Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 35

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

Closure of Ecemaml discussion


Definite resignation


AJA29091998

Can an admin on this board check the activity from AJA29091998 (talk · contribs)

They are uploading several wresling related images, claiming them to be their own work, but which are obvious copyvios. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Files have been deleted, and user has been warned. INeverCry 18:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report a new -aggressive- user, Mouh2jijel, who is randomely reverting my edits (sometimes without even knowing what it is about, like here, here, here, here and here) and marking my own made files as copyright infringements (like here).

For information, I made several Beck and Transports schemes as well as historical and ethno-linguistic maps (you can see them on my user page) that I only uploaded on Commons (here is a screenshot of my computer's folder containing my drafts), so, if you find a similar file on the net I can prove that I was the first one to upload it and that the file on other websites is actually a copyright infringement regarding the licensing of my file.

Please do something to make Mouh2jijel ceasing that non-constructive behavior.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User warned -FASTILY 18:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much --Omar-toons (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
discussion

User is edit warring on File:Bandeira do Espírito Santo.svg, and will not stop reverting the colours. He was warned not to edit war, and the colours he wants exists as an alternative file Bandeira do Espírito Santo (light blue).svg. Please revert and protect both files. Fry1989 eh? 16:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the colours in source. JKadavoor Jee 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The colours on the image weer set according to the State's identity guide, and the alternative colours were uploaded separately. There are two images, this is edit warring and vandalism. It should be discussed on the talk page. Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The colours should mach with the source mentioned in file description. If you have a different source, please mention it. The link http://www.secom.es.gov.br/edital/manualmarca.pdf seems broken. Your work looks like as in http://www.girafamania.com.br/listaestados/br-es.htm . JKadavoor Jee 05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, could you please explain what per talk refers to in your upload comment from 14 December 2012? I notice that no talk page has been created yet for that file. I've therefore protected that file for a week and expect that this is discussed on the corresponding talk page first. Changes can be done afterwards if there is consensus for it. Otherwise, alternative versions should be uploaded under a new filename. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed on Zscout370's talk page, not the file's talk page. I uploaded different colours from the original file based on a source I had. Perhelion, in his normal interfering fashion, reverted me and it became a dispute. Zscout found a PDF of the State's identity guide, and imposed those colours, which were different from the ones I had used. He then uploaded the original colours as a separate file. The colours have already been dealt with back in december 2012, it should be returned to how it has been since then. Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually it was discussed on my talk page. Admin Rd232 asked me to look into the flag because there was a discrepancy. I did my research, told him what I came up with, and applied it. Perhelion trolled me and reverted for no good reason, he does it all the time. It became a dispute because I had sources and Perhelion didn't, he was just reverting because he doesn't like when I change files. In that time, Zscout370 found the PDF identity guide, and then applied the colours based on the PDF. They were slightly different from the ones I used, but alot closer to mine then the original ones. Zscout370 then uploaded the original colours as a separate file, which I linked above. The dispute was considered over until now, where this new user thinks that just because he's "from there", he knows better than anyone else. He is edit warring, he should be forced to discuss it, and the file should go back to how it was before this new user came along, until he gains a consensus. Fry1989 eh? 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussions should take place on the associated talk page or at least moved to it. As this particular file started with a light blue it appears best to keep it that way unless there is consensus (on the talk page!) to update it. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

+1 It is very terrible to discuss with Fry1989, so I avoid it wherever I can. "The law is the law" He thinks he is the law. In my clash with him, he is always ignoring references! *haha* Sky blue = dark blue *HAHA* The PDF showed just a Coat of arms logo, the colors were just assumed by without direct relation. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm not the one who thinks that knows better than everyone else. A bit more humbleness is appreciated. Thanks to everyone's comprehension. --Bossange

