Haziq man

Resolved

Copyvios since 2013. Also please nuke all user's uploads, the script does not mark some files for DR. /St1995 23:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Haziq man (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked 1 month, uploads nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Ymblanter

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't see any benefit from keeping this thread open, so closing this per A.Savin and Geagia. As always, keep off-commons topic off-commons. — regards, Revi 10:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter could not accept my decision to delete the images of files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. See also User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. Now he is making bad-faith vengeance nominations for deletions, see my talk page. Since I am involved in this issue, I don't want to act unilaterally but seek the input from other admins. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

All my three nominations are perfectly valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: you realise that this looks a bit fishy at best? Nominating the files of someone you had a dispute with moments ago even if you believe that the nomination is valid is seldon a wise and diplomatic move. Natuur12 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
2 of the 3 files are not even mine, so I have no vested interest in the deletion nominations. What really is troublesome here is that User:Ymblanter is an admin and should be setting a good example to the community! Moreover, as an admin, he of all people should understand better than anyone that there always will be difficult or controversial decisions to be made. Admins making such decisions in good faith should not be harassed by other admins. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Your decision is not controversial. You just plainly made a bad call, refusing to understand and to address the arguments, and then defended this bad call. If you really addressed the arguments I would have no problem with your decision. I regret that I voted for you at your RFA.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't justify your actions. As an admin you should know that the right action is to ask for undelete. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Too late. Everything was removed from the projects by the Delinker. It does not matter, whether we restore the images now or in 2017.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As P199 says, that doesn't justify revenge DRs (an unjustifiable action in any situation). The proper procedure would've been to take the case to COM:UDEL. The delinker could be reverted/the images could be re-added if the close was overturned at UDEL and the files undeleted. This was an inappropriate reaction, especially by an admin. INeverCry 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nominating copyright violations for deletion is never an inappropriate reaction, even for an admin. It would be good for P199, instead of blaming me, to go through their contribution and nominate everything which does not comply with the FoP for deletion - and to hope that the closing admin will be competent enough to take an argument-based decision, and not just blindly apply the precationary principle, as they themselves did.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep passing blame and making accusations, while calmly avoiding any admission of possible inappropriate behavior on your part. Your accusation that Andrey made that DR in bad faith is unsubstantiated, as is your accusation that P199 closed the DR "blindly". If that was the case, bring it to UDEL and it should be quickly overturned, but you won't, and it would likely stand if you did. As for your revenge DRs against P199, you've already withdrawn one, and the Philippine FoP DR was of a skyline, an obvious DM case. Revenge DRs aren't appropriate, especially when 2/3 are are weak/invalid in P199s case, and 1/2 is weak/invalid in the case of your revenge DRs against Andrey. INeverCry 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine. You remain with your opinion, I remain with mine. I am not going to take the case to UDEL. You are welcome to initiate the desysop procedure against me.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this situation warrants such an extreme measure as a de-sysop request. I'm sorry to see you suggest it rather than honestly addressing the concerns brought up here. INeverCry 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what concerns I really should address. One user is on a crusade against Russian origin files and FFDes everything which even remotely can be inappropriate for Commons. Without even attempting to upload used files to the projects they are used or to slow down, so that users could do it themselves. When he is asked to slow down, he responds that this is not his problem, and he does not care about the projects. Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. He files a FFD request with several dozens of files, very poorly motivated. A new administrator closes the request in such a way that it becomes clear that they did not even try to understand the argumentation of the sides. When I come to their talk page, they say smth like this "You know, you did not agree, and I decided that it is safer to delete the files". Period. Damage done: files are removed from the articles, users alienated, Russian Wikipedia community (which I am no part of) discusses boycotting Commons. This damage can not be undone, and we are talking about files which are to be undeleted on Jan 1 2017, so this is not worthwhile to spend another hour of my time to try restoring them now, however bad the close was. I look at the contribution of this administrator and the first thing I see are copyright violations. Should I nominate them for deletion, as I always do with copyright violations, or should I make an exception for P199 just because they have badly closed a FFD request? I am not going to look at their contribution