Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 52

Uploads by User:Istkart

Hi all, this is not an actual problem with @Istkart: but I definitely need assistance here. This user has uploaded thousands of maps. According to the description (in Russian), the files seems to come from a couple of web sites that the uploader seems to administer. I assume that proper permission is actually needed. Am I right? I've just left him a message, but after reviewing his/her contributions, s/he's ever interacted with any other member of the community (beyond a recent query in the Village Pump because of an uploading problem), even if some of his/her uploads were challenged. I can use VisualFileChange to insert the no permission template, but... I don't think that makes much sense. Do you have any other idea? Best regards --Discasto _talk 09:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear DISCASTO. All of these maps made by me (with my wife) for my web-sites www.lena-dvorkina.narod.ru и www.kartist.ru. So it seems to me. that I have rights put them to Wikimedia. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istkart (talk • contribs)

I do think so, but we need to know that you're the owner of such sites. Can you have a look at COM:OTRS and send appropriate permissions. On the other hand, to the rest of readers, how can Istkart refer to all his uploads in his authorization? --Discasto _talk 10:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just send a general permission saying you own these web sites, and that maps you upload are under a free license, that would be fine. Yann (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and dubious contributions by User:Popolon

I'm presenting again my previous admin request concerning Popolon, as it was archived by a bot without an admin examining the request. Here below a copy of my original request:

User:Popolon has falsely accused me at least four times of vandalism: 1 2 3 4.

Several of his editions are original research with the aim of presenting images for what they aren't, e.g.:

• Creation of a non-existing Tibetan flag
• Edit warring and manipulation of sources in order to support claim that this would be a Mongolian (later changed to Yugur) yurt
• Edit warring and manipulation of sources in order to support claim that this would be a Mongolian (later changed to Yugur) yurt - second picture
• Assumptions on what would be a HK or Canton flag...
• Wrong location and/or wrong village name (at fr.wikipedia)

Can an admin warn User:Popolon for his repeated personal attacks and advise him to properly source his assertions and to stop edit warring? Thanks,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• There was no response from an admin because none was necessary. Response there was complete, and I had warned Popolon about incivility and revert warring, and had also warned 6-A04. Edit warring had stopped.
• Popolon's response was very positive.[1] 6-A04 made a typical response from a disruptive user.[2]
• 6-A04 pointed to his original request here, and to the bot removal (which covered many discussions), and not to the archive, which was the complete discussion, so here it is: [3].

Hence I suggest this administrative response:

• Confirm warning of 6-A04 over tendentious editing, and once again bringing a matter to AN/U without necessity, this time with even less excuse. Consider a short block. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Admins: While user Abd is entitled to voice his opinion and suggestions, I filed my request on the "Admin noticeboard" and hope that an Admin will deal with the request. The link I provided to the bot removal does show the complete discussion. I am not convinced that Popolon will stop his personal attacks without Admin intervention: without any new interaction between us, he called me no longer than two days ago the most "destructive user" he has ever met... I don't consider this as a particularly encouraging sign towards attitude change, especially after reiterated false accusations of vandalism and unsubstantiated doubts on the authenticity of my uploads. I'm not asking Popoplon to be blocked, but formally warned by an Admin. Thanks,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The bot removal was largely unreadable. 6-A04's behavior continues to be disruptive. If that post that 6-A04 links is important, the full conversation should be read. Popolon responded positively, but simply expressed his feelings on his own user talk page. 6-A04, for his part, reverted a warning without addressing the issue, and is demanding an admin response. Please provide one. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oscarter13 (talk · contribs)

Uploaded many images under Creative commons license. I checked 2-3 source sites and didn't find mentioning of license. Spanish-speaking administrator help needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not speak Spanish, but blocked the user for a week, restored his talkpage with all the warnings and deleted speedily most of his uploads. Some did not surpass threshold of originality and some were works of US government, these were kept. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong's blind reverts

I don't think admin actions is needed for now, but I ask you to keep an eye on this. Ryulong (talk · contribs) mass-removed texts I added [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Although this is the first time I'm harassed by Ryulong at Commons, I'm sick and tired of his mass-removal of my texts at English Wikipedia[12]. And the comment "removing Nanshu's nonsense" is alarming. Apparently he is trying to drag me into revert wars. --Nanshu (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If Ryulong doesn't stop edit warring, he'll be blocked here just as his is on English Wikipedia. He knows, as he has been repeatedly told, even when he's correct, he isn't to edit war. If he continues, please re-report the issue. Nick (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nanshu, I am sick and tired of you enforcing your own assbackward actions on all this shit. Nanshu has disruptively labeled historical flags as "hoaxes" or "inaccurate" for reasons unknown. He brings up actions I've made elsewhere for reasons unknown. He has been previously censured on Wikipedia for doing this to me: claiming I'm a danger and harassing him when he is simply being disruptive and thinking he's an expert and I'm not. Nanshu has called every single instance of a flag of the former Ryukyu Kingdom a "Wikipedia hoax" but provides sources that say that the flag exists in some form. He is forum shopping on Wikipedia and here to get his way which is sad really.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear to everyone, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879.svg, File:Flag of Ryukyu.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cswb.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cs.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered.png, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered.svg, File:Ryukyu Islands flag until 1875 bordered 2.png, and File:Flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg should not be falsely labeled "Wikipedia Hoaxes" on the Wikimedia Commons without any proof other than the massive amounts of text Nanshu has dumped onto the file information pages based on whatever research he has claimed to do that shows that the images created here are not fabrications of Commons or Wikipedia users as has been proven by another user on the English Wikipedia who contacted me over this, so Nanshu has no right to label all of these files as "factually inaccurate" as he's done so I removed his massive text dumps as such. And based on what? One random Japanese Wikipedian's edit 5 years ago? Nanshu is being disruptive as he was towards me on the English Wikipedia and as he is currently being on the English Wikipedia towards Sturmgewehr88.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And one final note: Nanshu will do this constantly. He will edit the English Wikipedia sporadically and make vast changes that cause a lot of disruption and then expect to not be challenged on these matters at all. And the minute he does get challenged he decries the person who challenged his so-called expertise on the matter in question as intentionally disruptive and harassing rather than address the actual reason he was challenged. So let him take the time here to make a fourth thread to go "These flags are inaccurate and here's why" before he restores his massive piles of text and placing each and every flag that is labeled a flag of the historic Ryukyu Kingdom or Ryukyu Domain into Category:Hoaxes where they do not belong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this final message, but this is the extent Nanshu is going through to say that flags that have existed in some form since the 19th century and as late as 1946 are somehow "hoaxes" perpetrated by one Wikipedian. w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu, w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88, w:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A "national flag" without secondary sources, and w:Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Suggestion for a case study.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Would Nanshu please respond and explain his edits, providing third party evidence independent of Wikipedia, which confirms his claims of these being a hoax to be verifiable. I'd also appreciate if Ryulong or any other interested party with third party evidence conflicting with Nahshu also posts it here. In the interim, no matter who is wrong and who is right, there will be no further changes to these files until the issue is considered settled, being right doesn't give you a free pass to edit war and be disruptive. Nick (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I find it funny that Ryulong reverted Nanshu twice and Nanshu doesn't think "admin actions needed for now", and yet I reverted Nanshu just once and he brought me to ANI as a "real threat to Wikipedia". Nanshu provided the only sources to be found so far but dismisses all of them as unreliable (quite convenient for pushing his POV, but that's "just a speculation"). His whole case relies on the flags being a "Wikipedia hoax" (invented on-wiki to intentionally trick others), which they are not. His "unreliable" sources prove that they existed before the invention of the internet, let alone Wikipedia, and they claimed to be the national flags. His vandalism (yes, at this point it's vandalism) was deserving of a revert. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

See the reply to Abd below. --Nanshu (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• When I see a report on a noticeboard, I look for prior attempts to resolve a dispute. I see none, here, no edits to User talk:Nanshu by Ryulong, and the only edit to User talk:Ryulong by Nanshu is a notice of this filing, which Rylong reverted without comment. That's not a good sign, it often indicates prior conflict on another wiki, which is obvious from their comments above.
• Commons is not an encyclopedia. We do not label images as hoaxes unless there is consensus on it. So as to content, Ryulong was correct, though uncivil and revert warring. This edit by Nanshu was misleading, the link was to a general article on Wikipedia hoaxes, not to any evidence, and even if there is evidence, we won't assert the conclusion from evidence as fact, in the presence of controversy.
• Rylong, your slip here was in getting caught up in outrage, becoming uncivil (with "nonsense" [13] and demand in all caps for sources [14] and the same on File:Flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg)
• Using "nonsense" in a revert is uncivil, obviously. Even if it's nonsense in some way. That first revert would properly have stuck to fact and policy. Then, if you were reverted, I'd expect you, as a highly experienced Wikipedian, to avoid revert warring, and negotiate on Talk pages. Given the circumstances I'm seeing, so far, that would have failed (but we never know for sure until we try). So then you'd have gotten help, you'd have called attention to the situation so it would not be Ryulong v. Nanshu.
• Whatever you have done on en.wiki is irrelevant here, but I will point to one thing. Your last unblock reason, shortly before the ArbCom indef ban (over which I offer my condolences), was (User will report stuff rather than edit war). How about committing to that here? Had you done so, you'd be smelling like a rose, and very possibly Nanshu would be blocked, if that user had continued to insist. Still, all's well that ends well. Lesson learned?
• Nanshu, your editing here was disruptive. Your agenda was Wikipedia-related, see [15] where you acknowledge posting your original research here because of what you call "Commons' looser policies." That Village pump discussion referred to an RfC on en.wiki, [16]. Users here do not need to read those to understand this: do not bring Wikipedia conflict here. We host images, and file descriptions are for the convenience of users, they are not encyclopedia articles. If there is disagreement over the image description, we negotiate consensus. If necessary, we back up to simply reporting sources, clear and uncontroversial fact, and, Nanshu, your original research and opinions are not sources. Want to do original research? It's allowed on en.wikiversity. You'd be welcome there, if you will avoid incivility and will tolerate the opinions -- and research, right or wrong -- of others. I will warn you on your user talk page, so that there is a record for the future. Do not repeat this behavior; you are welcome on Commons. Don't wear it out. If you need help, ask for it, but a noticeboard is not the place to start. Get advice, and listen to it. --Abd (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  Nanshu's disruption was based on Wikipedia where I cannot edit and there has been extensive discussion to show he is in the wrong. He simply refuses to acknowledge this and lashes out at those who challenge his intents.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Abd, thank you for your comment. First of all, if you followed what is happening in English Wikipedia, you can see that there is no disagreement over the image description except for one point I will explain below. What I did is to collect sources, both primary and secondary, and to arrange them in an appropriate way (arranging multiple sources entails originality to some degree but it is inevitable and indeed ubiquitous in Wikipedia). To be clear, what I referred to as borderline cases is a simple inference from primary sources:

  What is interesting is that the Bankoku hakki zufu (1854) uses a rare, unofficial spelling for Ryūkyū "琉玖" (the official spelling is "琉球"). This spelling can be found in the two other sources, suggesting that they all derived from the same source. Although this kind of sloppiness was rather common in Edo-period literature, it is reasonable to believe that the authors of these catalogs were unable to have access to firsthand knowledge on Ryūkyū.