Perhelion, piss off. You don't have a clue what I think, it's adorable that you pretend you do. I had a source at the time that the colours were different, you did not, but you reverted me anyways for no reason. I asked you for a counter source on my talk page and the only thing you could come up with, Zscout370 said was unreliable. You had nothing to add, you were just reverting to troll around. Zscout370, Rd232 and I all agreed the colours were different back in decembre, that was a consensus and it has stood ever since. Until Bossange comes along, saying that because he's from there he knows better. I've dealt with that attitude all the time, "I'm from here, I know more than any outsider possibly could!". It's not a productive attitude. The file had a consensus and became an established edit for 5 months, it is now Bossange's job to gain consensus for the image to go back to how it originally was, considering his preference is available as an alternative file. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Fry1989, I do not talk with trolls. You inexorable demonstrate only a morbid ego-show. The only one for your consensus was you and Zscout370 (as several times). -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only one to find it strange that Fry have problem with some user? I think the problem are probably Fry, it doesn't accept any criticism, will not tolerate the opinions of others and thinks he is the only one to be right. It accepts no rational proof and blithely ignores rule of heraldry that treats them as logos (he wants it to be absolutely identical, which has nothing heraldry). I think he should temper his enthusiasm and try to listen to the advice and comments, some people are competent in their fields, and it is not the only one to have a different opinion, however it is still quite aggressive in his contention that tends to undermine the debate. Mathieu C. (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, reading this discussion (and paying little attention otherwise), I would be hesitant to cooperate with, or rely on, someone who raises an issue on AN/U and then tells a contributor to 'piss off' in the middle of it. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt, and mark it down to being a bad week for Fry1989, but this is hardly the right sort of behaviour to convince the Administrator community that action needs to be taken in your favour. -- (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I told Perhelion to piss off, because all he ever does is revert me for no reason on various images, and personally attack me. In fact, he's already on notice for personal attacks and changing edits of other users. He has a long history of attacking me just because I edit images. He started a discussion on my talk page saying "you're always cropping or editing or changing something!" demanding an explanation, and when I tried to give one, he didn't accept it. He just doesn't like me doing things here. He even said I'm "easy to bully", which shows his state of mind towards he. He is not helpful, he is a troll. The fact regarding this image is that I was specifically asked by an Admin to look into the image. I had a source back in december, I followed through on the source, and Perhelion reverted me just because I didn't happen post the source in my edit summary. He pulls that stunt all the time. He also could not provide a reliable counter source, as noted by Zscout370, which is why Zscout overrode hime and imposed colours based on the CorpID guide. So the file has remained ever since. Considering the two differing sets of colours exist as two separate images, any decision on which one is the primary/correct one should be discussed on the image talk page. It's incredibly simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was on vacation when the reverting was going back and forth, so I didn't get to it until now. Anyways, Fry comes to my talk page a lot when it comes to disputes about what colors of a symbol or design of a symbol, mostly because it is a specialty I have with this subject area. With this specific issue, it was discussed on a talk page of Fry and not on the file (which is something, in the future, must never be done regardless of the issue and who started what). What I found was http://secult.es.gov.br/_midias/pdf/manual_de_aplicacao_da_logo-7431-511e229826715.pdf (same document, different URL) which is a visual identity manual of the State of Espírito Santo. So while I have no official source any which way over if it is dark blue or light blue, the colors provided to me by this manual are different from what was presented on the website pointed out by Bossange and it is the most official thing I got. As for why the flag went dark blue on our main file, it just said Perk Talk and that, again, must not happen. The darker colors should be in a new file and I will make a change to that effect as soon as I am able to. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that the image was changed again...
Just saying: the government official website, which magically just disappeared from source (too unreliable, I know), gives the flag a light pink tone, and, forgive my blindness, but the flag is nowhere to be seen on that beautiful pdf, unless you assume that the logo colours explanation on page 29 are also the flag colours (lolwut?!).
Anyways, I don't want to get in more trouble here... If you experts are playing on Wikipedia flags everyday, you must be right, huh? Me, the Brazilian guy who originally uploaded the flag, the government website and 3.5 million inhabitants are wrong, because saying that an "outsider" is wrong is xenophobic. --Bossange (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
See? This is exactly the attitude I was talking about; "I'm from here, I know more than any outsider possibly could". It's ignorant, arrogant, and even caries a racist undertone. I've faced it from various users from all sorts of countries who think you have to be a native to know all the facts, and if you're not from there you're somehow less informed (or less capable of informing yourself) about a local issue. It's not productive and it doesn't belong here. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are more arrogant than me, but that's not my point, what I do want to know is why the official government website was removed from the image's source in lieu of a pdf with information about the Government logo. --Bossange (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There are absolutely people who are extremely knowledgeable about their region and it's matters, but there's just as many who don't care and are complete morons when it comes to such things. To lump them all together and say "I'm from here, I must know everything there is to know, and certainly more than anybody from somewhere else could ever know" is essentially what you are doing, and it's foolish to say such things. You don't have to be from a place to know about it and it's issues, and just because you're from there doesn't automatically make you right about everything. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Awaiting answer. --Bossange (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If you use the government website, as you want, there are images of the coat of arms and of the flag. Both images uses completely different shades, so will people use the flag or people use the arms? I seen so many colors and shades used on those pages that, it would be a never ending fight until something concrete was found. Thus, the logo sheet (which does use the coat of arms, but surprisingly, uses different shades than the logo sheet). Other logos from the state use the flag colors, but not the very light colors as you said. Look, I understand where you are coming from and seeing the flag plenty of times can give an idea of what it is supposed to look like. However, when people cannot agree on anything with symbols, I have to step in and pretty much put my foot down to either work on a compromise or create a solution. In this case, the light blue and pink are the colors chosen, but the colors are specified by the state government. That is what is going to be used until we find something more concrete than this manual (that actually defines shades by a number we can cite, not just some random guessing). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, when it comes to actual flags from the state, this and this this and even [2] this one] shows a flag with a dark blue top and a dark pink bottom (especially on the Cravatte (ribbon) used on the flag). So, while I see and understand your point of being a resident has a better vantage point than an outsider would, it is a flawed point. What if the flags you saw were faded due to the weather? Made incorrectly to government regulations? These are the points I am trying to make. If you want to help to get this right, I will gladly work with you Bossange. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, the weather must be so bad at the government website! I see you and Fry are two persons who won't take another one's opinions (and facts [3] [4][5]). Nevermind, no need to answer this -- after getting called a moron, racist, ignorant and arrogant when trying to help with something I'm familiar with, having sources, I think I might be better off Wikipedia. --Bossange (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
My goal is not to chase you off. My goal is not to call you a racist. I never said those things about you or anything of that sort. The problem we have is while you present information, we have information to from the same people and there is no clarity between the two. I did see the military parade photo last night after I posted and what it shows is a light pink on bottom and a darker blue on top. That goes to my point is there is no clarity, even from the government itself. Our best suggestion is to email the government themselves and ask what colors they use on their flag when it is manufactured for flying. That would be our best bet to get some clear answer. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 Info Why Zscout370 has removed the official reference under site protection?[6] And also another expert publication with accurate design description? Which miraculously coincides with the official publication!?[7] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 08:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Link number 6 was removed due to lack of verification (I located the decree and that decree and the website doesn't even match in any way shape or form) and as for link 5, I will re-add the link. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Bossange, I did not call you a racist, and I did not call you a moron. I said that there are just as many moronic people who don't care about their local affairs as there are people who do, and you are lumping them all together as if being from somewhere automatically makes you right when it comes to that area's matters. I also said that the way you are saying it is a outlook with racist undertones, and that it is an outlook I have had to deal with from various users from various countries. I'm a humanist, I like to believe that you can be from anywhere and still be capable of educating yourself about another place's affairs. Fry1989 eh? 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)



КатеринаМишнёва

All pages created by user КатеринаМишнёва need to delete, because all this images are copyrighted and not published under a free license. Йо Асакура (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done The files have been deleted, and I've warned the user. INeverCry 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, i warned user in our home-wiki and she promised stopped uploading copyrighted files. Йо Асакура (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Penyulap


Hi, I would to ask for a little help with user:Kieranmaher. I deleted 3 of the uploads of this user because of no permission. These images had been in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. A third user removed the license template from 3 of the users uploads, because they had been copied from a book. The user seems to be the co-author of the book, but this is not confirmed by OTRS. After a week I worked on the dayly subcats of Category:Unknown and deleted these 3 images like a lot of others. Some time later the user complaint on my talk page asking for a reason for these deletion (see here). I tried to explain that he should send a permitting mail to the OTRS-Team. Next day he complained again (see here) anouncing that he will "delete" all of his images here on commons and his wikibook articles where the images were used. He then blanked or all his wikibook articles and replaced the content with a complaint about me (see here and here). Today he started to overwrite all of his uploads here on commons with blank or "crap" images (see here). He might be correct and be the copyright holder of the 3 images in question, but it should be reasonable for him to confirm this through OTRS. I started to revert his overwriting uploads, but I don't like editwarring with him over a lot of pages, so I stopped that after a few items. Should these 3 images perhaps simply restored? I don't think so, but I might be wrong. Could somebody else try to explain him the situation,so he might calm down? I don't think a block is appropriate here because there is a good chance that he is the real copyright holder of the 3 images and he just got "pissed off" about our (or my) bureaucratic behaviour in his case. Any tips or help is welcome. PS: Inbetween he reuploaded the 3 images in question with little modified new named but without the original source note of the co-author and the source-book (compare this, this and this with this, this and this). PPS: I will inform him about this thread. regards --JuTa 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was correct to tag the files for permission to be sent to OTRS, the ball is in their court but if they don't want to send the permission, the file will be deleted. If they want the files deleted, they will need to create a mass deletion request but it may or may not end in their favor. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User Godhår97 has uploaded files he/she has uploaded earlier and which were clearly copyright violations. Now the user has uploaded the files again plus some more. Take a look at Special:Log. Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. User blocked, and all uploads have been deleted. INeverCry 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Could an admin please have a look at this and this upload (see version history). I think this can be called vandalism? --Martina talk 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

10 minutes after you opened this section, the account has been blocked by Didym for vandalism. I agree with both of you. --Dereckson (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SimonMKay (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

Multiple issues here, and I'm pressed for time to continue to look into it at the moment. The user has a long history of copyright violations (see log). The following issues need further investigation, and I believe blocks and other measures are in order. Sorry for leaving the investigation work half done.