systematically, though I am afraid there could be more copyright violations. For the Greek file, it was apparently my error, I misunderstood what was on the picture and only realized after the reactions on the FFD. Then I immediately closed the request. The Belgian one is on its way to deletion. The Filipino one is debatable; it was certainly not appropriate to close it so early, though I admit in the end of the day it likely would be kept - because the administrator would analyze the arguments, and not just look at the fact that me and P199 disagree. I believe in my eight years here this is the second FFD request with respect to which I have done any action at all, though there are hundreds of closes I disagreed with - the previous one was a clear error, and the closing administrator restored the file immediately after I politely pointed her out the error. Well, may be looking at the contribution of P199 was wrong - indeed, I should have done it before supporting them at their RFA. I believe so far I voted at all or almost all RFAs. Now I will be very cautious with RFAs of users I never came across. What else?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Accidentally, this user had serious problems in the Russian Wikipedia before he left it and was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for systematically disregarding the policy about consensus. — User Ymblanter unfortunately lie. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Your attacks are unworthy. The accusations are not true. My nomination for deletion were relevant, I rarely wrong. Files checked, administrators, and they agreed with my arguments. All nominations have been supported all conform to the rules of the Commons. Not my fault that Russian segment of Commons has accumulated a huge amount of violations of copyright files. This problem must be solved, but some prefer to turn a blind eye. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You may want to get your facts straight before accusing somebody of lying. And since I was an arbitrator, I might know what I was involved with. w:ru:Арбитраж:Деструктивное поведение участника Kor!An и грубое нарушение правил википедии администратором Wanderer, User:Kor!An = User:Andrey Korzun .--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The decision to write minor single warning (october 2009 :)). You wrote “systematically disregarding the policy about consensus” and “serious problems” — you yourself have proved that you lied. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that even since you have been warned in 2009 you still have serious problems understanding policies in 2015.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the Russian Wikipedia has never been a serious problem. I never were blocked I had no restrictions on the rights and topic-bans. Do you want to cast a shadow my reputation, it is not worthy, and you do not get. Judging by the title of this topic, serious problems in understanding the policies and rules do you have, not me. Discuss your behavior, not mine, is not it? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add that Andrey Korzun demonstrated extreme rudeness to people who spent hours of their time and tons of their effort on organizing images from WLM Russia here on Commons. This year we consider very seriously the option of not extending our support to Wikimedia Commons at all because of the extremely selfish and essentially unproductive activity on massive file deletions. At the moment, there is a lot of strain between Wikimedia Commons and the Russian-speaking community on Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. It is essentially the fault of users like Andrey Korzun who failed to discuss anything and refused to search for compromise solutions by openly insulting people and chasing them with the deletion requests instead of thinking how to solve the problem without making damage to Wikipedia and other projects. --Alexander (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You knew very well about my nominations for deletion. Who's stopping you to participate in discussions, who's stopping you to express valid arguments? Why now, you begin to slander? And do not talk on behalf of all Russian users, you do not have this authority. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I can talk on behalf of the WLM organizers, and the above statement was official in this respect.
Otherwise, I will not waste time on talking to people who were rude and offensive to me. My message was mainly addressed to non-Russian-speaking users here who may not know about the dire situation with Russian images and the lack of communication between Commons and Russian-speaking WMF projects. --Alexander (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 Comment @Ymblanter: INC is right. You need to address the issue instead of blaming others. At least 2 of your DRs were wrong, and revenge actions are never good anyway. To all others: keep the issues from the Russian WP there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue is between Commons and several other projects. Ignoring this issue, as many of the Russian-speaking Commons admins do, will only exaggerate the situation. --Alexander (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What should be the purpose of this thread? The DR's in question are to be decided as keep. There is no issue with an abuse of sysop flag (as it was necessary to start a desysop procedure). Rude tone? Well... If an active sysop even is allowed to say "Piss off into your hole" to a colleague and doesn't have to fear any sanctions for such obvious personal insult, then we have really nothing to discuss here. There are much worse sysops on Commons than Ymblanter! ;)) --A.Savin 10:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree and suggest to close this thread. While I agree that revenge DR's is not the standards we expect from admin but I do empathize Ymblanter's concern regarding the Russian speaking projects. -- Geagea (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Enriquealonso1