• A secondary source by a museum curator also made mention of the incorrect name for Ryūkyū in one of the three sources but made no further inference. This fragment is not disputed by others. Don't you think this is within the acceptable range?
• What Sturmgewehr88 disputes is not the content I posted (again, except for one point) but the interpretation of the content (i.e., original research). And he does it in English Wikipedia, not here. So, basically, we do not bring the Wikipedia conflict here. There was only a minor dispute, until Ryulong came here to repeat mass-removal. It is clear from Ryulong's comments above that he is still trying to turn things into a personal dispute. If Ryulong amends his behavior or is kept out of the decision-making process, I think it's pretty easy to reach consensus, at least on Commons.
• The only point Sturmgewehr88 disputes at Commons is my wording "hoax." I looked for pages about spread of misinformation from Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace, and all I could find was en:Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and en:Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. This is the only reason I chose the word. Through discussion, I realized that it had a much more negative connotation than I expected (you see, I'm a non-native English speaker). To be clear, I don't claim the original poster(s) of the image description did it with malice. I don't want to pinpoint who is primarily responsible (technically difficult even if you want to do). I'm not interested in such a witch-hunt. I'm looking for a word or phrase that better describes the situation: wrong captions were attached to the images, regardless of whether they were intentional or not, and they brought disastrous effects across Wikipedias. I appreciate your suggestions. --Nanshu (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Close requested. Seeing where this was going, I closed it; however, Ryulong ignored the close and commented again (below). Yann reversed the close with [17], which I will discuss with Yann. I see nothing good coming from this continued discussion. My close comment was as below. --Abd (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[closed template] No action required, users warned, eyes on situation, discussions belong elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I second the request to close this thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for users to expect threads on the admin noticeboards will closed by admins (even if we are not always timely about it). --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So, 99of9, close it. However, what is reasonable is to expect that the community will handle a situation, not specifically that an admin act. The community restricts use of certain tools to administrators, for obvious reasons. However, there are never enough admins to handle what needs to be done, if the community does not assist. I issued warnings as a result of this request. If those warnings are accepted, great. If not, if there is further disruption, an admin may confirm or retract the warnings, could warn me if I've done harm, and, with all this, if proper warnings have been ignored, the user may be blocked.

On a functional wiki, all this becomes reliable and predictable. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Abd, here's the thing. Nanshu here is placing all of the blame on me when he has multiple people disagreeing with his assertion that these various flags are wrong or such and in fact demands I be left out of whatever decision making process there is to deal with them here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Abd has given Nanshu a stern speaking to. What more do you want? Experience tells me that asking a person to change their mind is asking a lot, and being wrong isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is Nanshu's behavior is problematic across projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You stated the alleged problem more than enough times already. Changing the beliefs of users isn't something we do here. Abd has spoken to Nanshu, and Nanshu hasn't reverted anyone for the last few days. I ask again: What more do you want? And this time, answer that question with a proposed solution, not a problem. I want to know what will please you. I want to know what will allow you to walk away from this discussion happy so that this discussion can finally be closed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012

Hi, Jcpag2012 (talk · contribs) is a 15-year old testing around Commons. After nominating perfectly valid images for deletion, he created fake COM:POTD pages (which I deleted), and last nominated a thumbnail as FP. He also claims to have 7 native languages ( English simple). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I nominated some his/her uploads for deletion due to bad quality and closed some his/her deletion requests for own uploads. If (s)he claims to have 7 native languages – OK, you can choose any of them for communication. For example, I choose Russian. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright and licensing issues from Meryllid

Meryllid's talk page is littered with copyright notices and yet he is persisting with uploading images with incompatible licenses. The latest one is a duplicate of a one uploaded earlier with a CC logo added. I nominated the earlier one for deletion when I found this photo on Flickr with an incompatible CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. He's been told not to do this. [21] Can someone please reinforce the message? --NeilN (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, file deleted. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please leave this open a bit. There is more here than meets the eye. --Abd (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Following comment by Abd, I unblocked this user. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's back. [22] Again with an incompatible license. --NeilN (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked again. Yann (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard incommunicative user, I'm afraid. Just indeffed on en.wiki, over something where a little response might have cleared it up, and still might. Thanks, Yann, I agree the block is necessary because of lack of response. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What happened to my user account?

I had a user account Odysses, with several hundreds of contributions at WC and links to WP. I haven't used it for a few months and today, as I logged in I realized that all my contributions are lost. Could someone please explain to me know what happened? --Odysses (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems your account has been renamed to User:Odysses~commonswiki. --Túrelio (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio. Do you know if it's possible to restore my previous WC user account? --Odysses (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think so, as it was likely done per the recent SUL-finalisation; see [23]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you had been notified about that: User talk:Odysses~commonswiki. --Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've now found my old talk page, but it seems I've lost all my history and uploads. A bit of a pain if I need to re-upload newer versions (:- --Odysses (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that? [24] --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio !!! That was a relief :-) --Odysses (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ich bitte um Beantwortung: Warum sind alle meine Beiträge gelöscht worden? Riessdo (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Gelöscht? Special:Contributions/Riessdo. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:사진작가박기수

Blanked deletion request and own talk page--Motopark (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I really dislike those huge warning notices, it is like seeing an embarrassing parking fine slapped on your computer screen to obscure your view; this is why I have a bot trim those appearing on my talk page. Rather than restoring the DR notice and reverting the talk page blank, it would have been mellow to either walk away (on the presumption the boilerplate notices were read, so job done) or explain why it is sometimes a good idea to say something if you do remove notices, even if only in the edit comment. Keep in mind that this is a newbie editor probably confused about how things work, and Commons:Talk page guidelines says behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow, not that you must comply or suffer punishment. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Users should be able to remove anything from their talk page that they wish to. Blanking the DR itself is a different matter and not acceptable. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked one day and warned. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosoft, Mike, vandalism by uploading irrelevant new image versions

Rosoft, Mike (talk · contribs)

See user uploads - seven images overwritten with other irrelevant images. No other contribs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Now socking as Rosoft, Michael (talk · contribs), same vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done with Denniss. Blocked accounts; protected targets. Reportedly socks of David Beals (talk · contribs).[25] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Removes copyvio tags

Twice in last two days, I've seen behavior I have not seen before - the removing of copyvio tags from speedies. I suppose this is an effort to keep the prank and/or copyvio uploads in place, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:KRSWATCH DOGS.jpg and the history on File:Seminarium "Go Big Or Go Home" (2014).jpg. In the former case an anonymous editor removed the speedy tag. Is there some way to autoblock unconfirmed users from editing Commons files that are speedied? It would seem a new and exciting way to grief the project if not. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and warned Milagros aal (talk · contribs). Deleted File:Seminarium "Go Big Or Go Home" (2014).jpg.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:LuisArmandoRasteletti supporting every single Featured Picture Candidate

Since nominating his own FPC (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NASA Unveils Celestial Fireworks as Official Hubble 25th Anniversary Image.jpg), User:LuisArmandoRasteletti has supported every single entry at the FPC list, including those that have closed. Three users have contacted him on his talk page, two specifically asking him not to support everything. He has not replied and today carries on supporting every nomination. This is disruptive to the FPC process since it ultimately lowers the threshold images require to achieve promotion, and also keeps alive nominations that would otherwise be closed early or withdrawn due to solid opposition. Could an admin attempt communication to resolve this, failing that, the thread of a block may be required. -- Colin (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked him for a week because of disruptive editing and failure to respond to messages, please report him again if he continues this behaviour afterwards. --Denniss (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale of this block, which appears to be a punishment rather than a preventive measure. Although I'm strongly against this kind of mindless voting, I do not agree, as a regular at FPC, that is was disruptive. Also, how can not answering to messages be a reason for blocking a registered user? I respectfully ask @Denniss: , or any other admin, to unblock the user. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

He was asked by at least two users to stop this behaviour and to follow the FPC rules. He chose to ignore this so he has some time off to think about it. --Denniss (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Denniss: but I can't see how he disrespected the rules, which do not limit the number of votes or oblige to any justification of the votes. Once again, there was no disruption other than the one caused by bringing the issue here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, I do not appreciate your claims that this user was not disrupting FPC or that me taking the issue here has caused disruption. It is indeed a preventative block, as the user has continued to support all nominations, without at word on his talk page or here, even after several warnings of a block. Therefore I have every reason to assume he would continue supporting all nominations, at least until his own candidate falls off the list, or he gets bored of the game. Your obsession with rules is unhelpful, and you are not a disinterested party: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stairs April 2015-1.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is a basic wiki rule, that if asked to stop doing something, one stops doing it and discusses it. If a second user, and especially an administrator, warns, this gets even stronger. Failure to respond to a warning is the most basic ground for a block, more fundamental than "rule violation," unless we want to consider "respect requests and warnings" a "rule." The user may request unblock. The user has not been "punished," simply prevented from continuing what is obviously upsetting some users. The user is not actually forced to respond, and it would have been enough for the user to simply stop the problem behavior. It was not responding combined with continuing the behavior that very predictably resulted in a block. I'd have suggested a shorter block, but a week isn't terribly long, and all the user has to do to remove the block, I assume, is request unblock with a promise to stop doing what was being done, absent consensus.
• I am explaining this to the user, in case it helps.[26] --Abd (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The block is imho fine and per policy (preventive). @Abd: explained the block perfectly on users talkpage. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Commons has thousands of active users. Two or three users complain about someone and he/she gets blocked! This place is rapidly evolving to a closed group. Our way or the highway. Why don't we try to be a bit more lenient and AGF. Can there be anything more positive than support votes? Is FPC so world shaking that you have to ever quarrel about it and block users over it? It looks quite unsettling for any non regular... Moros y Cristianos 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand that FPC relies on both a ratio of support/oppose votes and a minimum threshold of 7 supports. It also has mechanisms for removing candidates that fail to get any support after 5 days, in order to keep the list short. If someone arbitrarily decides to support every single nomination (over 50) then that just lowers the threshold to 6, tips the voting ratio in favour of support, and keeps the candidate list clogged-up with no-hopers for ages. The user was asked to stop and chose not to engage with the community at all -- this is the most serious problem imo. Anyone over-supporting in good faith (perhaps naively, or because they are a kid) would respond to comments on their talk page or threats of blocks. This user did not. Nothing that happens on Commons is "world shaking" and nor is being blocked from Commons for a week. There are other hobbies... -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Right, someone is killing the system, was warned, did it again and got blocked. Looks like a basic example of action -> reaction to me. Nothing wrong with this preventive block. Natuur12 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ack Steinsplitter and Natuur12. --A.Savin 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• It has not been decided that the voting was wrong, and this is not the place for that. There is discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Invalid voting by the user. The user may request unblock, and I'm sure that an agreement to discussion disputed actions instead of repeating them would lead to quick unblock. It's too much to use this as a proof of "closed group." Rather, Moros y Christianos, how about helping the user to understand the importance of paying attention to their own talk page, perhaps setting up email notification, and not barging ahead when warned, but being careful? --Abd (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Steinsplitter, Natuur12 and A.Savin in this case. -- Geagea (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge accounts

Hi all,

I'd wish to merge https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NatanFlayer and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flayer into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flayer.