They recently started uploading files from https://www.flickr.com/people/89901053@N08, which is possibly the user's own account for license laundering purposes given that File:Kaitlyn and Layla vs Eve Torres and Beth Phoenix.jpg was uploaded to Flickr on 2013-04-10 and then uploaded here on 2013-04-16. Needs to be added to COM:QFI and other uploads need checking too.

Have a look at File:Kaitlyn.jpg and possible deleted edits there. Interests and edits between the user and Davidlasngel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log seem to overlap suspiciously. Socks, anyone? May be worth looking for others too. LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


IPv6 support

Months ago I found that accessing Wikipedia.org from a native IPv6-only machine worked fine. Recently, however, I am not able to connect from a Windows7 machine on TimeWarner cable (US) with only the IPv6 stack loaded. I can access other sites such as google.com, US government sites, Akamai, etc., so I presume something has changed about the Wikipedia IPv6 configuration.

Please continue to make Wikipedia natively accessible via IPv6 for the benefit of worldwide connectivity. Thanks.

Fastily

Good evening,

I hereby offer to launch a deadminship procedure against Fastily, with four rationales:

(1) Fastily closes DR with too many errors. He clearly prefers quantity to quality. This leads to some problematic situations:

  • Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NeocoreGames. The DR were about revisions of the files, he deleted files. Of course, without any reply to the de minimis debate. This DR is really with the French one noted above is really a proof he doesn't read the DRs. Maybe the fact the DR were about revisions and not files were hidden in the DR? Let's read it:
Paradox Interactive Logo isn't covered by OTRS ticket, which only allows screenshots/concept art.

Uploader originally removed logo and requested old revisions deletion, but processing the request, it occurred to me logo could be de minimis. We allowed in the past for example coffee machine with Nespresso logo.

So the question is are the logo de minimis?. If so, we should revert the logos removal on each version. If not, we should delete them (the revisions, not the files).

Warning. As mentioned before, this DR concerns old revisions of the file. It doesn't pursue to delete current files.

Hmmm... it seemed rather clear. I don't know about the other contributors, but when I take the time to write very precisely something (the question, the YES action, the NO action), with a warning message in bold, I expect the person who close it to read that.

I could go on this list but these three samples illustrate the "close without read the DR" behavior I noticed.

(2) Fastily doesn't comment closures. During the four first days in the DRs work in March, 19 messages in 4 days were let on his talk page (counted by DR, not by person). Yes, he succeeded to close DRs and raise 19 questions about closures in 4 days!

Argument given by Fastily as reply is it's only 19 on a lot of DRs closed. Even if he would have closed 1000 DRs these days, that would mean 3,8% (one DR to 26) were wrong or raised questions! This is a very high ratio, especially, as Fastily close less than 1000... (500? one DR to 13! 100? one DR to 5!).

This could be because none of the DR are commented, raising a lot of questions. DRs are also a place where we can educate contributors and explain to people how Wikimedia Commons apply copyright issues.

Indeed, when a DR asks one or more questions on copyright law, the closure doesn't contain any reply to the question, so people aren't able to understand it. I seriously wonder if he reads these questions, because well... the examples in (1) makes me wonder if Fastily reads the DR before to close them.

(3) Fastily refuses to amend himself. When challenged on the DR matters, he considers to do the right things, justify ad nauseam we have a backlog and we have to empty it, than his closures. Strangely, the restore log tells a different story (Two examples: 1 and 2).

(4) Fastily lied. When I see him on IRC March 16th, I notified him the 19 messages in 4 days fact noted in (1) weren't acceptable. He declared he asked tools to "help assist [him] in [his] dev work" and to be "over it" about the DRs and to not close anymore DRs. He quickly resumed this activity, with still a constant stream of complaints on his talk page.

This discussion shows the decision to assign him again the sysop tools were contested from the start, and the bureaucrat having given the right back agrees it were a bad idea.

In conclusion, the ratio cost/benefits for Wikimedia Commons of having Fastily to delete stuff seems to me to justify a deadminship.