Only copyvios by this user, of official SEAT photos. Please delete all uploads.

Enriquealonso1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

INeverCry

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have no idea what is happening and I care even less [1] [2]. However stunts like this [3] [4] are surely reasons why if INC ever returns, it shouldn't be with a block button.

This is their third self-indef and exit, followed (previously) by a return. That's up to them, I don't care. However they don't get to let the door hit other editors on their way out. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • 06:07, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Russavia (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (how you like them stiches bitch?) (unblock | change block)
  • 06:05, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Stemoc (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (hows that for balls? Bitch.) (unblock | change block)
  • 06:04, 11 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs | block) blocked Fæ (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Russavia) (unblock | change block)

Errrm.. Can someone explain what is going on here, please? (i have revdeleted the block reason of Stemoc, it is a some sort of personal attack) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Some diffs to explain the background: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we think the self-block should be replaced with an an indefinite block for inappropriately blocking user accounts and leaving abusive block logs, pending some sort of explanation, apology and proposals to prevent a repeat performance ? The retirement (especially considering the history of INeverCry) can obviously be reversed, so should a proper desysop request be filed and if so, who would be willing to write that up ? I consider myself too closely involved with this to get further involved. Nick (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the policy for indef-blocked accounts keeping the admin bit anyway? I thought we had something against that, just because dormant accounts shouldn't ever be left with elevated privileges (Comp Security 101). It would still be good to formalise it though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no policy about it AFAIK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion thread raised at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship.
As to a desysop request, I'd start one if I can find both time and paperwork for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: perhaps it is better to let things be for the next couple of days. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No. This needs to be rectified now. INC hasn't just quit, but he's left quite the trail of destruction behind him this time, he shouldn't be given a free pass and allowed to resume where he left off in a couple of days. Nick (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Better, how? As noted at the top, I don't care if they use self-blocking for breaks, but that sort of "I'm outta here, bitches" behaviour has no place for an admin. It's bad enough that admins are allowed actions that would be clear indef blocks for mere editors, but they certainly shouldn't get to keep the tools afterwards, or to be given removed tools back on simple request, after the fuss has died down. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the problem with waiting a couple of days untill everyone is calmed down? It's not like that's the same as giving someone a free pass. At this moment a lot of people are probably quite angry and letting anger prevail is seldon a wise move. Especially at Wikimedia projects. I learned that the hard way by now. There is no direct threath right now. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the de-admin page so let's not discuss that here. He's blocked, and if starts editing/deleting then I'm sure someone else will block him. There's no need for a panic-de-adminship in order to protect Commons. So rest your pitchforks down and we'll see if any information comes to light. Otherwise we are all speculating on what occurred. The Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship suggestion would also result in an automatic bit-removal so I suggest we discuss that and approve it. -- Colin (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought our today's POTD was weird, but this, this is just sad. I believe INC was well aware that such actions would result in removal of their admin right, and we should accept this as their resignation. we don't need a de-adminship process.  ■ MMXX talk 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As noted by others I also find it sad, confusing and disturbing what INC did. I don't know why they did it and I don't really care. Its clearly not conduct an admin should do and as an experienced admin on multiple projects INC had to be aware of what the outcome would be. As many here are also aware, I have been a very vocal critic of the WMF projects tendency to let "admins follow different rules" than editors as User:Andy Dingley mentions above. If a regular editor had done something similar as what INC did, or even less, we all know they would be facing severe consequences including a likely lengthy block. I do not think we should treat INC any differently as an admin than we would do to him if they were a regular editor. Removing access to the tools from an admin after an incident like shouldn't be such a difficult thing to do. It should be expected and mandatory. Reguyla (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no comment other than to point out that earlier this year Magog The Ogre did essentially the same thing (minus the language but probably abusing checkuser) and then also pulled a self-imposed time-out and are facing no repercussions. If INeverCry has their adminship removed without proper process, so should Magog The Ogre. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The cases of these users should be handled separately, via a formal de-admin procedure. --Pitke (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As a user who has no connection to the thing at hand or its roots, I have blocked INeverCry for 30 days, on grounds of abuse of admin tools, baseless accusations, disruptive editing, and (unlisted in block log) Pointiness. Admin tools have been abused, so a de-admin discussion is in order no matter what. --Pitke (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am rather sad and disappointed that the situation became like this. I am torn, and I cannot decide. He is a hardworking admin, diligently closing DRs and deleting copyvios everyday, but I agree that he is impulsive. I can understand his feelings because I know people do stupid things when they are angry, depressed and melancholic. As for someone who is epileptic, it is even harder to know what they will do when they are angry. He should learn to control his moods and feelings and not let it affect Wikimedia. I would like to end off with 2 verses from the Bible. They are Ephesians 4:26 (“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry) and Ephesians 4:31 (Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice). This is why I am worried for INeverCry. We don't know what he will do next time when he is angry. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Jianhui67 it can't be stressed strongly enough that belief that epilepsy might affect someone's behaviour/personality or make them unpredictable when angry belongs in the 18th century along with other ignorance about race or sexuality. INC's health concerns are absolutely irrelevant wrt his actions. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Pitke I agree with changing the block time with a proper reason in the log. I have no idea what this problem is about and I don't have time to go through it, I value INC's contributions, but IMO the violation (resignation?) is clear, and there is not much to discuss in a de-admin. what would you do if a rollbacker abuses their rights? any other abuse of user rights should be treated the same.  ■ MMXX talk 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Pitke. Given the user "retired" after a block and deletion spree, it's quite clear the user himself agrees he abused the admin tools and in practice resigned; I think we can just acknowledge it and get the flag removed. The user will be able to make his case and explains his reasons when he comes back and wants the flag again. --Nemo 18:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest looking into the matter in one month when the block expires. It would be productive for everyone after such a cool off period. There is no emergency at the moment. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

De-adminship

Fry1989 raises a valid point, that there may not be consensus for a De-adminship discussion at this time. I'd propose we hold a quick poll here first, just to assess if there's consensus for a de-adminship discussion. Support for a discussion does not mean you support de-adminship, just that there should be such a discussion. This happened in the JurgenNL discussion, see [11]

@Colin: The process there was opposed on 'procedural' grounds. A quick poll here will address that concern. Revent (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A poll to decide if we have a poll to decide if an admin who has clearly committed "admin suicide" should still be an admin? Too many procedures and obsession with bureaucracy. Somebody just press the button and be done with it. It would represent a level of maturity and common sense rarely found on Commons if a 'crat just short-circuited this farce and used their head. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: As Commons bureaucrats, we do not have the technical ability to remove administrator privileges; such requests have to handled by stewards on Meta, and given their obsession with formalities, I'm quite certain they would refuse to remove INeverCry's admin rights if we were to ask them without having reached a consensus in the form of a de-adminship request. odder (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, has it crossed your mind to ask? If four or so 'crats all agreed this one's obvious and a week-long de-adminship is only going to do harm, I can't see how a steward could reach a different conclusion. It isn't as though you are giving him rights out-of-process. As it is, we just get people making ignorant comments about epilepsy, speculating on his mental heath, and repeatedly listing all the bad things again and again. According to Denniss, bad language is a de-admin criterion. Who knew? It's a farce and should be stopped by anyone with respect for INC's good contributions. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Ironic, since you're exactly the same. Trijnsteltalk 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Trijnstel: I do agree I would make an excellent steward. I might even consider running now that I know you consider I have the necessary qualities! odder (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this straw poll should continue. There is a Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (de-adminship) already. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything said, de-adminship running, no need to keep this open. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Andrey Korzun