Is it possible? Is the other way around possible?

NatanFlayer (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please file a request on m:SRUC. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Difficult situation

A user who was not logged in left an impolite ALL CAPITALS screed on my en:wiki talk page, signed IREWOLD [[Special:Contributions/177.106.29.120|177.106.29.120]] ([[User talk:177.106.29.120|talk]]) 16:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC). While there is none of that name (case-sensitive) on the projects, there is Irewolde on Commons who has uploaded multiple copyright violations. The original Deletion Nomination was posted by Gunnex, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Irewolde. I closed it as deleted and subsequently nominated additional images of the same type and series for deletion as well. It may be possible that the disturbing message at en:wiki is in some way related to this administrative process. I've left the message live on my en:wiki user page. I'd not be adverse to a rollback although I feel more comfortable with another administrator stepping in at this point as I have lost my COM:AGF in this situation. Please ping me when something happens. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I left him a warning on his talkpage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User MikleffCoolX

Contributions appear to be copyvios - all images uploaded as own work but clearly not and the authorship is invariably given to the company. Clearly a sock of someone but being this casual about licenses doesn't fit the user I had in mind. Any how, can someone kind delete this lot as copyvios. Thanks. Spartaz (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done All his/her uploads are now deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Spartaz (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:1989 mass inserting blank information templates

1989 (talk · contribs) is currently mass inserting blank information templates (example) into file pages with the edit summary of adding info template, will fill ASAP - Inserting "{{Information |Description = |Source = |Date = |Author = |Permission = |Other_versions = }}" Using VisualFileChange.

This is causing multiple issues, one it is flooding Special:RecentChanges, two is the amount of files that now have blank information pages is high (worse then having them without any info template) and three is the amount of time that would be needed to fix the files that now have each and every file information template to be manually filled. I have asked them to stop but have totally ignored what I've said to them. Bidgee (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I already stopped. I am currently working on filling the infomation templates right now. 1989 03:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is filling them, you're not doing a good job of it. This is how it should be done.Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just finding out about the link that was on your edit summary. This will help. 1989 03:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

---

It's good to see this has stopped, and the user is engaging in good faith. @1989: I trust you now understand that creating a flood of unfinished business is not good procedure. I think we can close this report and let you get onto fixing them. Discussion about how to do it well can continue at your talk page. --99of9 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you 99of9 for understanding. I'm right now reverting what I did. I'll just figure out another way to add information templates faster. 1989 05:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Heh, actually we want you to add them *slower*. Or at least more accurately! --99of9 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are 10977 edits by you related to this issue (reverts not included). Please be careful with automated tools... , Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh, that's one way to boost your edit count ;) Josve05a (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I mean this is not funny, as you can see on the next thread below (in which he get blocked) it seems also (through his comments) he simply don't know the standard-gadget (from Magnus Manske which seems a bit inactive in support) on Commons to add the information-template. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:1989 use of automated tools

Seems that they just don't seem to care (other then getting their edit count up) and don't like the criticism given to them for it. Is there a way of having the access of the tools removed?

Steinsplitter has raised that User:1989 has been adding and removing Category:Temporary Red Link from categories for the purpose of getting a high edit count. What is also highly concerning, is that they refuse to see their actions are harmful to the project and they don't want any criticism regarding their edits. Bidgee (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see that you're keeping this up, and I can see you didn't read the reply firmly, so I'm gonna repeat it nice and smoothly. I added the category so I can use the mass rename tool to remove the 600px part from the file names, as of it was irrelevant to the files, but unfortunately I couldn't do it on the missing infoboxes category because there were too many files, and the removement of the missing infoboxes category was relevant because I added an information box to each of them, and yes, I don't like the "me getting more edits" criticism, I'm just trying to do what I can to be helpful, but unfortunately I have to deal with people like you, its too sad, but I'm not letting it bring me down. 1989 05:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but from how most people see it, you're not doing for the project. Now you're mass adding This is a photo taken in an unknown location. to descriptions, sorry but how the hell is that useful? Bidgee (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you. Please stop harassing me. Thanks. 1989 05:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@1989: You may be 'done talking to' one specific contributor, but you still need to resolve the issue of your non-constructive edits. And it seems clear that you do not currently possess the carefulness, sense of responsibility and ability to collaborate that is especially necessary for editing via automated tools. Lklundin (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit counts matter so little that there is no need to discuss this as an assumed motivation, and it wouldn't matter if it was true. BUT @1989: , the "no location" being substituted as a description is very bad. The purpose of the description field is to describe the image. (Locations are done best with coords templates, and the absence of a location is of zero value as a description. If you really want it can be categorized as unlocated.) By filling in a meaningless description it prevents us from using the normal tools to track images with missing descriptions. Please revert these changes, and consult others before making mass edits of possible dubiousness. --99of9 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do a lot of large scale automation, most unnoticed, and 10,000 is a largish set to play with and ought to be planned out. You may find it helpful to take it in stages and experiment with a handful, then an initial set of 500 and focus on other projects for a week to see if the wider community raises issues (now this has had attention, I'm sure others will find time to give feedback and collegiately inviting them to do so might be nice), before rolling out changes again over the full set. I heartily recommend only planning changes that you know you can easily mass revert, and being prepared to quickly trim back your plan (or moving on to something else while you think about it for a few weeks) if there are complaints, it saves a lot of heartache. --Fæ (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And his is continuing. Now he is adding This is a photo taken in an unknown location. to thousands of photos (to exactly 10455 photos). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the user for three days ... he does not stop misusing automated tools after multiple warnings (and a final warning). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: As 1989 had never been blocked before, could this please be commuted to a nominal 24 hours? It is healthier if blocks are initially a slap on the wrist rather than punitive. This gives more scope for discussion and encourages 1989 to put matters right, rather than being taken as sign to go away altogether. I note the log says "vandalism", however this is more in the nature of disruptive behaviour.

Please keep in mind that 1989 has a track record of excellent positive contributions that we want to continue. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Sure. I set it to 12 hours (to ensure that he read all this before touching the tools again). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope 1989 takes this positively and talks through their plans to ensure some independent support for their actions, before doing any more automated changes. We need more people skilled in tool use, and learning from mistakes can be difficult. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I didn't want User:1989 blocked, I just want them to understand that using automated tools for large batches of files that introduces errors is just not acceptable. I admit that I was a little harsh, but User:1989 needs to take onboard criticism (whether they like it or not). I do hope they have learnt from this and that they act more constructively to the project, remember the old saying Tortoise and the Hare? Slow and steady is the way to go, as it saves you a lot of heartache. Bidgee (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ssire

This user is bringing up a 5-year old disagreement on File:Arms of Manitoba.svg, reverting back to it's original version. Now admittedly this was my fault and I regret the trouble I caused back then, but considering it was revolved by uploading the original version back as a separate file under it's original name as File:Blason province ca Manitoba (NormeFr).svg, there really is no reason to revert this now. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted and protected the file. I saw no discussion in the file talk page. Ssire must first discuss the file and if consensus has changed, then it is possible to ask de-protecting the file. Taivo (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

La raison invoquée est mensongère: il n'a pas été créé une nouveau fichier, mais un changement de nom concernant celui que j'avais créé, donc disparition de celui ci. Par ailleurs, le dessin actuel, maintenant protégé n'est ni conforme à l'officiel, ni conforme aux règles élémentaires de l'héraldique. Si je ne suis intervenus qu'après 5 ans, c'est que je m'occupais d'autre chose: le temps ne fait rien à l'affaire. De plus, il est facile de me reprocher de n'avoir rien mis en page de discussion, ceux qui ont changé mon dessin ne l'on pas fait non plus ! Or il me semble que c'était à eux de l'initier. Ssire (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This file has no description, no date, no source, no author, etc. Please fix this. A link to the other version would be useful. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I added links from one file to another. Neither file has source. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. AWA

All uploads by Mr. AWA (talk · contribs) have been copyright violations, and he has continued to upload copyright-infringing images (e.g., File:Robin McLaurin Williams.jpg) after receiving a final warning about copyright violations. He seems unwilling or unable to comply with our licensing policies. Suggest a block may be appropriate at this time. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Snorken123

All uploads by Snorken123 (talk · contribs) are obvious copyright violations, except File:Profilbildet mitt.png which looks out scope. User is ignoring license notices on talk page. Please speedy delete them all and issue a final warning or block. Thank you.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Julianoreis

Julianoreis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

What to do with this user? Julianoreis uploaded since summer 2011 except one Coat of arms only copyvios. Must be between 70 and 100. Was blocked last year for one week. But started again with uploading copyrighted material. I would propose an indefinte block. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Indef blocked because one month (or more) block seems not helpful at all here (looking at the upload log). Only copyvios since 2010. User can request unblock when he is familiar with commons licensing policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dggluz

I don't think this user quite understands Commons. They have uploaded the same logo 9 times, twice after my notice on their talk page about it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Uploads deleted. Fry's warning on Dggluz's talk page is sufficient for now. Any repetition of this uploading will result in a block. Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nubero

Nubero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This new user starts his Commons career with a clear statement about himself and how he wants to be treated. The following statements and edits are pretty disturbing and very rude though.

1. After nominating some pictures, he has simply deleted a critical remark from Jebulon.

   After my pretty friendly Welcome to Commons at his discussion page he answered on my discu (translated): I think the comment of Jebulon absolutely unqualified - and that I perceive this person in a way, that he is rather more than Troll. [31]

2. After assessing one of his nominated picture by myself, he asks, if everyone there is a Troll.
3. While discussing someone elses picture (King of Hearts), he talks extremely disrespectful (....this guy) and accuses me trolling (...he is trolling me too!)

This is not a really good start and I´m asking an administrator to tell Nubero how communication has to be here. And what consequences are possible if not. --Hubertl (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Those same administrator might tell you how to communicate here as well while they are at it. It’s not like your comments always bear much signs of either professional knowledge or spot on good tone of voice. The sheer fact that you started (and the tenacity with which you started) this little smear campaign against me here, reveals a bitter small-mindedness in your character that actually makes me feel sorry for you.