Note: If a real need of the tools is demonstrated by Fastily, I'm open to a social restriction like to forbid Fastily to use sysop tools for deletion purpose instead. --Dereckson (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Fastily is a cool-headed and helpful admin. Some of the points also seem trivial, for example "(2) Fastily doesn't comment closures.". Yes that can be an annoyance, but I can list a bunch of admins who often don't, it's hardly a reason to remove. Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback.
I mainly by this point search an explanation for so much complaints about DR on his talk page. Probably if the no comment weren't combined with being wrong and delete without read, that wouldn't be so problematic, like for the other admins you point.
Should I deduct from your « Some of the points also seem trivial », some others points are serious? Maybe the fact Fastily doesn't read DR before to close it for example?
Furthermore, I don't agree with your cool-headed statement: “Multichill and I disagreed once in the past, and since then, he's made it his mission to belittle, harass, and childishly attack me at every opportunity” (diff here). This kind a personal attack isn't something I qualify of cool-headed. --Dereckson (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It is extremely ironic how you quoted my answer to multichill when this entire post of yours is driven by the same motive of emotional, personal vengeance. True, we've disagreed in the past, and perhaps not even in the most professional manner, but it is most disappointing to see that you've taken your baseless grudge to the next level on a fallacious, exaggerated set of arguments. -FASTILY 03:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is for conflicts between users. Here I see tool abuse and behavior (close DRs without reading them), bad for the project. --Dereckson (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you included a link to some misbehaviour, I've read through all of that and followed the links and read them, and there is nothing of merit here. I love a good de-adminship as much as the next guy, but your link to this discussion is more of a reason for a de-adminship discussion for Ecemaml than Fastily. I'd like to consider supporting a de-adminship discussion, but you'll have to dig up some trash of merit first. Penyulap 00:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why someone would want to dig up stuff? I stated a clear problem: Fastily closes DR and deletes files without reading first the DRs and I seek a solution. I'm not interested by wiki-drama. --Dereckson (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
So ? Fae closed a recent discussion where it's been PROVEN that he didn't read the comments there, PLUS where it's been brought to his attention that he didn't read someone comment, he can't even tell us who made the comment, seriously, I give Fastily extra points for being somewhat sober and often awake whilst editing, that's a good thing for an admin, he doesn't give off that whole 19'60's Kombie full of smoke 'Whoa man, just let me get my head together, Whoooah' kind of feeling. (nods) Penyulap 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Closing DRs without comment is not good, but hardly deadmin worth. Most DRs don't need comments. I agree, let's have some discussion before deadmin.
Sidenote, but the new AN/U layout annoys me - the tables make it look like this is already archived. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, and matt here can tell you Fastily is polite, matt told me to 'fuck off' for trying to fix things at the VP, hmm, yes, many an admin has a POTTY-MOUTH. Incidentally I've fixed that boxing a few times, and it gets undone. Easy enough to find the edit summary where I fix it I probably mention community tabs, that'd give people the code required to edit war. Penyulap 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would think that a better solution than taking the bit away from Fastily would be to find a way to get more admins involved with closing DRs. That way more time could be taken on each individual DR, and we wouldn't get a huge backlog that very few admins are willing to address. I think this de-adminship suggestion is a bit extreme, especially considering that fastily always does his best to fix any mistakes he makes, and that he donates quite a bit of his time to doing the "dirty work". INeverCry 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, Fastily (talk · contribs) is a helpful admin with a good sense of judgment and professional demeanor. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Fastily's activities on DRs are apauling. When I see this person's name as the closer of any of the DRs that I am watching my heart freezes for a second. I would say that the reason is followed about 60-70% of the time, which I better than a completely random chance, but there is a lot of work to be done. Deletion of in scope images seems to be the biggest problem, but it is probably more a problem with this whole community at this time where people think that by destroying somebody else's work they have accomplished something. There are some other activities of this admin which I find very inappropriate, but there's no reason to dump them here. I believe that this individual should be warned and should think clearly about one's actions, but not deadmined. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if Fastily could be bothered to provide a meaningful explanation for apparently surprising decisions, such as at Commons:Deletion requests/uploads by VBLPhoenix, instead of dismissing my concerns with an ultimately rather uncommunicative brush-off message, as he did here... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale updated. I can't say I held you in the highest esteem following our disagreement over source with regards to PD-old files, but given that your position on the matter has, through consensus, become accepted Commons practice, you do have my apologies. -FASTILY 03:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
How did he find out about this discussion anyhow? spooky! (that's ominous, it's like he's everywhere) Penyulap 04:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


  •  Comment I am also concerned by Fastily's carelessness-through-speed, and believe that his actions are often quite risky. On the other hand, he is usually responsive to criticism, and his heart is in the right place. So this is neither a vote for or against at this stage, but I do want to throw a couple of observations into the mix so that we have enough information to discuss the best outcome:
  1. Fastily runs two bots FSIII FSV that I am aware of, which have not been submitted for approval by the community. He also appears to use automated tools through his main (admin) account. Five days ago I asked if this could be rectified, and got an (ambiguously) affirmative answer, but it was archived with no action since.
  2. The bots are often used at speeds much faster than the standard speed limit. I have previously blocked Fastily's bots for violating the bot speed limits, and he rectified the problem at the time, so he was already well aware of the rules.
  3. One of the things the bots do is upload hundreds of (sometimes large) files, which are then deleted with his admin account. The stated aim is to test his upload framework. However, this often amounts to bulk-copyvio uploads. For example File:YRqbvuSOos1374038982693326550.pdf (lecture notes) File:ZyOvow3221396996319577159.pdf (in-copyright book), and many many others. (It also concerns me how much disk space is consumed in this endeavour, but that is a tangential point).
  4. Recently his bot-tagging accidentally put two very very heavily used files at risk of (automated?) deletion: [10] [11]. Undoing the consequences of a deletion would have been a nightmare. But as I mentioned earlier, Fastily is usually responsive when an error is identified.
  5. One speedy deletion I am aware of clearly wasn't even looked at, because the requested license had already been added by a new uploader, who had simply failed to remove one of the no-license tags.