This editor has been very rude and uncivil on at least several occasions:

  • Here he calls a person an "unbecoming clowning administrator"
  • Here and here he tries to mock other's arguments instead of addressing them

This uncivil behavior renders communication very difficult. I think that at least a serious warning should be issued, and the editor in question should re-consider his tone. --Alexander (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The user has a long history behaving like he is the only bearer of the Absolute Truth trademark. He was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia some time ago exactly for his unwillingness to look for consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if I'm someone personally touched. I do not know much English, use Google-translator, and can not always catch the negative personal meanings. Regarding defamation of Mr. Blanter I posted here and here. Good luck. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This neither gives you the right to insult other people nor excuses your practice of mocking other's arguments instead of addressing them. --Alexander (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid that insults in your imagination. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling someone an "unbecoming clowning administrator" is grossly insulting, there can't be two opinions about that. --Alexander (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I explain. I mean unworthy administrator piracy protection. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"Unworthy administrator" does not sound any better. I think it is clear now that you intentionally insulted an administrator, thus violating Commons:Assume_good_faith and being uncivil in general. This warrants an admin action. --Alexander (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is my personal opinion, which formed on the sum discussion. Protection of piracy and copyright violations under artificial prepositions is unworthy of the administrator. I think so. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a clear-cut case of a personal attack that should be frowned upon in any normal discussion. --Alexander (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And yes, thank you for this request. I hope that due him more administrators pay attention to the horrifying situation with copyright violations in the Russian segment of Commons. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is another personal attack: "I think intelligent users will understand me" implying that those who do not understand the very awkward English produced by Google Translate are unintelligent. --Alexander (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Now he is nominating Ukrainian files citing Russian law. A block might be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your sense of humor, but the argument is absurd. The main thing is the author and country of origin of a work of art. Country of origin of the work of art - the USSR; In 1943 Crimea was part of the RSFSR (Nazi Germany occupied part). The legal successor the Soviet Union and RSFR - the modern Russian Federation. Never was Ukraine. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is bullshit. It became Ukraine in 1954.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This happened after the death of the artist (1943), the author of the works. The law establishes the term "country of origin of the work of art". --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is as ridiculous as to say that whatever was built in Taganrog in 1924 is not covered by FoP since at the time Taganrog was in Ukraine. Or whatever was built in Lviv in the 1930s is covered by FoP because at the time it was Poland. Try to upload such files and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but I sincerely doubt that any Russian phrase which Google would translate into "unbecoming clowning administrator" is any more polite in its original language. If there's any doubt, I'm sure we have enough Russian-speaking users to assist with manual translation if the original phrase is provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Google is doing decent reverse translations, so I think that the original phrase was "недостойная администратора клоунада" (also consistent with the grammar form used) that is literally translated as "clownery, which is unworthy of an administrator". A human translation would be more like "you are playing fool, which is unworthy of an administrator". Some other phrases by this editor, which sound like a mess in Google-translated English, are also quite rude in their original Russian versions. --Alexander (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we may want to resolve this highly unpleasant issue, if 1) Andrey Korzun promises to refrain from controversial "borderline" RfD's like that of Nesterov's paintings (since he obviously doesn't know English language and there are still more than enough obvious cases like "monuments with no FoP" etc. where English skills are not necessary), 2) Ymblanter promises to stay away from Korzun's uploads and not to nominate any further for deletion, because at the moment we have somewhat a spiral of mutual allegations of copyvio, which all has nothing left to do with improving Commons but only with some personal animosities. Just my 2c, as I'm also a part of Russian community. --A.Savin 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can not agree with the fact that my nomination „controversial“. I asked the question on the Commons Russian forum to test their arguments Commons:Форум/Архив/2015#Срок действия исключительных прав на произведение в России. They confirmed. Then what is controversial? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