• What was that Haiku comment all about? That for example wasn’t necessary. Your evaluation too wasn’t professional and hasn’t been in other cases neither.
• The deletion of Jebulons comment was a mistake on my part, yes.
  • That being said, I really did think he was a troll and that’s why I deleted the comment. It has since been restored anyway and I commented on it.
• Seeing as how unprofessional your comment on my picture was, I had almost no choice than to call it trollish behaviour. No one in their right mind would have made that statement about the “blur” in the lower right corner. To me that comment was vandalism and an attempt at down voting me for no reason.
• The consequences, Hubertl, might be that more people like me – who would otherwise be able to deliver excellent content for free – are not going to do so any more. Ask a photographer from Europe to write you an offer how much it would cost (planing, travel-expenses, accommodation and so forth) to travel 9700 kilometers with two planes and three trains and take my picture of Himeji Castle for example.
• In conclusion, I think it would be best if we just not crossed paths anymore

--Nubero 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Sorry no, my first comment was not restored for now.
  • I have a talk page, if you disagree you could talk to me there. (no more now, I don't welcome somebody calling me "a troll")
  • Deleting a comment of a reviewer is trolling, not a mistake.
  • I'm sorry, but you are obviously at the wrong place. Maybe you could chose another sandbox. Spaß an anderer Stelle.--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Both of you: please be civil. Calling other editors trolls or behavior trollish is a sign of weakness since ad hominem are not real arguments. Plus it is just plain rude. (Just like the misuse of ad verecundiam btw.) @Nubero: I don't care about anyone's status and unacceptable behavior will lead to a block. You made some severe personal attacks and those don't belong at a community project. We show respect for everyone regardless their status. I'm the expert so I'm right and you are wrong is not the kind of attitude a consensus based project needs. We value arguments, not personal opinions. If an argument seems to be nonsense to you, just ignore it. Welcome to Commons. @Jebulon: Your last comment is rude and uncivil as well, please be aware that you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, works for me. Thank you @Natuur12, that was much needed outside perspective. --Nubero 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Natuur12: given the circumstances of the case, your threat against me is just a farce. I don't mind if we have different opinions about what is "rude and uncivil". Please don't give me lessons, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar edits and names

Due to deletion work, and a message left on my talk page, it would appear that there is interrelation of some sort in these three accounts: User talk:Worldshogi, User talk:Shogi81, and User talk:Shogi 81 2. The first two have uploaded the same copyright image once each, the final one was only used to leave the message on my talk page. Thanks for the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hiku2

Hiku2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There are THOUSANDS (maybe tenthousands, I failed to browse through all) flickr2C uploads of license plates, hardly in scope, submitted on just one day (12 May) within a couple of minutes. All of the uploads blatantly violate COM:OVERCAT, hundreds of categories that actually should be empty are now overflooded. What to do? IMO, heavy abuse of automated upload tools… --A.Savin 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I really have no idea how to proceed but shouldn't we modify this tool so that only authorized users can use it? This prevents mass uploads of bad quality content. Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We should. --A.Savin 11:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Numberplates are within scope, imho. Wikipedia has articles in various languages about their various types for various purposes in various countries. When I realised that the upload tool gives wrong categories automatically, I stopped using this functionality. The problem seems to be the "Auto-detect categories: (default is 'yes', can also be changed individually)" in Flickr2Commons. Cheers, Hiku2 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is problematic. Please don't do that again. Natuur12 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. But then you should change the guidelines. --Hiku2 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Which guideline gives you the right to close DR's where the subjects are your own uploads? Should be closed als delete imho. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It states: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." --Hiku2 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You have neither a good understanding nor is it uncontroversial.... Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They have also removed {{Copyvio}} from this file, instead of opposing it on the file talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, if you really stopped, you did it much too late… I'd say either you clean up all your uploads by hand, or they have to be nuked. And no: some kind of license plate photos may be in scope, but I don't believe yours are. --A.Savin 14:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should restrict actions (upload, edits) for non-autopatrolled users using abusefilter (example: 2000 actions per day if not in autopatrolled group)? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem with me. Note, however, that this here is an extreme case. If Hiku2 had uploaded 10.000 in 5 days, the problem was in the end the same. So, we rather need a guideline which says that mass flickr2C uploads are in general shit (apart from some few special cases, which we obviously don't have here). Nothing against selective transfers of encyclopedically useful freely licensed material from Flickr, but for anyone who transfers 10.000 at once for their own upload count, I cannot assume any good faith anymore, sorry. --A.Savin 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with the closure of the Deletion Nomination of your own pictures. That's in very poor form, shows lack of judgement and understanding of the rules of commons. I personally suggest nuking all these uploads as non-encyclopedically useful and intended only to boost users edit count. I also request that DN be examined by an administrator and reviewed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done (for the uploads). --A.Savin 00:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A three-month block? Three months⁈ All considered, this seems too harsh! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Support the three month block because of:

• a lack of caution when mass uploading - better to upload a few at a time and check them
• an unwillingness to undo potential errors - I see no comments from the user to suggest they are willing to clean up after themselves
• the DR closure and subsequent comment that the guidelines should be changed so that they fit Hiku2's action rather than accepting that the uploads might be controversial because someone has nominated them for deletion
• the removal of a copyvio notice without following the procedure outlined on the notice
• the frankly unapologetic response to being blocked, without acknowledgement that there might be a problem with their uploads.

Nothing in the user's actions suggests that they have taken stock of the criticism of their editing and will be more careful in future. Green Giant (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Seeing that this is a first block, 3 months seems a bit long. I would support a one-month block. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And what exactly should a block reduction bring us? The damage of Commons caused by Hiku2's mass random uploading is enormous. There are still some >15.000 uploads left, most of them uncategorized or improperly categorized. So, the only alternative to a full block is to revoke their right to use flickr2C, VisualFileChange, cat-a-lot, and other automated tools, because otherwise further abuse has to be expected. --A.Savin 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of self reflection I believe that 3 moths is fine. Not the term I would have picked but the block length is defendable. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We have had people uploading much worst junk without any category or description, and nobody never really raised an eyebrow. Just my 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

True and that's why we should make automated tools for users who know what their are doing only. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very, very bad. That does not mean we should repeat our faults. Automated tools are for advanced users only. Any maloperation (including even such done in good faith; not to mention intentional abuse/vandalism) is able to do a lot of hard-to-repair damage. Users who misuse flickr2C to boost their editcount from ~0 to 20.000 within some minutes (like here, obviously) should be blocked from editing Commons. (Or, at least, excluded from using automated tools.) --A.Savin 22:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that automated tools should be given only to experienced users. It doesn't mean that a 3-month block is needed here. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Either we think that this user has some redeeming qualities and should be encouraged to work on Commons again after some time off to consider, or we believe this user is a vandal and deliberately acted outside of the rules. If it's the former, then even Yann's one month is too long -- blocks are not punishment and longer terms do not punish more. If it's the latter, then just block him indefinitely and maybe reconsider it after a long while if he exhibits contrition on his talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@3 months: I can not say this is right or not (sure it is uncommon high and I also thought even one month would be sufficient). I wanted to tell this not really. Perhaps he is now a little annoyed, but it's also difficult to talk in German with him (he got also an admin warning there). Then we should made in effect the guidelines more concrete (to the DR)⁉ I mean the question is here, is it good faith or spam? w:WP:WPSPAM #Assuming good faith ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  08:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Luischanel

User uploading the same copyrighted FC logo multiple times. I have reason to believe the have also done so under different account names, as this logo has been uploaded at least 10 times in the last month. No other contributions, should be blocked. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo, Luischanel sólo lo he hecho dos veces, lo volví a subir porque me lo reportaste y no me das una explicación exacta, a parte es un logo de licencia libre, todos los equipos de fútbol lo tienen así, para la muestra un botón: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ANlog.png

Just because one FC logo is free of copyright does not make them all free from copyright. This image is indeed copyrightable. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

En la página http://www.derechodeautor.gov.co/web/guest/home no se le han encontrado derechos de autor.Luischanel (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Luischanel, 1) you should not have stated "own work", when the logo clearly is NOT your own work.[32] 2) the copyright of logos is a rather complicated matter and varies from country to country. As Commons is an international project, which tries to host only material that can be freely used in all/most countries, we take a restrictive/conservative approach. i.e., when something is copyrightable, we considered it to be copyrighted. See also Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks. In case of "your" logo: as is contains not only text, I consider it to be copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo subí el anterior archivo con los derechos de autor normales, es decir, refiriendome al autor pero como lo eliminaron busqué los logos de varios equipos de fútbol y todos lo colocaban de trabajo propio, por lo tante decidí subirlo así ya que fue un compañero de una pagina quién lo realizó, total acá no trata de esto, pero yo sólo he hecho eso dos veces y fue por lo mencionado, las acusaciones de Fry1989 son falsas, así que creo que este reporte debe ser borrado de acá y además que Fry1989 se retracte de sus acusaciones. "Luischanel (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 and symbols by country overcategorisations

Fry1989 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user keeps rollbacking well-explained reverts (mostly of his reverts) on symbols by country categories and by doing so overcategorising them into their main country categories. Asked to stop and discuss, he responded "oh piss of". Needless to mention that this is not the first time a thread about this user's behaviour has been started on this noticeboard, I would welcome it if it won't get closed by Fastily.    FDMS  4    23:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, with an endorsement of good faith like that, surely this is worthy of attention!! I am not violating OVERCAT at all, symbols of countries is a direct subcat of the country itself, putting it under "culture of ..." is inappropriate because national symbols may or may not having anything to do with the culture of the country in question (many countries have designed their symbols to be devoid of references to their history and culture, such as China). I am properly categorising these subcats, and you are interfering. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't gave this respond at your talk page because? Natuur12 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Glad to see that your attitude/mood changed so quickly, rollback and profanity can make it difficult to keep assuming good faith. Why can't you discuss content disputes at appropriate venues, talk pages? Having to use an administrators' noticeboard to get an explanation from you isn't exactly making collaborating with you more convenient.

Symbols itself is only categorised into arts (= culture) categories, and symbols are hardly hierarchically on the same level as society, geography or history.

   FDMS  4    00:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyways, this is editwar number 1000 and rollback has been used so I revoced his rollback tool. It doesn't matter who is right. There is no excuse for using rollback during an edit war. Natuur12 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Because I didn't want to, because I don't like FDMS4, because they're a thorn in my side, because they accused me of edit warring in bad faith, take your pick. I'd also love to know under what reasoning you think my rollback rights should be revoked. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of my systematic or deliberate abuse of this tool, or do you just not want me to have the tool in the same manner you don't think I should edit wikipedias if I don't speak the native language? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is acting in bad faith now? Natuur12 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is ANYBODY out of all the admins on Commons who should not be using their admin tools in regards to me and should leave any sanctions to other admins, it's YOU. You who claims I shouldn't edit wikipedias in languages I don't speak the native language on and who went to far as to try and have me banned from the whole Dutch project, and who constantly harasses me anywhere we encounter each other elsewhere. Don't try and act like you're an innocent observer. Do you have any real examples of my abuse of the rollback tool or not? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's one right at the top of this thread.    FDMS  4    00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No there's not, only in your playground. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Another one. Reverting a newbie with rollback while there is no vandalisme. Natuur12 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And care to tell me how that was abusive and worthy of tool removal? They categorised the DR which they shouldn't have done and I was trying to undo the categorising edit and accidentially (which you will never believe because you don't trust me any more than I trust you) rolled back both that edit and his answer. Now you tell me how you are not an involved party, when only days ago you called me sloppy and I told you I didn't want anything more to do with you, and you jump into this so rapidly I could bet you did so with glee to remove a tool of mine for where there is NO real evidence I have ever abused it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Natuur12?? How is it not inappropriate for you to have removed one of my tools so quickly when only days ago we had a spat, and when you have tried to have me banned from an entire project for the crime of not speaking Dutch? That's exactly what you made it about, you said I had no place editing a wiki if I don't speak the language, even for simple edits like adding images. I did that about 100 times just in the last two days ([33], [34]) doing invaluable work putting in missing images for wikis that I can't speak a single word of their language. You, of ALL admins, are the last one to claim you have uninvolved status regarding me and the right to enforce any sanctions regarding me. In fact I would bet money that you jumped into this so fast you have been looking for any excuse to act against me, and I find it very telling that you removed my rollback right BEFORE you responded to this AN. The best you have right now, is possible misuse, and even that's a stretch. Show where I have actively abused the rollback tool and under what authority you have to remove it so quickly without review by anyone else. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and this was after the piss off. O and than there are cases like 6, 7, 8 where the edits are not vandalism, just invalid namechange request. Using rollback to remove this request, especially when it are your uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