To be clear, I don't think Fastily's actions stem from any bad faith on his part, but I think there are valid reasons to ask for and expect change in his operations. --99of9 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And bring up your pet beef day with Fastily continues. Frankly, I was beginning to wonder when you were going to post here.
  1. My same conditions stand. I will gladly take these over to BRFA, if you promise not to harass/belittle/accuse me of bad faith like you did here. You never agreed to this, and because I know you will comment on my BRFAs, I have taken no action.
  2. For the record, you have never blocked my bots for violating your speed limit guideline. Either way, I have set up my own, private, designated mediawiki server to run tests on because of your continued harassment.
  3. No bots are ever run out of my main account. I use a set of self-written, supervised, semi-automted tools (see User:Fastily/FAQ#Programming), not too unlike visualfilechange.js or cat-a-lot. The upload test suite used to randomly select a folder from a big pile of junk documents to upload. I will admit that it was an oversight to not police what it was uploading, but as far as I know, and according to Category:Test images, " License may but must not apply. ". If that's wrong, you'd better remove it. Nonetheless, these unit tests will trouble you no more because they now run on my local, private server.
  4. This was the result of a broken library function. I set it to mass tag the images in a gallery, but it accidentally included those files as well. I already explained to you that this was fixed the moment you brought it up.
  5. I do my best to avoid mistakes, but being human, I'm not perfect, and neither are you. If I was, I'd be your god.
-FASTILY 04:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Bots need approval. That's the law. Still, bot requests need interested parties to comment on them as well. My request for a bot flag on Japanese wiki has taken a solid 12 months to get any interest at all, and it still has not been decided. I only just noticed that someone had noticed it just that moment when I checked. (sigh) still, someone should help Fastily by looking at his bot thing to see if it has merit to counter any possible 'IDon't like you' type comments. Won't be me though, I can't be bothered. Bots are boring, just ask them. Still PALZ9000 has been operating on Ja.wiki for a year and zero people care.
Although PALZ sockpuppet did cause quite a stir by uploading hideous poetry to commons, and for some reason they blocked his sock's never-used account on en.wiki. Penyulap 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. You equate assuming bad faith with the harassment and belittlement you feel, and I have repeatedly assured you that I am confident of your good faith.
  2. You're right, it wasn't all about the speed: Full block rationale, but you were certainly made aware of the speed limits. The speed limits are obviously not mine, but yes, I do expect that an administrator would uphold a community guideline except in unusual circumstances. Thank you for setting up your test server, that does mitigate some of my bot concerns.
  3. "randomly selected", "[un]policed", "broken library function", "accidentally", "oversight", "mistakes". To me these point to carelessness, and carelessness combined with robots/automated tools equals danger.
--99of9 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) anything + 'robots/automated tools equals' Hysteria, Richard, after 5 million edits to en.wiki was blocked for using cut'n'paste just once. I think Japan is cool with bots. Penyulap 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you have ripped my words out of context and literally twisted them to fit your absurd accusation. This blatant attempt to bait me is appalling, and most unbecoming of a bureaucrat. You repeatedly claim to assume good faith, but I'm just not seeing it. -FASTILY 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What INeverCry said. It does seem to be more of a systemic problem than that of any one user who actually steps into the firing line here. The alternative to closing all these DRs is either letting them lapse and creating a backlog which no-one will ever look at or care about, or closing requests after a certain time as Kept due to no consensus, which would make requesting deletion next to useless in many cases. This doesn't make Fastily immune to criticism, but there are so few people involved in closing DRs that it's impractical to get it done in time without sacrificing some care. It would be the same no matter who were doing it. One of course can argue that not getting it done is preferable, but that's another discussion –⁠moogsi (blah) 08:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll keep this topic open (but keep it on topic and within the AN/U's scope), allowing anyone to give their opinions regrading Fastily's actions. There is no consensus of support to remove his Sysop rights but I do hope that he takes the criticism on-board. Fastily, I suggest that you request bot status for your bots per 99of9's comments. Bidgee (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Well if all there is are comments that belong on Fastily's talkpage, then some pie would be ok, along with the hey what about bot bits for those bots of yours. I says we find someone who needs punishment and force them to take up the boring task of bot assessment. If double voting in elections doesn't do it, I hardly see how using ANU as Fastily's personal talkpage is going to do it. Still, I know jack about Fastily except there was something I don't know about en.wiki, which doesn't count either way, so we need more meat to have a good BBQ. Or some pie, pie is good, is there more pie, enough for everyone ? let's all have pie. I had some before, it was nice. I like pie. Penyulap 09:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, Can you please stop hi-jacking topics? It is starting to become rather irritating. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Bidgee, deleting other people edits, like this and this and this is trying to keep the Jet-plane in a contentious place, rather than having a calming effect upon the discussion. I think you are taking editing commons as far too much of a life-and-death sort of most important thing in the world kind of thing. A bit of wikilove goes a long way to easing tensions. Calling it trolling is nonsense. You just don't like wikilove I think, which is why you call it, and me, the Luurrv doctor, irritating. Lighten up. Penyulap 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support. Unfortunately it was me who granted his request to get the bit back: I resigned my tools some time ago, believing that I no longer had any use for them. Lately, I have been developing several editing tools for Commons, and it'd really be useful to have the tools back so as to make testing less of a pain. This turned out to have been quite a misrepresentation. I blame myself for not looking into the circumstances of the resignation and believing tool testing motivation. Fastily was a familiar name to which I had no negative associations at that time :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In my experiences with him, he is occasionally too quick to delete. But he's a generally competent admin who's fantastic at getting things done. When you're handling so much volume, it's natural to make mistakes along the way; we're human. -- King of 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose He's irreplaceable. That's not an unqualified endorsement, but a statement of fact. We have a large volume of work to do, he does it reasonably competently, and we have no one interested in taking on that volume of work do to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Prosfilaes that Fastily is doing a lot of work and he would be hard to replace. However, I rarely have a reason to double check results of deletion requests, but it seems each time I do I find incorrectly (IMHO) closed DR by Fastily. For example:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghanistan 110605-M-XX999-003 (5839031876).jpg - which was only send to DR because it come from isafmedia's photostream which is blacklisted. The nominator did not see anything wrong with the file but wanted to double check. Fastily deleted it with no explanation.
  2. I also could not figure out the reasons for deleting File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg which was derived from File:Afghanistan arms 1931-1973.svg (by deleting 4 letters), while keeping the source file.
  3. I was also puzzled by Commons:Deletion requests/File:State arms of German Democratic Republic.svg (used on en:East Germany) which was deleted because of disputed accuracy. However accuracy is not a valid reason for deletion: we keep files and let individual wikipedias decide which file to use.
All of those cases indicate deletion closures which are done without taking time to understand (and may be even read) the issues involved. I do not know how typical those are, but for me those are just random sample of files I run into. To his defense he always promptly undeleted files I pointed out. Finally, templates like {{No license since}} asks admins to verify the file history that the license was not removed throughout vandalism or accident. Fastily is deleting files with {{No license since}} at the rate of ~70/minute and I do not think it is possible to check the history at that rate. Even the explanation of his speed at User:Fastily/FAQ does not seem right: it would take hours to look up history of 1-2 hundred files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A few words for Fastily: you do a lot of work, however sometimes I would like to see you act less like a robot than you do. I do remember undeleting pictures of The Milkmaid which were obviously public domain all over the world that you had deleted by accident. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support he has been a recurring topic on these noticeboards for quite some time and will be that in the future if he stays administrator. I really don't appreciate the personal attacks directed at me. He is one of the reasons I'm much less active ont Commons. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've not checked this page for a few days, so I didn't see the discussion until now. I'm a bit troubled about how Fastily handles his talk page. For example, I posted a question about a questionable deletion and Fastily has set up archival of discussions which haven't been edited for 24 hours. However, Fastily hasn't been editing for over a week, so this discussion (together with other discussions) were archived without any reply. Also, check this and this: two seemingly identical situations, one closed as delete (although the file remains with the {{Delete}} template still there) and one closed as keep. By the way, I think that there was a discussion about one of them at COM:VPC after the "keep" closure. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't recall this sysop telling me to fuck off (lately), I don't know if they deleted lots of my images, probably, but I don't care about DR's, as far as I can tell they haven't uploaded much of polandball, or at least not as many as I have, I haven't seen any outrageous use of Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V so I can't see any problem with this editor (grumble). Do they do anything useful ? I didn't look. Penyulap 13:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Gustavo neto