What followed was controversial. Very controversial. --Alexander (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is your opinion which is not confirmed in the rules. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Unreasonable deletion requests are one thing, and the proposed solution looks fine to me as long as it will be followed. Another thing is the very rude tone of his messages. This tone forced me to remove Commons:Форум from my watchlist, but it turned out that the user in question can be very insulting even in English conversations, and you better don't try to translate his posts back into Russian, because most of them would simply warrant a block. I am not going to monitor the activity of this user, but I promise that next time I see an insulting comment directed at me or at any other person, I will request a harsh block, and I will insist on it. Repeated personal attacks and accusations should not be tolerated. --Alexander (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that the editor in question is not going to heed to the advice given, so stronger measures may be required. --Alexander (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Как говорил один русский юморист, «ребят, не выкаблучивайтесь, скажите по-русски, что вам надо». В данной ситуации у участника своя трактовка законов. Участнику три человека указали на то, что его трактовка закона неправильна, «а Васька слушает, да ест». К тому же участник номинирует даже те файлы, которые уже были оставлены. А с момента предыдущей номинации законы не менялись, значит нет причин номинировать снова. Поэтому призываю участника прекратить дальнейшие номинации во избежание ограничения доступа к редактированию Викисклада.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ваш итог не бесспорный, так как подведён у условиях конфликта интересов. Я предложил его проверить какому-либо нейтральному администратору, не вовлечённому в конфликт. С момента предыдущей номинации открылось то обстоятельство, что в Коммонз принято было считать срок дейстия АП в 70 лет, тогда как правильно считать 74 года (в отношении некоторых авторов). Русская Википедия и Русская Викитека придерживается срока в 74 года. Почему на Коммонз должно быть иначе — никто не может да и не стремится объяснить. Сразу вопли: давайте его заблокируем. Мда. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) И кстати, не стоит упирать на количество («три человека указали на то, что его трактовка закона неправильна»), а следует руководствоваться качеством аргументов. Вот вопрос: почему моя трактовка российского законодательства неправильная? Никто пока не ответил. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
First, you are not supposed to comment on closed deletion requests. Second, the fact that the clause concerning 74 years was not mentioned in earlier discussions does not mean that it had not been considered. Third, several people explained you that "working during the war" does not mean "doing something during the period when the war happened somewhere else". Your response to this explanation was either insulting or incomprehensible. I fully agree with Alexander Savin that complex cases should be avoided by those who cannot express their thoughts in English. --Alexander (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) It's against the rules? Link, please. (2) If the issue was considered, it is necessary to give a link to the previous discussion. It was not, in the previous discussion has not been discussed term of 74 years. (3) Several people have offered interpretations that are different from text of the law. They could not confirm the interpretation of the reference to the decisions of the courts, clarification of the Supreme Arbitration Court and other competent judicial authorities. That is a personal interpretation, which can not be a valid argument. I think as before that the Wikimedia Commons should be considered a period of 74 years (some authors) just like it is done in Russian Wikipedia and Russian Wikisource. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) Per Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing decisions, "If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)."
(2) see (1), you are supposed to contact admins in charge first
(3) When asking for the Supreme Court decision, be prepared to provide one that supports your arguments. Regarding Russian Wikipedia, it considers Nesterov's and Bogaevsky's paintings as public domain. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have been uploaded locally under fair-use provisions. --Alexander (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
(3) No. The burden of proof on you. The Russian Civil Code there is no provision to which you refer. Then you need to confirm this interpretation of links to other competent legal authority. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) (2) “Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so.” — Well, well, well. However you are selectively quote rules :). --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Look, the problem with you is that you completely forget that you have no authority to interpret Russian laws, and on top of this, you never accept that you might be wrong even in a slightest detail and have a battleground mentality. This will make your short remaining tenure here miserable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The burden of proof on you. The Russian Civil Code there is no provision to which you refer. I'm sorry, I have to repeat to you. Your intimidation me, are not affected. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Next time I will nominate your uploads for deletion and ask for the confirmation from the Supreme Court that you indeed authored those images that you uploaded. Because the burden of proof lies on you. --Alexander (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The threat of destructive actions. It can not be an argument for saving Сopyvio. However, Mr. Blanter already done it Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porcelain macaw 01.jpg. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is exactly the kind of actions that you are taking. --Alexander (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not, you are mistaken. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ну я тоже могу сказать: а почему моя трактовка неверна. Или почему трактовка Александра неверна? Вы аргументируете тем, что мы не Верховный суд, но вы тоже не Верховный Суд, поэтому ваша трактовка имеет такую же силу, как и моя, Александра или Ярослава, вы же на ней настаиваете и утверждаете, что она единственно правильна.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here the editor in question confirms that he does not understand policies concerning deletion requests and articulates that he can write whatever he wants and wherever he wants as long as, according to his undeniable opinion, a copyright violation is detected. This is highly abusive and clearly warrants a block. I think that we should stop at this point and get some rest from this editor because he is clearly ignoring the compromise solution proposed above. --Alexander (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you are tired, you can forget about this discussion. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well guys, please stop flooding here. It is page for request to sysops, so let sysops to make final decision.--Anatoliy (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Stemoc‎