editwar, removing talk page message, content dispute and finally, January 31, this year, valid use of the rollback tool by reverting his own edit. Since than there has been no valid use of the rollback tool. Natuur12 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had really wanted to discuss or understand or get an explanation, you wouldn't have done so with an edit war notice as your header. Try asking me instead of accusing me, see where it gets you. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Usually it is the person who proposes changes that has an interest in discussing them. I'd have to be extremely naïve to expect a friendly collaborative atmosphere on your talkpage after the countless editwars you were involved in and your rollback abuse in this very case. However, should you have – against all odds – decided to start a discussion anyway, I'd have been a "good listener" and a constructive participant. As you haven't, you have at least been warned about the consequences.    FDMS  4    11:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet there are plenty of other users where I have a polite, happy, collaborative environment with all the time. If what you say is true, such an environment could not exist and there are plenty of examples proving your massive generalisation false. It's how you approach me, and you chose to accuse me right from the beginning which is why I told you to piss off. If you had asked me, this could have been completely different. TRY JUST ONE to ask me instead of accusing me or threatening me or saying I'm wrong or whatever else and see what happens. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you have to establish consensus before reinstating contested changes does not have anything to do with your happiness or other emotions.    FDMS  4    20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see how this works, just ignore when I point out things that don't comport to your sense of reality. You deliberately imply that I can't not participate in or create a friendly collaborative environment, and when there are examples that show you are mistaken, you go off on a tangent about how it has nothing to do with whether I am happy or not. Nice try. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Hi, It seems that Fry1989 is not willing to understand. Accusing Natuur12 of abuse is clearly not the right thing. I blocked Fry1989 for 3 days. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless if Fry isn't willing to understand or not, cool down blocks should never be done per COM:BP. I should know, I got slammed for it in the past (when I was an Admin) and rightfully so). Bidgee (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the policy is quite weird. You can also take it as a preventive step avoiding further escalation of this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, you gave a reason for the block as "take some rest and come back", it wasn't preventive but in fact it was a punitive one. Remember in COM:BP ""cool-down" blocks are not condoned". Also you've poured more fuel on to the fire. Bidgee (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh a cool-down block, "take some rest and come back" - like they always work! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, spare us. Just because someone utters the words "cool-down block" does not mean we have to immediately go misquoting policies and turning our brains off. It was not a cool down block; it was a block for continuous disruptive behavior. If you need any evidence of this, please look through the history of this noticeboard and note the dozens of times this user has been brought here. I doubt he admitted fault in more than one or two of those (if that). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, don't you know that Commons is not English Wikipedia? Would you like anyone beginning to link to policy pages in Esperanto, Polish or Thai Wikipedias? --Leyo 22:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

So you think that a good principle long-recognised at en:WP should be ignored at Commons because there are pictures instead of words? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, or alternatively, we may also apply principles/policies of e.g. de.wikipedia. --Leyo 22:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Not that it matters, but WP:COOLDOWN says that an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS explicitly includes repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' […] objections to edits. As Fry1989 is cocksure he did absolutely nothing wrong, further disruption was to be expected.    FDMS  4    23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Hi, anyone.

@FDMS4: I am helping with that Fry1989, and you are correct about his swear words causing bad faith. It is better to have rollback rights removed for this time until he must learn about good faith here. Fry1989 must stop working disruptively and using so many swear words, and must act in good faith here.

@All: Adding invalid kinds of blocks to the current policy about user blocking, such as "cool-down" blocks, must work with this case. Anyone may propose and discuss additions of inappropriate reasons for blocking a user to the current policy at its talk page. This must be resolved as soon as possible.

@Yann: For the block, it is based on COM:MELLOW, an essay, not an official policy/guideline. You're perhaps incorrect to use that essay as basis for blocking Fry1989 since that is advice by one or more Commons users and not an official guideline accepted by the community. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 09:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unblocked Fry, on a matter of principle, because cool down blocks are inappropriate without question. I can see Fry has been no saint here, and since he has been blocked for 24h (at time of writing), I would argue that time has been served. I've cautioned him to stay clear of trouble and avoid drama, because that's what seems to have launched this debacle in the first place. With that said, I strongly recommend that all involved parties apologize to one another, drop their respective sticks, back away from the horse carcass, and find a backlog to start working on. We are a collegial community, and not a battleground. Cheers, FASTILY 21:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fastily: There was no consensus for that. This is the third time you've made an inappropriate unblock of Fry, and that doesn't include the many inappropriate thread closures on his behalf, and I for one am tired of your abuse of administrator powers. So I will give you three options:

• You reblock Fry right now
• I block you for a week for abuse of admin powers.
• We go this route: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fastily (de-adminship)

If you do not respond within a few hours, I will go with the latter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A few questions. First, can you point to the consensus for the block in the first place? You claim there was no consensus to unblocking me, but where was the consensus for the block itself? Several users have raised questions about the validity of this block, none of which you can claim are my friends and therefore somehow in my pocket. Second, how is threatening an admin to use their powers in a certain way or else not extortion? Third, you really want to make that much of a scandal out of nothing just because I only served a 3rd of a 3-day block that had no consensus, no policy to back it up, just because you think I need to be punished (for what btw? I wasn't edit warring requiring immediate intervention and I wasn't personally attacking anyone, I was just responding to FDMS4 when I was blocked) or need to learn some lesson? If this had been a month long block (or longer), or a block for a serious offence of some sort, your reaction would make sense, but seriously all that over a 3-day block with no real backing? Wow, taking it to the extreme. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A few other questions also come to mind. If you think the block somehow has consensus and was valid, why didn't you reject my unblock request yourself? You either thought nobody would actually grant it, your were waiting for Fastily to do so in a trap, or you weren't willing to go that extra step to reinforce the block as valid. Also Bidgee as a a former admin had extreme reservation about this, enough that I can safely assume they would have lifted the block immediately. Would you have the same anger if Bidgee had removed my block demanded they reblock me or else you will use your Crat tools to block them and seek de-adminship? And if not, how does that not make this look even more like you just having an axe to grind against Fastily? Move on, I already have. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magog: a pity, to see such a threat/attempt at extortion coming from one of my past mentees. I taught you quite well I suppose. Please allow me to clarify my position; it is not as radical as you might imagine:

• Blocks are intended to be preventative, and not punitive. I did not find any evidence of such behavior from Fry at the time of the time of his block, which was intended as a cool down block. Can you please provide some diffs from Fry that demonstrate egregious behavior in this thread? Can you please point me to the clear consensus that Fry should be blocked? Also, even when doing a head count, I’m not finding a clear consensus for the 'cool down' block.
• Note that I have not restored Fry's rollback privileges after they were removed by Natuur12.
• Fry has already been blocked for 24 hours, and considering that the the block was made on illegitimate grounds (cool down), I would argue that any inappropriate behavior that could have occurred by not blocking him has already been prevented, hence my "time served" remark above. If I have missed something (e.g. blatant violation of policy) which would mean Fry should be blocked for a different reason, please let me know so I can re-block him with that reason.
• Note that my unblock statement to Fry was quite impartial. Now, as I have said time and time again, if I observe Fry violating policy, let me make it clear that I have no reservations in blocking him myself. I have previously blocked him for one month on en.wikipedia for edit warring, see here.
• I'm not actually on "Fry's side" as some would like to believe. Yes, I have closed discussions pertaining to Fry and have unblocked him, but if anyone cares to sample the archives of AN, ANU, VP, then one might find that I actively close discussions pertaining to others as well. I believe that part of the role as admin role means helping to foster a collegial work environment where everybody can contribute to the best of their abilities. A lot of the times, this means shutting down counterproductive drama or toxic little disputes that are blown out of proportion because this is how we lose active contributors. It is neither the easiest job, nor does it make everybody happy, but it sure does keep us chugging along.

Kind Regards, FASTILY 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I must say that I do not see how a block would help at this stage. The edit warring ended when the discussion on this page started, so the only things the block achieves is that it prevents Fry from participating in this discussion and from doing unrelated edits elsewhere. If there is a dispute, then don't block if the involved editors are willing to discuss the matter on this page. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Per commons:blocking policy: Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block. I am almost never afraid to dive into controversies and I new I would end up in some kind of turmoil after I acted and that I would put my neck on the line. I don't mind but Fasitly who has been asked in this post and previous topics releated to Fry not to close them (and in previous topics to act in general) and yet he does. It makes me worder why I participate in the more controversial topics. Fry is unblocked, the first thing that happens is Fry making a rude comment thowards Fastily and others and the second thing what happens is an attack against Magog. Natuur12 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make ANY attack, I asked some very serious questions that a lot of users will be asking if Magog goes through with a de-adminship and blocks Fastily. Second, trivial blocks don't need consensus to be lifted at all. If I was an admin and blocked a user just because I wanted to with no policy to support it, another admin would be fully within their rights and I would expect them to lift it. Now clarify what exactly I was blocked for here that wasn't trivial? I was blocked for being "angry" and needing to "cool down", not for edit warring, not for personal attacks, not for some massive policy violation, simply because Yann thought I was a little too high-strung. So gang up on Fastily if you want, but at least 4 users have made if clear they're against this block and think it was at best trivial and at worst a violation of the blocking policy. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW Natuur12 I notice you still haven't answered my question of how I and Dutch-speaking users on the Dutch Wiki can make the exact same edits but only I am am reverted and get quoted policy. I gave you multiple examples. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't discuss stuff from other projects at Commons. You have a talk page there. Perhaps you could ask one of the local admins. Natuur12 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You were happy enough to discuss it below, so obviously not a blanket principle. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fastily: I'm not actually on "Fry's side" as some would like to believe. You have shown us the opposite (3× overrulings, many disputable closings). You need to step away from any administrative actions involving Fry for at least two years. Really, you do. --Leyo 23:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're "on my side" for lifting an invalid three day cool down block without consensus and in which several users had a major problem with it on policy grounds. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The previous block was lift after two uninvolved admins had already declined.... Sorry, but it is starting to become a patern. Natuur12 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made it quite clear in previous discussions why I lifted the blocks, you may refer to the separate ANU discussions for my rationale. If you cared to read my reasoning above, you'll see that I have undone a 'cool down' block of which there is no consensus for. Ignoring my rationale, jumping to a wrong conclusion, and suggesting that I have baselessly unblocked Fry now and in past instances is ridiculous -FASTILY 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I read it before commenting thank you. Sorry Fastily but it would be for the better if you leave the blocking and unblocking of non-vandal userss to other admins. There are other cases as well where you jumped in to quickly. Sorry, but I see different standards for different users. You reduce Fred the Oyster his block to one day after repeated personal attacks, you reduced Fry's blocks but yet you blocked Tuvalkin twice for comments that are not even close as being as disruptive as theirs. Natuur12 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you have not, because you're still making unfounded accusations based on oversimplification of some very complex incidents. If you're not going to thoroughly and impartially evaluate my position, then don't evaluate at all. You have literally just oversimplified everything to the point where your interpretation is just disgustingly wrong, because clearly I only unblock bad users and block good users right? Yeah sure, 100% correct, A , gold star. Think what you like, but I wash my hands of this discussion. -FASTILY 00:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just leave decisions in cases involving Fry to the other 241 admins. I am sure you don't think that you are the only one who is able to judge complex incidents. --Leyo 00:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