Hello. You can tell the user Gustavo neto to stop putting logos (nike, puma) on the kit? wikipedia us, we were told that the only logos allowed were those of adidas. thank you--Principal adjoint (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently went through all Charlie Chaplin images, removing licensing tags and substituting links to the company he represents. Unfortunately, a large part of this is completely bogus, since (for example) "The Kid" is in public domain in the United States (released before 1923), etc. This individual also seems to be pretty confused about licensing posthumous personality rights for Chaplin's estate vs. owning copyrights for everything Chaplin did in his career and every photograph of Chaplin -- his firm may do the first, but it self-evidently cannot do the second. Don't feel like manually reverting all the user's edits to image pages, but it should be done... AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The user also seems to be randomly removing descriptions in other languages, categories, and other useful information. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have reverted all their changes for the moment. This looks like a single purpose account which should be considered damagingly disruptive by creating copyfraud problems. I recommend an indef block until such a time as the account holder can explain their actions or commit to changing this behaviour. -- (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Dialogue is better for the project than throwing editors away, ( and making work for the legal department as well in this case ? ). I doubt there are many people willing to put the effort into dialogue. Penyulap 08:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I added comments to User talk:Charliechaplinofficial, but unfortunately the user's edits in the form in which the user made them were not useful, and it seems that the user will have to take the initiative to learn more about how things are done on Commons to make useful edits. AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Knot theory

User:AnonMoos has accused me of not answering questions, insulted me ("I really don't know what your problem is", "Dude, what is your problem???"), and, shouting (highest level heading (one "="), all caps), accused me of vandalism. This first would be fine if AnonMoos answered questions and the last would be fine if I had committed vandalism. AnonMoos also writes as if users own the images they upload and categories they use (or at least AnonMoos does). Hyacinth (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is it lately with people wanting to vandalise category pages and then accuse others of being rude. "Dude, what is your problem???" is definitely not an insult, not unless you are a professional victim or somesuch. You vandalised the category tree and you got a "rise" out of the user who has participated in its creation and would have to spend time undoing your damage, what else did you expect? (Or I should ask "What is your problem???") Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Creating a category is not vandalism. What is it with people not knowing the definitions of basic principles on Wikipedia and Commons? Is implying someone is a professional victim (not actually a profession) an insult? Please show me how AnonMoos created "Category:Knots (knot theory)" or "Category:Links (knot theory)". Hyacinth (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't create them, but I participated in the discussions that led to their creation, and no-one objected to their existence for well over 5 years, until you took a sudden dislike to them yesterday... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Stop attributing emotion and motive to me. Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If you participated in these discussions where are they? Hyacinth (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you don't offer reasoned arguments for your actions, I'm left with few alternative explanations than a personal dislike. I don't see how those old discussions would be too relevant to the outcome of the current dispute, but as I said on your user talk page, if my suggestions for the category names ("Knot-theoretic links" and "Knot-theoretic knots") had found approval, I probably would have been the one creating the categories... AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In knot theory, "Knots" (1 loop only) and "Links" (2 loops or more) are separate and distinct things, and Category:Knots (knot theory) and Category:Links (knot theory) have existed since November 2007 without any controversy, until all of a sudden yesterday Hyacinth abruptly unilaterally decided to abolish the distinction and amalgamate them into a single category. I don't care too much about a lot of the other stuff he does in knot categorization (though some of it seems to be makework without great value, and the constant churn can be annoying to try to keep track of), but I object in the extreme to his attempts to eliminate Category:Links (knot theory). Under the circumstances, the burden is really on him to articulate reasons why the category should be abolished, and so far he's conspicuously failed to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging is not eliminating.
(what makes you think I'm male?) Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Most people on Wikimedia are male, and it probably seemed more polite than calling you "it". I don't think you can take offence over that. But no, AnonMoos is right, merging a category is eliminating it: a category is a set of distinct things, if you merge it they are no longer distinct. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hyacinth -- I might have vaguely assumed you were possibly female, based on the flower reference, but then I saw at the top of your en.Wikipedia user talk page that you call yourself "Mikhail", which is pretty unambiguously male! AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If neither AnonMoos or I have answered any questions on my talk page, AnonMoos has asked 4 (two of which where "what's you problem") while I have asked 6. Calling me unforthcoming while not answering my questions is hypocritical. So is declaring the unexplained actions of others "quite clear" while declaring my actions unclear. Hyacinth (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth -- such counting is really not the main issue. The main issue is that since 1) There's an accepted significant and easily-definable difference between knots and links in knot theory and 2) You're trying to change the stable status quo since November 2007, Therefore most people would agree that the burden is on you to articulate why you want to merge things, much more than it's on me to explain in any detail why things should remain unmerged. Even if you don't see this, you should act as if you do see it, because you refusing to offer any explanation at all as to why things should be merged is a non-starter. AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone explain why we would want to merge knot and link categories, apart from potentially at a single top parent level? To my mind they are topologically different families, which seems the easiest distinction. One might have them merged in something like a illuminated manuscript category, but I would consider that a different sort of beast if not a cropped detail of a specific type of artistic knot, or a specific type of link in artwork. Even writing this down makes me remember why I walk away from category wars. -- (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Rather than draw this section out even further, on, and on, and on, what I do with discussions like this, what I have always done with discussions like this, is put all onto the appropriate talkpage. Explanations go on either category's talkpages, neither of which exist at the time of posting this comment. If discussion is drawn out here at ANU, someone else won't be capable of finding said discussion when they edit the category, and if they have something to add to the discussion, then they cannot because the section will have archived.
This board seems to have an abundance of people who love using the wrong forum to listen to the sound of their own voices, rather than people who understand how to get the job done. Makes me wonder just how long it will take to create those category discussion pages. Penyulap 10:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Archive - I agree, the purpose of this noticeboard is for matters that require administrator's intervention, I don't see that in this dispute. Category discussions can run for years, I would suggest avoid reverting the work of others where this is significant, unless there is a reasonable level of consensus for sweeping change. Referring to a standard taxonomy based on topological definitions might be helpful, with a parallel for the obvious non-mathematical taxonomy. -- (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What might have required intervention was an incipient edit war over Category:Links (knot theory). If that's over, then we can get back to our regular ongoing dull and boring pattern of me finding minor flaws and issues with Hyacinth's unilateral actions in knot and link categorization... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio - The jiz

The jiz (talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple copyvio images. Another similarly-named user on en.wikipedia Jizjos (talk · contribs) also seems to be linked although I can't find any images uploaded by that user. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any deleted contributions for Jizjos on en.wikipedia, so no images were ever uploaded on that project. However, he was blocked as a vandalism only account. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Foroa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log

He started an edit war for instance here/here and here/here, deleting the names he thinks were wrong multiple times, without leaving a comment or a category redirect. I never wanted to end in an edit war, so I wrote him as far as I noticed his deletions, expecting an explanation of what was happening (actually in the second case I was definitely wrong, but didn't know). From a message to his talk all I got back was a rude threaten.