Stemoc has made repeated comments about User:INeverCry that cross the line from fair-commentary on INC's personality and suitableness for adminship to potentially defamatory and libelous remarks about his mental health and need for urgent medical treatment. In addition, we are seeing a disability (epilepsy) being used as grounds to discriminate against a user, which is not only unacceptable in the 21st century, but reflects an ignorance about this neurological condition, which is no more likely to affect a user's personality than having migraines or diabetes. Despite warnings from several users, he repeats these comments and refuses to accept his error.

Commons should have no tolerance for such serious personal attacks of fellow users (even if retired or blocked). A user's personality traits may at times be relevant to discussion, particularly when there is on-Commons evidence. But we should never discriminate on grounds of disability. We should never make defamatory claims about a person's medical health (mental or otherwise). And we should never suggest another user requires medical treatment or therapy.

This is far beyond name-calling when angry and frustrated. And Stemoc's block lasted 15 minutes when he wasn't even online, so I don't think that can be used as any excuse for his behaviour. It demonstrates a clear lack of appreciation about what you can and cannot say about other individual. There now needs to be some admin intervention over this defamatory material and I suggest a week block to let Stemoc reflect on the seriousness of this. @Odder, Jkadavoor, and Yann: since I mentioned them above. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And more baseless accusations by a user who has a habit of creating a Battlefield environment on commons. I have no time to gather "links" to point out the absurdity of his allegations. I have mentioned a few times above and on odder's talk page that i have previously opposed INC getting his rights backs for the same reasons, he has shown time and time again that he is "unfit" to be an admin, he has a habit of wrongfully blocking users and has a somewhat "unhealthy" relationship with Russavia whereby he "Stalks" edits by his so-called socks and in trying to block his socks, he ends up blocking innocents users and then refuses to unblock them...as i said, I have no time to waste on a user who is no longer fit to edit this wiki let alone be an admin and then abuse his rights and then refuse to talk about it even when he was given more than 72 hours to do so.....Commons would be much better if we get rid of users who create drama on this wiki for their own selfish gains.. INC has not left commons once but 3 times, infact a lot more than 3 times but he requested his rights removed on 3 occasion always citing his "health" as the reason so If i point that out in his de-adminship request, how exactly is that a "personal attack" ? I have a heart problem but you don't see me going about it or using it as an excuse to be an 'a**hole' which is what Colin is implying. I am NOT "discriminating" against INC because he is "sick", I'm against someone who has a habit of taking the wiki for granted and acting like a child by throwing tantrums everytime he/she is unable to handle the pressure only to come back a few weeks or months later to request their rights back...Is commons a Daycare? cause i definitely did not see the sign outside when i joined this wiki or is this site for MATURE users who ensure that the wiki runs smoothly without any hindrance from the outside and from within? ..The fact that INC has done this before (i.e running off 'in a huff' after being unable to handle a situation) and the fact that I do not want to see admins on wikimedia, either it be here or on enwiki taking the wiki for granted. Again, i did not discriminate based on his "health", I opposed based on his attitude and how he handled this situation.....We are 72 hours into this and still INC has neither bothered to show up to defend his actions or explain his reasoning for his actions which honestly was a personal attack by INC on me and not the other way around....I have been around for about 9 years and the way this situation was handled is quite appalling. As mentioned on his de-aminship, this was a clear case of "auto-desysopping" by a steward but instead it has to go through a process which in previous years has failed to yield the right results..--Stemoc 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you don't want to learn. Yann (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you, Yann. This isn't about INC nor about comments on personality or behaviour: those are fair-game in the appropriate forums. There is a line you cannot cross. It's quite legally important to know the difference. -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: The ADA is incredibly irrelevant in this context. Revent (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Already 7 weeks ago, Stemoc garnished his vote at INC's re-application with aggressive personal attacks on INC.[12] I didn't block him, but reminded him to behave civil.[13] Regrettably he hasn't learned it yet. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yet if we'd listened to Stemoc then it would have saved all concerned, including INC, a whole heap of trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Andy, this isn't about INC. It's about what you can write about other users. I would expect, if I had written the things Stemoc had, but about some powerful users here, I wouldn't be editing again on Commons before Christmas. I do hope Stemoc talks to some wise friends, his partner, parents or someone else he trusts to understand why such comments simply cross a line that the community does not tolerate. -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It is of course the ideal behaviour of the New Wikipedian Man to cynically think whatever they like, or to imply it to others, provided that they don't actually write certain trigger phrases. That is hypocrisy, more than it is consideration for others. If Stemoc has chosen not to observe such, then I don't condone it but nor do I see it as a lynching offence.
Let's not forget the cause of this: INC's actions in abusively blocking other editors, i.e. Stemoc, on ridiculous allegations. Not Stemoc's. Yet your reaction to this seems to be asking for INC's de-adminship to be halted, whilst seeking a block of Stemoc because of his description of INC. I'm going to join him in this: If INC self-indefs themselves three times in a fairly short period, then those are the actions of someone who is at the very least "unstable". Yes, we should not judge other editors on their medical problems or not. Yet we also should not be issuing and re-issuing admin privilege to someone who has demonstrated an evident inability to cope with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 Support I support Colin's proposed block on Stemoc for lack of COM:AGF in dealings with other users and admins. I think one week would be sufficient to read the COM:AGF page and consider it. There is no reason to accept non-AGF comments and personal attacks under any circumstances - we're dealing with media files; we're not on a "reality" television show. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A.Savin

1) On July 11, 2015 A.Savin blocked mister Chugunkin without any warning. The marked reason was vandalism.
I think there is no vandalism from mister Chugunkin who wrote that OTRS permission is needed for several concrete files (4 files). I must say that one of his nominations for deleting was accepted and two nominations were in process.
Moreover, I think there was the violation of Wikimedia rules from A.Savin. This administrator didn’t warn mister Chugunkin as it is necessary according Wikimedia rules; he blocked mister Chugunkin immediately and forever. I suspect that it was made from political reasons because famous Russian politicians were on that photos and A.Savin is from Moscow.

2) On July 11, 2015 (19:30) A.Savin blocked 83.149.8.172 without any warning. The marked reason was vandalism. But in reality this user wrote in “Commons:Форум” (in Russian) about non-ethical behavior of A.Savin. A.Savin deleted the report from this anonym user and blocked him. And A.Savin wrote the extremely obscene profanity in edit summary (according the Artem Korzhimanov' qualification which we can see in “Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism“ on July 11, 2015, 19:36).

