee 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We need a category and a Creator template for every author, at least professional ones (i.e. not Commons contributors). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: If the argument is that the category needs to be worded differently (i.e. "... by Elizabeth J. O'Connor" instead of "(Elizabeth J. O'Connor)"), I think there is some merit to that. Up until now, that was not my impression of the drama above. As to where the line for confusion is, I'm not so sure it's that clear cut: as far as I am aware, there have been 5 women in history crowned "King", and that alone diminishes the scope for confusion. Storkk (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is an actual, rather than hypothetical example: Category:David (Bernini). Storkk (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ther might be lots of pics of King Albert? But if your have no clear source, do not touch?--Carolus (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course there might be lots of photos of King Albert. This one, per the clear source, has a title. That title is "His Majesty, The King of Belgium". I understand you think the British Library unreliable in this instance, but I think that is a separate topic. Storkk (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To make things clear: I noticed there was 4 different versions of the same photograph on Commons. The only reliable source for this photograph is [29]. This source states that the title of the photograph is "His Majesty, the King of Belgium" and the photographer is "Elizabeth J. O'Connor". Therefore, I created a category called Category:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor), which seemed the best way to identify the photograph (title + name of the photographer). Maybe the source website is wrong. If we can find another source for this photograph, I would be glad to correct it. On this matter, I am open to any proposal, but up to now, I have not seen any clear evidence that this photograph is not from 1915 as stated in the source or that the photographer is not Elizabeth J. O'Connor. (Personnally I also found that this authorship is strange, because I could not find any information about this photographer - and I made searches about her before Carolus' actions - but I thought I had to rely on the only available source.)

The other point of conflict with Carolus is about Category:Sash of the Order of Leopold (Belgium). I also created this category today. It seems legitimate to me: "sash" is highly frequently use to describe the insignia of the honorific orders. On Commons, we have Category:Sashes of orders and its subcategories. Carolus wants the wording "grand cordon", but as I explained to him "Grand Cordon" is ambiguous, because it tends to designate the rank of a person rather than the insignia, i.e. the object (whereas "sash" is totally unambiguous). There also, I have not seen any argument from Carolus to show that "sash" was incorrect.

Here is the kind of arguments that Carolus uses: "It is simply wrong", "you gonna "invent" this ridiculous categories", "If you do not stop creating ridiculous and false categories for Belgian Articles, i will send you a formal warning.", blanking the discussion page, "deletion of stupid comments of other people", "This is my page, get out, you have nothing here to explain". I think these extracts of Carolus' prose show very clearly that it is impossible to have a sensible discussion with him. BrightRaven (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For clarification: I acknowledge that Category:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (Elizabeth J. O'Connor) might be confusing, and I am open to any proposal of renaming. I do not agree with Carolus' actions which consist in placing them in a category of 1909 photographs, whereas the only source states it is from 1915. Moreover, the category where he placed them is not specific for this photograph, whereas my goal was to create a category only for the different versions of this same photograph. BrightRaven (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yann, BrightRaven and Storkk, I'm replying here. The sourced mentioned above states "His Majesty, the King of Belgium. Photographer: Elizabeth J. O'Connor" which is good. But the removal of "Photographer:" from the category name made it confusing. The revert removing the name of King from the file page is a mild vandalism too. It was possible for BrightRaven to add the creator category without removing the subject category. Yann, a creator category is OK if well developed. Here no root category for Elizabeth J. O'Connor' only a "His Majesty, the King of Belgium. (Elizabeth J. O'Connor)" which has no use and confusing. (I agree that this not the main point of this discussion which is unfriendly behavior which sparked from both side. I don't want to comment on it.) Jee 16:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The idea is that a category matches a Wikidata entry, and then links to pages in other projects about the same person (Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc.). With Structured Data, these categories could be multilingual. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I know. Many of us has an entry there. :) Jee 16:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the use to create a category with 1 image? --Carolus (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The problems with this user are serious. S/he apparently does not actually know what a cenotaph is, nor a tomb, nor a family grave, yet is making a huge amount of changes to such categories, creating new ones, letting the old ones be deleted for lack of files, etc etc etc. This is only one of many horrifying examples. The user also seems to be very difficult to reason with. I don't know what to suggest. A block for a while, some other limitation? The fact is that very serious damage is being done to earlier work by other users, work which was correct and very exact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

PS I might explain that the "tomb of Queen Richardice" who died in 1377, was in Stockholm, Sweden, and that what now is being called her tomb is a cenotaph in Germany. All this is very clear in the WP articles about these people. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wel, i think you might be exagerating things, the problem is not serious, i have been spending a couple of hours cleaning and moving badly named categories, not creating. The old situation was horribly confusing and no consistent. Wrong names, and al sorts of cominations that do not belong in 1 category, and a general lack of correct discriptions of the images, in swedish. No info at all in these Commons categories. Pictures of Frescos in a category: grave of .... etc...This situation was ridiculous. The work was not correct, and surely Not exact enough. Besides, i am Mr. Carolus, this is not the name of a lady, big suprise? --Carolus (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Where, before, we had clear and correct information, we now have a queen buried in Germany though she actually was buried in Sweden (which was clear before), and we no longer have the famous Caroline Chapel (family grave of King Carl X Gustav) called a family grave, just two of the many examples of damaging work you have done here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wel then you create the category Burials inside the Caroline Chapel, you can add on different people and all is fixed. i do not see the damage. And like explained, if people would add, correct info in English even more problems can be fixed.--Carolus (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As for File:His Majesty, the King of Belgium (HS85-10-30099) original.tif (and related images), User:Carolus has failed to prove that this image is from 1909, whereas the only source (which IMO is a reliable source) shows 1915. The Getty and Alamy links provided by Carolus do NOT include this image. So unless a new and reliable source is provided, the images should be moved to Category:Albert I of Belgium in 1915. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)