As many other users (see his talk) I gently asked to leave a category redirect when he moves a category name, since I just came from a wikipedia's Commonscat link and found a strange red link, here. His answer was just deleting the redirect I just created again (15:27, 27 apr 2013).

I also asked if he can reply to me to my user talk, as anyone, he just replied ironically.

I have a very light knowledge of Commons procedures (probably this is not the proper place to report a problem with an admin), I am mostly an uploader, but his arrogance and lack of cooperation is starting to be annoying, and I think it is not compatible with the admin flag. His cancellations of cat can be dangerous as we are missing a lot of link entering from the wikipedias version (with Commonscat and similar). I am a Commons user from a long time, so I can find the new names quite easily, but when I try to leave a redirect to less familiar users, I am not expecting to get it deleted soon without any reason. His pretens of "Unusability of the system" was just ridiculous. --Sailko (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think that Foroa's approach to naming categories is more in line with the international nature of Commons. The only thing that confuses me is that he didn't want to temporarily put a redirect. But I think that's a minor issue. In this case I feel that the best thing would actually be for you to add " (Florence)" to the names of categories of streets and other generic objects. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not the name of categories, the issue is a rude admin who doesn't explain what he does, starts kind of edit war and ignores on purpouse legitimate requests. --Sailko (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Sailko, rudeness is a basic property of most admins here. JKadavoor Jee 04:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I will probably sound "rude" then. But Foroa did explain, I had no knowledge of the situation, and I read the links that you have yourself posted and nothing else, and understood the situation quite clearly. Foroa was direct, but that's not the same thing as being "rude". Foroa provided enough information to understand the situation. Maybe it was possible to be nicer to you, but that is not a responsibility of anybody. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Foroa hasn't demonstrated any real need to delete these redirects. Commons won't break if it has 10 billion redirects and this isn't going to be about anything other than what this is about, so why delete it? Especially bearing in mind that links to that category from other Wikimedia projects, and outside Wikimedia, will break without it.
If that cat gets moved (and redirected) again at a future date, which probably won't happen, then there will a double redirect. That's unfortunate, but can be detected/correct by bot.
If Foroa hadn't deleted the redirects, this thread wouldn't have arisen...--Nilfanion (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Reply to users Sailko complaint. Note that I was intended to give a more extensive reply on requesters use page (one of the few users that want to discuss things in a ping pong user talk page, so that other people have problems following it). It is clear that Sailko forgets the basic naming rule in Commons, so I need some time to make a compact overview of his misconceptions.
The most important category naming rule in commons Commons:Categories states: The category name would be enough to guess the subject, but some extra text can be useful to precisely define it. Obviously, many categories in Category:Streets in Florence don't comply with that, and for example Via dell'Osservatorio‎, Via Strozzi, Via Sant'Antonino and many others don't comply with that.
You seem to handle your personal rule that a category name should be as short as possible, leaving the others with the conflicts. While most categorisers in Italy, which I consider one of the best categorisation teams of the Commons world, understand that and apply a systematic naming and disambiguation as it is much more efficient in the long run, avoids conflicts and moves, you regularly remove their disambiguations without any form of warning as at that time, there is no conflict at Commons yet. --Foroa (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If i may say, she (?) is making much mistakes because she doesn't discusses her vieuws, most of the time she is always wrong and ruins work of others. can someone guide her? Carolus (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, seems you have quite a conflict of interest here, considering your disagreement with Foroa (User_talk:Foroa#WARNING) and your rather personally attacking posting[13]. A disagreement does not necessarily mean that the other has made a mistake. Of course, anybody, including admins, make mistakes every now and then. But to claim that Foroa is "always wrong" is absurd. In regard to categorization he is one of the most experienced editors. --Túrelio (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
IMHO Foroa is abusing his admin privileges! Foroa blocked Carolus although Foroa participated in the same edit war! IMHO it's not ok to block someone you disaggree with when you fail to bring arguments! Carolus should be unblocked immediately to be able to defend himself! a×pdeHello! 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The edit war we can see here is actually a contentual conflict, where Foroa used admin privileges against her opponent. Let me also say that I didn't want to read me into several previous complaints against this admin on COM:ANU in the last few months; for myself, however, I had negative experiences with this admin as well, when she misused her rollback button against me after I tried to remove obvious nonsense added by her to a category. So, I wonder if we really should tolerate her arrogancy any longer. Let me also say that I appreciate Foroa's efforts on categorization, but for the work with Cat-a-lot/HotCat one doesn't need admin tools, and, as you may guess, I don't believe that the user shows enough tact in using same. --A.Savin 19:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't know whether it's the best place to discuss this, but I created Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#check possible admin abuse by user:foroa (block of user:carolus). I'm biased myself that's why I won't decide on this either. a×pdeHello! 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I made a short block as a preserving measure. Can I ask that a Dutch speaking administrator evaluates the bad faith, rudeness and totally irrational behaviour of Carolus, which made in my judgment the short block justified. --Foroa (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I am influenced by italian wikipedia rules, where you put the parentesis with city names only at the last chance, and I agree sometimes I named incorrectly some commons categories (for instance I did not revert Category:Piazza d'Azeglio (Florence), I admitted this since my first edit here). BTW, just to let you know, the categorization system of Italian cats has been decided by a very low number of users (mostly by one only, Giovanni dall'Orto) and "not" widely agreed, since it is also different from the other european categories system. For instance in Holland they have category:Van Gogh Museum (not category:Van Gogh Museum (Amsterdam)) and in Italy we must have silly Category:Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan)... I could make many more examples. "Ping pong" is also how I discuss usually with 99% of users in all the wikimedia projects I edit for. If somebody wanted to keep all replies to his page he has to leave a short message on the other user's discussion page, or he would never notice he has a new message to read ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sailko&diff=29750585&oldid=29617771 example).
Anyway, to go back to the TOPIC, the reason I started this discussion, is because I felt Foroa has a very unpleasant attitude to the privileges his status of admin include: he moves up and down category names, he can use bots, he can use Hotcat for subactegories (normal users can't), without feeling the need to give any explication to the users (even if he reverts for the third time, exactly like in an Edit war), he deletes categories and redirects just because he can and he doesn't care other needs, he gives rude messages to his talk page (or wherever he wants) just because he does a lot of job here, and he feels he's the ruler of everything. Get a break please! --Sailko (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Less chance that you get help from other admins here; better you post at Stewards' noticeboard. JKadavoor Jee 15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I must admit that I reacted sharper than I usually do, probably because of your several attempts in the past to remove disambiguation terms. Statements like Even if it is false that the churches category names were renamed after my fault: I just gave up moving back Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence), even if no other churches in the world have such name while this shows clearly that there are at least 3 other churches with that name, along with several parishes and schools. While you corrected quickly Category:Via Romana, it is not correct because there are already 4 different Via Romana categories on Commons, and may more to come... As I stated, your Italian colleagues disambiguate systematically because it is just simpler and more efficient to have a uniform naming system, than to have to search if the name is unique and waste time with renaming. After all, 97 % of the shorter names names reveal to be not unique, and frankly, I doubt that I can make an appointment or send a letter to someone in the unique "Via de' Benci" without mentioning Firenze.
You seemed irritated because of the fact that I did not answer on your user page, which you seem to consider the default. Well it is not the case, some moment, there has even be a proposal to forbid this ping pong communication on Commons. Anyway, my way of responding is on the top of my user page and if you edit my user page, there is a banner that clearly states so.
And yes, maybe I was too rude to the taste of some people. But I have work to do as I move around 10000 categories per year, so I try to cut discussions short. Obviously, I felt irritated for what I felt as lack of community sense, you have taken it too heavily, but anyway, I apologize for that. --Foroa (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this reply is satisfying, since the main complaint by Sailko is lack of explanations. JKadavoor Jee 06:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
First i would like to know if Foroa is a man or a woman? Can you please tell Foroa?Carolus (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I thank for explanation. If Foroa won't cancel anymore possible cat redirects I'll be fine (he/she can cancel the wrong ones, ok). I am also quite irritable for too much job I want to do on commons, since the beginning of 2013 only I already uploaded more than 6.000+ images, it's more than 50 a day, every day. So I like shortcuts, as everyone, in my perspective. I will be more careful selecting category names and will gradually move to disambiguated names where needed... consider some names where made in 2006, 2007, 2008... things do change in years! --Sailko (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion can be closed as "solved". JKadavoor Jee 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I came across this user earlier today on Wikidata, where they were changing labels, apparently for fun. I warned them, to no avail, and had to block them for 24 hours. Then they started to edit their talk page on Wikidata, adding pictures, which they uploaded here, apparently also for fun. Note that they requested one file to be moved, also fo fun, and to my utmost surprise, the file was moved, so that I can not move it back (please do). This activity here should be somehow stopped. On Wikidata, the user never responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done this on this occasion mate. But in future, would you like to take care of it yourself?!??!? russavia (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. We had some conversation about it earlier, just to repeat, I need some time to sort out how I manage my time with advanced permissions on three projects I got in three months period. If I manage to keep it under control, may be sometime in the fall.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reincarnated as User:Distrikkarubaga, uploaded the same file (did not yet request the move).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads have been deleted and both accounts blocked. --A.Savin 21:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AtomicGagou and bogus DR