3) The same story was on July 11, 2015 (21:47) when A.Savin blocked 83.149.8.160 without any warning. The marked reason was vandalism. But in reality this user wrote in “Commons:Форум (in Russian) about non-ethical behavior of A.Savin. A.Savin deleted the report from this anonym user and blocked him.

4) On July 11, 2015 (23:11) A.Savin blocked 195.16.110.150 without any warning. The marked reason was vandalism. In reality this anonym only returned the report which was deleted by A.Savin without any explanations.

5) On July 13, 2015 (07:01) A.Savin blocked 83.149.8.149 without any warning. The marked reason was vandalism. In reality this anonym wrote warning about the violation of Wikimedia rules by A.Savin on Savin’s user talk page. A.Savin deleted the report from this anonym user and blocked him.

6) On June 30, 2015 (for example, 11:21) A.Savin wrote non-ethical reports about mister Schekinov Alexey Victorovich in “Commons:Форум” (in Russian) during the discussion about “Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Perm”.

So, I’d like to know why this administrator (A.Savin) is doing all such things. According to A.Savin the each thing which he doesn’t like, is vandalism.
At the present writing I’m afraid that this administrator will block me or my friends.
Please, check these cases and help!

Xenia Odnoletko. — Ксения Однолетко (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not have an entry "disruptive editing" in the drop-down menu, this is why we have to use vandalism. I will try to discuss it at the village pump when I have time. As for 83*, the range must be blocked, the user is on a crusade and has a dynamic IP. I blocked them already twice and protected two pages against them.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
While I cannot comment to the underlying conflict/background, as I don't have knowledge about it and don't understand Russian language, fact is that the 83* IP repeatedly posted inappropriate personal information about 1 person in this conflict. This behaviour deserved a block. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked to Chugunkin's contribs. His edits look good. Nomination for deletion are not forbidden. So I think the blocking of Chugunkin was incorrect. It is not an vandalism. We cannot block users if we dislike their DRs. So I removed this block.--Anatoliy (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
All Chugunkin did is nominating for deletion of files where there is no doubt that the photos are made by the uploader (Dmitry Rozhkov, who contacted me to stop this user). The reason "needs OTRS permission" is absurd at least, but likely vandalism. The statement "His [Chugunkin] edits look good" must be a joke, or (more likely) intentional harrassment against a sysop who acted in good faith. --A.Savin 08:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I saw last DR - photo of Milonov. Google finds this image on several sites. So it is not simple case and DR is reasonable there. It is possible copyvio and we should investigate this case: which site published image first (image does not look like own work because of small resolution).--Anatoliy (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless "Needs OTRS permission" is a clearly invalid RfD reason in this case, as there was no external file source given, nor any different authorship. As a sysop you actually should know such elementary things. And what about the RfD of this file which is certainly no copyright violation? What comes next now? Maybe Chugunkin is going to nominate all my photos for deltion because there are no OTRS tags included? This issue with unblocking should at least have been discussed; with your wheelwarring, you abused your sysop rights once again. Not surprising! --A.Savin 09:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you should explain to user where he is wrong. On Commons users usually get blocks after warnings. You should give warning to user that his edits are bad. If he continues to do that you may block them. But I do not see warnings on his talk page.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As we all have ru-N or ru-4 let me explain also in Russian. Я посмотрел вклад участника: отнюдь не все его правки являются вандальными. По крайней мере номинации фото Милонова и Валуева следовало бы рассмотреть более тщательно. Гугл находит такие же фото на многих сайтах, при этом фото Валуева есть в большем зазрешении. Да, с Железняком участник ошибся, но ведь AGF никто не отменял. На Викискладе обычно перед блокировкой делают предупреждение (вдруг участник не знал, что так делять нельзя?). Напишите участнику предупреждение, что так делать нельзя и если он будет продолжать в том же духе, тогда можете с чистой совестью блокировать.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. There were no warnings on Chugunkin’s talk page. I think that it was the violation of Wikimedia rules from administrator A.Savin. This administrator didn’t warn mister Chugunkin as it’s necessary according Wikimedia rules; he blocked mister Chugunkin immediately and forever. — Ксения Однолетко (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, normally it needs a warning and a discussion with the user in question e.g. on their talk page. But if abusive RfD's come from a newly registered user, then it is very likely a case of bad faith. (In general, if a user on Commons does not do anything else than RfD's, then something is definitely wrong with this user...). --A.Savin 09:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be good though if the user understands that FfD nominations should be opened not at will but when there are serious doubts about their provenance, and the doubts must be clearly articulated in the nominations.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
We also have doubts with nominations by Andrey Korzun (see above). Should we block him?--Anatoliy (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not against unblocking the user, I have just noticed a troubling pattern when looking at their contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That case is different (and likely more severe) because the user in question refuses to follow the advice given by one of the admins. --Alexander (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ксения Однолетко: Can you please give proper diffs to A'Savin's 'non-ethical reports'?--Anatoliy (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, this case was already reviewed by sysops. So I do not see reasons to review it. As in Andrey Korzun's case: there are no new reasons from previous case.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you have also seen what Shchekinov said before I blocked him for a month?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you say to me or to Xenia?--Anatoliy (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I was replying to Xenia, sorry for screwing up the markup, now corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Sorry, but I know nothing about conflict between Shchekinov and You. I don’t know what Shchekinov said before You blocked him. As for me, I watched A.Savin's non-ethical reports in “Commons:Форум” (in Russian) during the discussion about “Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Perm”. — Ксения Однолетко (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this thread actually about the block of Chugunkin, about obscene remark on an IP, about my conversation with Schekinov, or simply about my person because you don't like me for reasons known only to yourself (or not even to yourself)? --A.Savin 10:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@ A.Savin: Your proposals are wrong. It’s simply about my own person because I’m afraid that You will block me (or my friends) without any reasons. Xenia Odnoletko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ксения Однолетко (talk • contribs)