241 other admins who may or may not have just let me serve my time out. Let's be entirely honest for a moment here: There are a lot of admins, but not many that deal with blocks on a regular basis. If this block was invalid, and those that do would rather just have me sit it out, they by their inaction are violating policy by upholding the block. So again, what was I blocked for and why was it not an invalid reasoning under the block policy? Where was the resounding consensus in support of the block? Where is it obvious that Fastily was just pulling a favour for me instead of lifting the block on very serious questions regarding its validity? Fastily didn't lift a ban, or a year long block, or even a week long block for some serious offence, they lifted a 3-day block because Yann thought I needed time to chill. ANY admin would have the right to lift it, and it's just because it happened to be Fastily that everyone is making it into such a big storm. If Bidgee or INeverCry or Hedwig or Dennis or Steinsplitter lifted it with the exact same reasoning that cool down blocks are not endorsed, I highly doubt there would be threats from my arch nemesis that they will be blocked and get de-adminned. If Fastily's reasoning is right if other admins had done it, it's right when Fastily does it, end of story. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• The situation now is very unfortunate; asked for help at COM:BN. Jee 02:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Sadly, I don't see this ending well for many of the parties involved in this unfortunate mess. --Rschen7754 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread rather discusses a controversial block, and there is another admin issue here (involving Fastily), that leaked into another AN/U thread (below). This must not end up with more issues appearing here and leaking into new threads.--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This must close and go to the archive. Compromise made, Fry1989 unblocked and blocks archived. --TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 12:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Normally this thread would have already been archived by a bot, however, the bot (ArchiveBot) was operated by Fastily who has retired. Thus, archiving isn't happening automatically at the moment. There is currently a bot request at: Commons:Bots/Requests/Revibot I to provide a replacement service though, and archiving should resume soon (hopefully). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

i upload 4 picas and after I can't continue

After my uploads, on the next page, I confirm that the pics were took by me, but so I can't do anymore, I don't have a key to go to the next page.. It doesn't work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcldesaopaulo (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 May 2015‎ (UTC)

This doesn't really seem to be a dispute with another user requiring administrator assistance (which is what this page is for). It seems more like an issue for the help desk. But anyway: The Upload Wizard (the default interface for uploading files to Commons) is pretty much in a perpetual state of brokenness. It isn't broken for everyone all the time, but I don't recall a time since it was introduced that we went more than a few days without people reporting enigmatic problems with indefinitely spinning wheels, unhelpful error messages, or simply no way to move forward. Have you tried Commons:Upload? It tends to be much more reliable. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by User:DogePutot

DogePutot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I think this users uploads could use some review. They are pretty much all terrible images that nobody would ever find useful. And a non-free logo with criticism of the subject in the spot where licensing information should go. I am no expert on Commons policy so if someone who is could take a look here that would be good. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Uploads nuked: poor quality, out of scope. Message left on talkpage. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Atsirlin

Atsirlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Baseless accusations of vandalism [36] (in English). --Juggler2005 (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you need to take a break.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a clarification and would like to close the topic now. If you have a problem with the wordings I use, feel free to discuss it on my talk page.

I would also like to mention that Juggler2005 is actively using Administrators' noticeboard (see also here) instead of discussing issues at the talk page first, which is quite annoying and contrary to standard policies that are followed by Wikipedia and other WMF projects. --Alexander (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Aresiganan14

Aresiganan14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Since December last year Aresiganan14 is constantly uploading copvios. Only copyvios, nothing more, not one legal image. Always as hiss "own work" under free licenses up to cc-0. This is at least otherwise stealing. Was blocked already for one week, I've blocked him now a second time for a month, but I would like to have a second pair oy eyes, because I think an indefinite block could be better here. We can not expect any usefull content. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we can go for an indef, I do not indeed see a single good contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Indef blocked. User can request unblock after reading & understanding COM:L. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Arshad Roshan.a.a sock to block

Please block User:Roshan014 and revert or delete its edits as appropriate. This is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:Arshad Roshan.a.a, a serial copyright violator many of whose other accounts (User:Varsha Deshayi, User:Mooni singh raizada, User:Ahem Modi, User:Viren Vadhera) are already blocked for copyvios here on Commons. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshad Roshan.a.a for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Replace an incorrect file type (pdf) with png

I incorrectly uploaded a pdf when I meant to load the png version of the same thing. I tried to replace it but the new file wasn't accepted as it didn't end in pdf. I'd like to clean up my mistake. Of course I can/will just rename and upload the right file, but seems pretty silly that you can't easily remove files you just contributed.ZoomNoodle77 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the dope who didn't title the above question about remove my own pdf file and replacing with png.

 Done I deleted file:Sectional Density vs Ballistic Coefficient comparing various 375 Magnum cartridges.pdf and file:Game Class vs 6 inch Maximum Point Blank Range comparing various 375 Magnum cartridges.pdf as copies of file:Sectional Density vs Ballistic Coefficient comparing 375 Magnum cartridges.png and file:Game Class vs 6 inch Maximum Point Blank Range comparing 375 Magnum cartridges.png. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Paulkumar Arikrishnan's uploads

Resolved

I have just deleted this user's userpage and blocked them at en.wp. They are violating the same principles over here, namely COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL. None of their uploads are within the project scope or in any way intended to do anything except make this guy look cool on his userpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about blocking, but their uploads here are already deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

94.226.57.36

Hi, help for checking 94.226.57.36 (talk · contribs) contributions would be great. I already reverted some. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This post is pretty old, and only 2 of the IPs edits are still live out of around 50, so I'm thinking this has been sorted out. INeverCry 05:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

2.86.132.44

• User: 2.86.132.44 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: IP continues changing the description regarding my own image, adding information that's not really required and biased. Image in question is here. Either block him or protect the page as the first edit was made on 18 April and I recently changed on 27 May although it seems they are watching the page so it would be better that the page is protected Luxure Σ 05:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism, just edit warring.

Luxure, you do not 'own' the description, even if you uploaded the file, and you both need to discuss it on the talk page instead of you arbitrarily blanking the IP editors comments there. You should not be trying to have a discussion in edit summaries, especially one where you threaten another editor with blocking. You are both 'wrong' in your behavior, regardless of whose description is correct (and tbh, it should probably be described as the former flag, with the relevant dates, regardless of what else is mentioned). "Vandalism" is when a person is intentionally damaging things, not when they disagree about something but are acting in good faith.

Your claim to the copyright is probably bogus anyhow, since the exact same image was uploaded as a PNG in 2010 (merely changing an image from one format to another is not a creative act and does not create a copyright claim). Revent (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Revent, visit the "Macedonians (ethnic group)" page on wikipedia. The flag is referenced as the ethnic flag for these people, so the description is correct. Luxure Σ 05:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Luxure: Ah, fair enough, I was mixing up that design with this one based on a textual description. Still, the IP's edit aren't really 'vandalism', even if misguided, just a content dispute, and people should be warned on their personal talk pages, not in edit summaries. The drama should be hashed out on the image talk page, not in an edit war, and you were wrong when you blanked the IPs attempt to do so. What is the correct description should be decided by discussion and consensus (you do not own the file page, even if you own the copyright to the image), and if someone is attempting to act in good faith but still causing problems they should be taken to COM:AN/U, not here.... this board is for 'obvious' vandalism (like if they were changing it to 'flag of the penises' or something). Revent (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just adding NPOV info, that's really not needed for an image, better suits an article. I will however undo my edit on the talk page. Luxure Σ 05:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pasted from commons vandalism to here. Luxure Σ 06:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Jakeisis13

This user has uploaded a number of copyright violations. 2601:981:4001:C744:3CB3:BD08:4F61:B2A5 03:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user warned. INeverCry 03:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Doberzinecker

Doberzinecker has uploaded a number of images, all of them copyvio photographs of the Suzuki Ertiga from various countries. Please delete. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done User is blocked, and all but 2 uploads have been deleted. INeverCry 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel that the two wheel pictures are copyvios as well, but they are of little importance and hard to prove. I will let them stand for now. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yadavshiva2

Crosswiki promotional spam, reuploading files that were deleted as out of scope after DR (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Yadavshiva2). Revent (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. Doesn't look like he's here to do anything but self-promotion. INeverCry 07:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Moumou82

Hi, Moumou82 (talk · contribs) continues to tag files as copyvios (sometimes improperly) without informing the uploader. Four messages by me one by Thibaut120094 didn't get any answer. Any suggestions? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There is now an answer, it seems that Moumou82 (talk · contribs) just didn't know that he had to inform the uploader. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks to Thibaut120094 (talk · contribs) for having indicated to me which gadget was supposed to be used in such case. I will make a good use of it going forward. For your awareness, if I was not used to do it until now, it is because most of the admins (except Yann actually) that deleted pictures I flagged did not care about this notification or never told me it was a requirement. Does it mean this rule is not consistently applied by admins? Moumou82 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

More likely, it means that admins were assuming that you were using the gadget (and thus the uploaders had been notified) and did not double-check. Understandable on their part, I think... and 1 to the people who caught the oversight. FWIW, the collapsed 'further instructions' on {{Copyvio}} specifically instruct you to notify the uploader. Revent (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will act accordingly. Moumou82 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Moumou82: OK. Merci donc d'utiliser le gadget et d'informer les contributeurs. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

ResolvedI think we can close this thread. Yann (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Srahmadi socks to block

CheckUser on English Wikipedia has confirmed that Munifi3nt (talk · contribs) and Rahpouyan110 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Srahmadi (talk · contribs), a serial copyright violator who was also active (and is now blocked) here. (See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi.) Please consider blocking these fresh accounts and nuking (or at least carefully reviewing) all their uploads. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Denniss. Yann (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2 users

User:Angeles j and User:Kangaloid has been started same deletion reques from my picture after then I have marked user pictures as copyvios. Please check--Motopark (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the first one, INeverCry blocked the second. Yann (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sasasasabor