After performing a Google-images search (negative) for both the nominated and the uncropped native image, I have now early-closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg (and related 3 DRs) as it is clearly an abusive DR, filed by AtomicGagou (talk · contribs) based on bogus "evidence", which has unanimously found to be without merit as is evident from the DR discussion. The nominated image had initially been uploaded from Flickr by User:CrazyPhunk. However, the Flickr-photographer became aware of the request and was found to be User:Floris2132 (on Commons since 2010). In order to convince her of his authorship, User:Floris2132 even uploaded the uncropped native version directly to Commons[14], to which AtomicGagou's only answer to file it also for deletion.[15] Of course she also filed DRs for the related crops File:Catharina-Amalia.jpg, File:Princess Alexia.jpg and File:Princess Ariane.jpg.
To me it's obvious that AtomicGagou filed this DR as a sort of revenge after her own upload of a Dutch princess' image (File:Prinses Catharina-Amalia.jpg), taken from the RVD-website, which expressedly allows only non-commercial use[16], had been deleted twice as she had re-uploaded it after deletion. As is evident from the DR discussion, AtomicGagou simply wasn't willing to accept our Licensing-policy and even announced to upload the image a third time.

In addition to filing these bogus DRs, AtomicGagou displayed an incredible amount of aggressive and disruptive behaviour, I hadn't observed as of yet. For example (not exhaustive):

  • She twice changed the IP# in IP comments to a username and thereby associated IP with username (a.k.a. outing): [17],[18]
  • She did repeatedly manipulate one commenting IP's number so that it appeared to come from a regular user, even after she was told[19] that it wasn't his edit: [20],[21]
  • She repeatedly removed other user's comments from the discussion: [22],[23]
  • She displayed an overly arrogant attitude towards other commenters: [24],[25]
  • In addition to the nomination she added overall 5 bolded DELETION "votes" to the DR discussion.[26]
  • It seems that she even removed the nominated image(s) from the pages on other wikis where they were in use.[27]
  • When I had tagged her re-upload of File:Prinses Catharina-Amalia.jpg for no-permission (before becoming aware of the earlier DR) and put the default notification on her talkpage, which was my first contact with this user, she complained about "harassment and pollution of my page"[28] and even put her no-permission-message on my talkpage[29], whereas in an earlier DR she complained not to have been notified[30].

As User:AtomicGagou has shown a persistant unreasonableness in both DR discussions, I recommend a block of noticeable length, but I will not block her by myself, as I have also been a (minor) target of her aggression. --Túrelio (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. INeverCry 23:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really surprised, but the edit target, the edit pattern and the wording of this IP strongly suggest that we have a case of block evasion. In order to minimize further disruption I have now semi-protected Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg and File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg for 1 week. Per our policy COM:BP, block evasion can result in a block prolongation. --Túrelio (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Half a day later, the 1-edit-in-2009-account User:Holen-mor re-appears and repeats the edits of IP 90.84.144.76[31], i.e. reversal of my DR-closure and reversal of my removal of DR-tag from File:King Willem-Alexander, Queen Maxima and their daughters 2013.jpg. I have included this account into my CU request from this morning.
Now really, what is going on here? All this fuss about a (nice) image of the new royal family of the Netherlands? It's becoming even more ridiculous than it was already. Is this a revenge-action of the French secret service DCRI for not deleting their antenna image?
Please could one of my colleagues revert the 2 recent edits of Holen-mor and then fully-protect the DR-discussion and the image. --Túrelio (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done I've full-protected the DR and file, and placed a short block on the User:Holen-mor account to prevent further disruptive editing. INeverCry 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Further involved IPs:

--Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

another one --Denniss (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All Confirmed (FWIW). Trijnsteltalk 22:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sabretoothbeast

Sabretoothbeast (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a dozen or so images whose source is listed as 'www.google.com' under obviously false public domain flags. Could an admin please delete these images and warn/block Sabretoothbeast as appropriate. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted, user warned. INeverCry 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Fry1989