Resolved

This seems to be the newest sock of User:Rolandodeynigo, reuploading under new names files that had already been deleted (all the files with Yñigo in the name). File:CoA of Far Far Away.svg is new, and can perhaps stay if needed. File:Coat of Arms of Albert.jpg is a copyright violation, a carbon copy of a design from 1970. Tom-L (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and nuked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ecash.cl

Removes speedy tag after info, please delete and inform user--Motopark (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User page is advertising spam (same spam is on talk page), and the sole use of the uploaded logo is there. Username is the domain name of the business being advertised. Doesn't appear to be here for any legitimate purpose. Revent (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, page deleted. Yann (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Culo caca cacacaca

Offensive username in spanish. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Béria L. Rodríguez ^msg 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:KMRscreamer

Nuked uploads by this user, after a DR opened by Howicus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KMRscreamer. Individually checked and deleted about half a dozen as copyvios, then got fed up with it. Editor is a verified sock (by enwiki CU) of a blocked creator of hoax articles about bridges, and given the number of verified copyvios their claims of 'own work' obviously cannot be trusted. I'm not blocking myself (still squeamish about the button, lol) but probably should be done. Revent (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Look2See1 (just an FYI)

After seeing the current discussion on his talk page, and perusing the concerns raised at the VP and a couple of times this year on this board, I'm removed the autopatrolled userright from this editors account, and asked him to request it formally if he would like it restored. This isn't a sanction, and no action should be needed, it's just purely informational. Revent (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For a while Look2See1 apparently ceased the problematic editing, but now he/she is adding "special" descriptions again, responding to talk pages messages with – I dare say – deliberate misunderstandings. It would be nice if a solution allowing him to edit but also making consequences of not addressing the community's concerns and disagreements clear could be found.    FDMS  4    07:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The basic problem I see in simply removing the autopatrolled right is that you still have mass edits that may be problematic, but now they flood recent changes, causing hassles for patrollers rather than addressing the actual issue directly. This editor frequently makes several hundred edits in a day, and if they're in fact problematic, this high-volume editing can't be allowed to continue unabated. The solution FDMS says would be nice above sounds like the right way to go to me. INeverCry 08:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(consolidating responses here) The question comes down to, is autopatrolled merely to filter out editors that are known to not be vandals, or those that are expected to solely make edits that are inline with consensus? The first is more utilitarian, and the second has more to do with possible drama... if Look2See1 is habitually making large number of edits that are considered to be problematic, should this be noticed only by those people who choose to specifically watch his edits, or should they be looked at by more people? The former seems to me more likely to lead to a series of repeated complaints by the exact same set of people, arguments that persist for years, and accusations of personal bias.... which seems to have happened here. The latter seems to me more likely to lead to his (and this board) getting feedback from a wider spectrum of editors.

I think that if Look2See1 is so prolific that he is flooding recent changes, and yet still causing complaints, then he simply needs to slow down and restrict his 'mass' edits to those that he understands are not going to cause issues with other editors, or make a point to address such concerns in a way that leads to a perception that he is willing to treat the opinions of other editors as valid. I'm specifically not saying that he doesn't consider them... I'm just saying that it seems clear that there is a perception that he does not.

Really, it comes down to... he was granted the userright on the basis of the personal discretion of an administrator, yet seems to have created repeated conflicts with mass edits. My impression is there quite likely would not be an agreement to grant him that right at this time, if the question was initially raised now (note that he was recently blocked for disruptive editing) and actually discussed. Given that, I think it's fair that he be required to publicly ask for it.

At the same time, if there is a consensus that autopatrolled should be more concerned with the more utilitarian issue of filtering out vandalism, I'm quite willing to eat crow. Revent (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If he's being disruptive/uncooperative, and he doesn't address the issue/s, he should be blocked from editing until he does. Allowing him to continue high-volume editing without addressing these ongoing problems shouldn't be an option. INeverCry 10:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Vicent.Dissident

I'm reporting @Vicent.Dissident: attitude in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linguistic Evolution in South West Europe (11th Century - Today).gif. Even when it's been warned wy three different users, for three times deleted the deletion flag when it's not concluded, ignored all claimer's reasons in the matter, and underestimated the talk menacing to place back the file. --Panotxa (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again deleting the flag, ignoring the discussion by third time. --Panotxa (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Info Warned user to not remove notices regarding open DRs, and protected both file pages (File:Evolución Lingüística en Europa Sudoccidental (S.XI - Actualidad).gif and File:Linguistic Evolution in South West Europe (11th Century - Today).gif for a week (which should be long enough for the DRs to be closed). The tone of debate at the DRs is a separate matter. Revent (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Indef. blocked. X-Wiki singe purpose account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to massively revert one user's editions?

Hi all, I'm working in the organization of WLE 2015 in Spain. Once the contest is over, it's time to verify that the files are properly categorized. A bot has assigned non existing categories with the natural site code as name. We're manually verifying all of them (as nothing guarantees that the code assigned by uploader is right) and performed more or less one third of the work when... a user (@JackPotte: ) has removed the categories from the remaining files. We're meaning about 3500 files whose category has been removed so that we don't know how to locate to manually verify the categorization and identification. I could rollback 3500 editions (I started to do it when I noticed ALL our remaining work had been made useless) but I'd like to know whether administrators can do it in a more efficient way. Best regards --Discasto _talk 16:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I had already exposed my point of view on User_talk:JackPotte#Natura_2000_cats, and I'm still thinking objectively that improving Template:LIC is the best solution. JackPotte (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have the slightest idea of what the problem is. The problem is that we're manually reviewing one by one the LIC assignment of every file uploaded in WLE. Your solution is not a solution but to your pitfall. "Improving" the LIC template only leads us to review again more that 500 LIC categories that had been already reviewed and properly categorized. So, with your "solution" how do we proceed? Is it so difficult to ask first? Are you enjoying creating a lot of useless and pointless work to us? Are your going to fix it? How? --Discasto _talk 16:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered to all these questions on User_talk:JackPotte#Natura_2000_cats, and I won't do anything more before a community consensus. JackPotte (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So we have to stall all the categorizing work just because you are not able to ask before shooting? Please, return the files to the statu quo ante and possibly, once we've categorizing all the WLE files (once verified, the ESxxxx category is removed as you knew if you'd asked first), no ESxxxx categories would be in place. --Discasto _talk 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for you loss of time, but please understand that when we treat Special:WantedCategories and Category:Media needing categories accordingly to Commons:Naming categories, we can't write to everyone, and when I began to treat yours I though that there were only 100 images, before seeing the other ESxxxx categories. To avoid this unknown process, these temporary categories could be treated differently now. And I don't know why some reviewed images were still in there (and if not the review list is just Category:Natura 2000 in Spain). JackPotte (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Some statements for making it crearer:

• JackPotte has removed the categorization of about 3,500 files. That's plain vandalism, regardless of the categories being well named or not. If the name was wrong, the solution is to fix it, not to remove it.
• JackPotte's vandalism has made that the WLE Spain be forced to stall its work this afternoon, as they were not able to find the files they have to review.
• In spite of the many times several users have asked him to sort the mess out, he's consistently refused to do it.
• I can understand that a good faith editor, when noticing that one category is not properly named, may remove the category. I can understand it with a second category. But he's done it, with 407 categories!!!!, without stopping to ask (incidentally, all the categorization editions were made by my bot, so it was pretty simple to ask: hi, dude, I've noticed that your bot has categorized 3,500 images in a wrong way, we need to fix it, can you tell me how can you do it. On the contrary, he's reverted 3,500 editions without asking.
• The categories (bad named or not) have a purpose: to enable manual review of all the images uploaded within the WLE 2015 Spain contest, so that we can guarantee that all the images belong to the protected area the uploader claim, and subsequently categorizing the images in the proper edition.
• The "solution" suggested by JackPotte is pointless for a number of reasons:
  • Not all the protected areas currently have a category. Some have.
  • The categories JackPotte happily removed (which BTW hadn't been created) weren't mean to be created, just to help.
  • The {{LIC}} template has not been only added as a result of WLE. Therefore, "modification" of {{LIC}} to create an attached category may include images that we didn't want to create.

To sum up:

• JackPotte has removed meaningful categorization from 3,500 files. That's plain vandalism.
• He did it without asking. Shoot first, ask later (or never).
• There's no simple way to revert his editions. We're talking about 3,500 files.
• JackPotte has stalled the work of a volunteer team that were manually verifying the whole bunch of pictures (about 5,000).
• In spite of being asked, he's consistently refused to fix the mess, asking for a "consensus". As far as I know, it works the other way around.
• We've lost one day of work (and created a lot of annoyance in the team)

As JackPotte has refused to help, we're recreating the categories and recategorizating the files. @JackPotte: from now on, stay away of WLE businesses. Best regards --Discasto _talk 21:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here. I do not think the edits were vandalism, but I do agree that Jack should have posed the question before removing the categories from a large number of pages like he did. Is it possible to revert the edits yes, but its also just as easy to add them back IMO once we get a consensus on what the right course of action is here. Reguyla (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I strongly disagree with the last Discasto's paragraph. For example anyone can check that the number of images I've touched is 2999 (not 3500), the rest may have been treated by the other maintenance categories watchers. That's why the best solution wouldn't be to refill them again.

Concerning my willingness, I already brought several better solutions (eg: to use Category:Natura 2000 in Spain to review, which is the list I've created during my operation, which has been partially retreated), which have been ignored above (no need to speak about w: argumentum ad hominum). So I'd rather hear @Poco a poco: to speak for his team. JackPotte (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains: You've removed meaningful categories from 3000 files. The second fact remains: You've modified 3000 editions of a user without even talking to him. Call it vandalism or call it contempt for other people's work, it's the same. The third fact remains: our volunteers are sitting their hands for one day. As volunteers, they can simply say "sod the cod". If instead of helping, there are people that think they have the right to throw people's work to the thrash bin, this is not a collaborative project, but sort of bureaucracy that, as any good bureaucracy, considers that the how is much more important than the what. --Discasto _talk 06:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained why this is false and you're not answering to my points again. I've never said that your reviewing work wasn't important, even if these images aren't used in the other wikis. And I would thank you to finish it. But you began to refill your temporary categories which didn't respect Commons:Categories and its maintenance before a consensus. What's the problem of reviewing from the policy compliant category please? Another way: do you know Commons:AWB, which can dress a list of these images from the bot or template editions, and remove from it your editions, without programming?

Now I've just seen that you've created Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2015 in Spain (to review), so I assume that for this solution you've chosen you don't need any help anymore. JackPotte (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. The fact remains: you decided, without asking or commenting, to remove meaningful categorization from 3,000 images on the grounds that the categories were not properly named. Your "solutions" only came after you were questioned and not before. You simply decided that a specific category related to a specific site of community importance was not needed and replaced it with a useless category (Category:Natura 2000 in Spain), which groups more than 3000 protected areas. The rest of your statements are, I'm afraid, small talk. As already explained in your talk page: no fixes, no excuses, no apologies. Is it that difficult to apologize?

And yes, we cannot wait for you to decide how and when to fix the mess you've created and have started to restore all the categorization that you happily removed. From now on, try to do anything useful in this project instead of discouraging other people's work. And yes, I do know Commons:AWB, but it's not me the one that must request anything in there but you. --Discasto _talk 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're still not ready to admit that I was at least the third maintainer to clean the pollutions of these temporary categories for two weeks, do you? I won't develop a revocation bot if you don't answer for the third time to how HombreDHojalata can treat this job from Category:Natura 2000 in Spain and not you. JackPotte (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So... you've blackmailing us? "I won't fix what I've broken until you admit my kung-fu is better that yours". I thought you were simply a bureaucrat, but this is simply childish (y ya se sabe que con quien niños se acuesta mojado se levanta). I know perfectly well HombreDHojalata and what he did has nothing to do with the categorization work we were performing without any problem (yes, two people removed categories, they talked to us and everything was OK... they were not so arrogant as you). HombreDHojalata simply moved some images from a country level to a regional level. Such a task is trivial. What we're doing (I'll explain it again as you seem unable or unwilling to understand) is to properly categorize images from the same site of community importance in the proper category, verifying one by one whether the images has the right code and creating categories when needed. As such, HombreDHojalata's effort is simply useless (it was the result of the mess you created) as the images keep on being not categorized in a proper SCI category (and no, he did it far from well, as most of the images that should have been moved to the regional level are still in the country level, as when an image lost its SCI category, it's not that easy to know where they should be by a simple visual inspection). To sum up, if you don't want to clean your shit up, it's up to you (given your childish behavior, we could not expect otherwise). But, again, be a little bit humble and do any productive work (we're already cleaned the mess you left, not thanks to you, but in spite of you). Hopefully, we won't see you again. --Discasto _talk 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to have the last word, nevertheless I can close this case: Is there a way to massively revert one user's editions? Yes there is, when it's justified and then consensual. JackPotte (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Can't we let thoses temporary categories for few weeks as {{Hiddencat}} ? --PierreSelim (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comment on this matter, as JackPotte said he would listen to Poco a poco, I urge him to do so [39]. It's plain, you are hindering works of organizers, please stop. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pierre for your suggestions. It could have been easily sorted out if JackPotte had asked before removing the categories of 3,000 files. Fortunately (and not thanks to him; he's still dragging his feet without lifting a finger to fix what he'd broken), all the categories have been recreated and the useless Nature 2000 category removed from the images. Funny enough, the old ESxxxxxx categories weren't among the top categories in Special:WantedCategories, so that JackPotte had to explicitly and consciously locate all WLE categories and thus sabotage the whole Wikimedia Spain effort to properly review and categorize the WLE 2015 images. Since Sunday, instead of helping, JackPotte has been, alas, just mocking at us. This is the kind of behavior that expels contributors from the wikipedia projects. --Discasto _talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to the initial question: Yes, we have a script which allows to mass revert edits (admins can mark reverts with botflag). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Images reversions

User:Lecen has been reverting my uploads on File:Juan Manuel de Rosas 1829.jpg and File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Norris.jpg without giving me a valid reason to do it (I only cleared the images a bit so the original versions were too dark). (1) - (2). Lecen alleged that I should upload "my own version" of those files which I consider unnecessary so having duplicate files has no sense.

I don't want to enter into a edit warring with this user, who has some precedent warnings for his behaviour, but I need to solve this dispute. Thanks. - Fma12 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Commons can afford to have two versions of these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fma12: Please read COM:UPLOADWAR. Specifically, "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)." Revent (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet User:Russavia

User:VH-FCE appears to possibly be the latest sock of User:Russavia - odd changes for a new editor here and here - FOX 52 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Now globally locked by the WMF. Yann (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cajetsetter

Cajetsetter (talk · contribs)'s entire contribution history consists of blatant copyright violation uploads, all of files related to the punk rock band the Ramones (album covers, logos, copyrighted photographs)...8 files so far judging by the warnings on the user's talk page. User shows no sign of understanding basic principles of copyright or of Wikimedia's scope, an continues to upload (and then add to en:Wikipedia) copyrighted files despite warnings, even re-uploading ones already deleted. Time for some administrator attention. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week, given some directions on copyright policy, and warned against further copyvio uploads. INeverCry 07:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:94.3.63.224

The user depopulated on 21th June category:1968 Mercedes-Benz automobiles and nominated it for speedy deletion. I deleted it, Mr.chopper recreated the category. Yesterday the same IP depopulated category:1969 Mercedes-Benz vehicles and nominated for speedy deletion. Yann deleted it, Mr.chopper recreated the category. This IP does useful work also, but does not respond on talk page. Please be careful, when you find an empty category about automobiles, nominated by IP for speedy deletion. If this happens once more, a block can be appropriate. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As you quite accurately allude to, it has happened more than once already from this IP. Why is a block not appropriate now? BarkingFish (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The ip has a lot of controversial edits and has been reverted a lot of time (the ip edited under different ip's). I blocked the ip for one day with the reason "controversial edits, please reply at your talkpage". We can unblock the ip when he replyed. Unfortunately, i see no other way to get a reply :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Now the same user changed IP. I blocked 94.2.97.58 (talk · contribs). Still no reply. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the assistance. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Mr.choppers, Taivo, Steinsplitter, BarkingFish: I blocked not only this account, but also another with the same modus operendi, please see both

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/94.3.63.224 and
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.212.76.131

There have been no reply to any attempts at conversation and with two IPs displaying same behavior, a pair of two week blocks seemed in order. Please keep watching the categories, it's likely another IP will appear. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Pascal KESHMIRI

Hi, I blocked this user (Pascal KESHMIRI (talk · contribs)) for insult/harassment and legal threats [40]. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Look2See1

User:Look2See1's actions have long attracted controversy, largely because he's persistently rejected everything others have said, whether by his continued violations of COM:OVERCAT or because he doesn't care that others reject his unique method of rewriting image descriptions, category texts, etc. He was blocked in 2013 for this ("mass controversial changes, no discussion even after several requests") and again three months ago ("disruptive editing"), but he's continued the behavior detailed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 51#Look2See1 again. It's already led to rights removal; see his talk page's "Autopatrolled userright", and the "Where links go" section just above it involves discussion about why his edits are wrong and his continued unwillingness to listen to others. We could forgive that if he'd stopped after the discussion, but he continues replacing normal text with the formatting to which everyone objects and replacing normal links with category links despite warnings, and others continue to have to revert his recent edits in order to clean up COM:OVERCAT problems. At en:wp, users who persistently ignore requests, warnings, and blocks are eventually blocked indefinitely. Is there some good reason not to do the same here? I'll be notifying those who have participated in recent discussions, except for Magog the Ogre (who blocked him the last time), who's currently in the middle of a self-imposed block. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 month (previous blocks were for 3 days resp. 1 week). --A.Savin 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TantNatafoto

creates out of scope text to talk page--Motopark (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Given him a final warning. Next time block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

error on music intervals page

I think there may be an error in the Wikipedia entry on music intervals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(music)

What is listed as Cb should be C# in the graphic "Main intervals from C."

File:Main_intervals_from_C.png

Can this be checked out and let me know?

Larry Martin [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2605:a000:e105:b800:c991:264:ecde:1dc0 (talk)

This isn’t really the best place to discuss issues with content; it’s for dealing with disputes between users. At any rate, I’m pretty sure that‘s a D flat (equivalent to C sharp) in the minor-second illustration; the flat sign is tucked right up against the bottom of the staff, while if it were modifying the C it would be lower. It’s not right next to the D because the interval is too close for the notes to be stacked, while inserting the sign between the notes would prevent them from being read as a chord.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Adrianao da costa

Adrianao da costa (talk · contribs) Uploading files without copyright tags and copyvios after warnings. /St1995 12:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Warned by Yann --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As webmaster I do not understand Wikimedia

As webmaster of my few website on the www, I do not understand the complexity of Wikimedia which represents a new learning challenge, and my time it takes to fight my way through sharing information I like to post here, and others just criticizing or challenging the facts I try to publicize here.

Why is it more complicated to simply write my text=talk and add images and simply publish it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmnonMichaelCohen (talk • contribs)

Commons isn't a webhoster, see COM:SCOPE. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with user Lilic

This guy https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic repeatedly makes edit war here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png . It goes for few years now. He was warned, but he never did apply to the rules of the compromises or anything similar to it. This https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/22/20080626122344!DemoBIH2006a.png was original map, onto which he objected there were some copyright issues. They weren't, but no matter what I maid another version https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/22/20150707181902!DemoBIH2006a.png without any parts to which this user had objections. And he is still not pleased, and continues edit war. He basicaly lied, he has issues with the data which map shows. What should be done against this rude edit war? --Čeha (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are editwarring as well. If you both don't stop, both of you will be blocked. Fight it out on your discussion pages or via email as you did before. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I protected the page for a month (it had 5 uploads in the last week). I'm sure I protected meta:The Wrong Version, but sort it out on the talk page and submit an edit request once you figure out a consensus. Revent (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the problem is there is no consensus, and that we would need a mediator. As you can see on talk page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:DemoBIH2006a.png there were attempts of doing so (solution paragraph), but user Lilic is not biding/complying with them. The guy tried to delete map, his request was denied, and now he is destroying it with his edits... --Čeha (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ceha: You need to seek input from a wider section of the community, then, to establish a consensus instead of having a private argument. I would suggest either a COM:RFC, or a neutrally worded ping on one or more of the Village Pumps. Revent (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What we are having here is that Ceha is trying to over-write another guy's map with a completely different map. I think this is very troubling. Not only does the licensing not support this, but he's uploading a completely different map to replace a map. An image which has been one way for so long... and he thinks he can just overwrite it? I don't think so. I respectfully ask the admins to restore the map which I have been putting back, and to prevent people from over-writing the image in the future. (Lilic (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).

I would like to add that the original version is from the Serbian wikipedia. The image is this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/22/20150707194159!DemoBIH2006a.png . As we see, when there was uploading in the past, there were up to four versions of this image floating around various wikipedias. The original version is te one that should be restored. And if anyone wants to make something else, they should be free to do so without over-writing the original file. In the past I had suggested that the original file gets brought to wikimedia. Hence, that this current one gets deleted and that the original one gets imported from the serbian wikipedia properly. But, admins on the serbian wikipedia did not care, and people here did not care either. Regardless, the original image should be restored, and if ceha or anyone else wants to upload a completely different thing, they should not do so by overwriting this file. (Lilic (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).

@Lilic: I think the part of this that needed 'urgent' admin intervention (muzzling the upload war) is taken care of at least for the moment, and that a discussion about fixing the file as it stands needs to be moved to the RFC you started at the file talk page. Revent (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, no.

First version of map is this; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/22/20080626122344!DemoBIH2006a.png

It was under licence which enabled change. As I said, user Lilic claims that it did not have that licence, and that there was some copywright issues. I removed any of the issues wich would be questionable under Lilic's standards (new version https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006a.png ), but the guy want's to change the data (difrent municipal grid, colors... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/22/20150707194159!DemoBIH2006a.png ).

I'll see discussion on RFC... --Čeha (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)