"I'm scared of this user" was afaik never a reason to open a user problem against this user, let alone to punish him. Maybe in Russian wikipedia, but surely not here on Commons. --A.Savin 11:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not about a conflict between Shchekinov and me. If we were in conflict, I would not be able to block him as an involved administrator. You can believe me that he user the most dirty words one can imagine in Russian, which triggered one of the responses by A.Savin (which I believe he later deleted).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Xenia, Викисклад является многоязычным проектом, поэтому каждый имеет право писать здесь на том языке, на котором ему удобно. В этой дискусии принимают участие только русскоязычные участники, поэтому я не вижу смысла вести диалог на английском (тем более, нерусскоязычные врядли поймут фразу Савина, к которой ві аппелируете). По поводу указанного вами диффа: да, здесь действительно есть наршуение, но вы сами сказали (и вас ведь никто за язык не тянул!), что этот случай уже рассматривался на Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism и там подведен итог. Поэтом я не вижу смысла пересматривать это решение. Такова специфика Викисклада: админ может принимать решение самостоятельно, если каждый будет пересматривать решение другого админа, не имея на то веских причин (то есть если не появились новые факты), то будет бардак. Решение часто зависит от того, на какого администратора вы попадёте. В данном случае не повезло, админитсратор отклонил запрос, это останется на его совести. Со временем вы наберётесь опыта, будете знать, к какому администратору лучше обратиться, чтоб он вынес правильное решение.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, colleagues who aren't happen to know Russian language should of course not learn about your recent abuse of sysop rights by wheelwarring. And your last sentence in the comment straight above ("Со временем вы наберётесь опыта, будете знать, к какому администратору лучше обратиться, чтоб он вынес правильное решение", translation: "With the time, you [Xenia] will gain more experience and you will know which administrator you better should contact in order that they make the right decision") is so ingenious that I probably should put in into a picture frame and hang on the wall in my room. You really made my day, thanks a lot. --A.Savin 10:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Anatoliy : Спасибо, Anatoliy! Вы очень хорошо всё объяснили. (По-русски мне писать, безусловно, удобнее.) Однако господин Савин непременно хочет переводить на английский язык. Вероятно, он переведёт и мою фразу: «Я действительно опасаюсь, что такой администратор как Александр Савин может без достаточных оснований, нарушая установленные правила, заблокировать бессрочно любого участника проекта «Викимедиа», в том числе и меня». — Ксения Однолетко (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
So, you think that my opinion above is not correct? If it is not correct then you should be warned (or blocked) for the obscene language. My above words is not final decision. It is my opinion. And there is no wheel-warring. If you revert my unblock and I revert you block again, it will be wheel-warring. Otherwise each unblock request or undeleion request may consider as wheel-warring.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ahonc: please be more reluctant with ondoing admin actions made by others. Especially when a discussion is going on. This is not the first time that you overrule another admin in a very short time. I am not stating that the block is right or wrong but the least you could have done is giving A. Savin the change to motive his block further. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is some little difference between your actions and an unblock/undeletion request: an unblock/undeletion on request requires some consensus, whereas you did all without any discussion. --A.Savin 11:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, but this request was closed in short time too.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
A tu quoque? Really? There is a difference between a clear case like that one (judging if a certain edit summary should warrant a warning or a block) and this kinda complicated situation. Natuur12 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP edits looks like vandalism to me. May be it was a good idea to warn before blocking user Chugunkin to avoid this kind of thread but, for me, the unblock done by Ahonc much more problematic. No comment in this thread and the edit summary of the unblock is objectionable. -- Geagea (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Я думаю, что все сказали здесь всё, что им сказать. Время закрыть. Администраторы, не забудьте, что вы не единственный администратор и даже не единственный русскоязычный администратор в Викискладе. Вы можете всегда жаловаться здесь, другие придут на помощь. Ксения Однолетко, вас не блокируют, если вы останьтесь вежливой как здесь. А. Савин, не используйте больше XYŽ-слово.
Everybody has said, what (s)he had to say. I think, that no action is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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


Harassment from the User:Ymblanter

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is going nowhere. I already made a proposal, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. --A.Savin 11:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Again followed Ymblanter's request to the absurd justification Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porcelain macaw 01.jpg. I can not understand it differently as harassment. See previous Ymblanter's requests with strange arguments Commons:Deletion requests/File:USSR EWCS №33 Union of Artists congress sp.cancellation.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lanterns on the Patriarshy bridge 01.jpg (one of my scan, one of my own photo) and the section above with examples of other Ymblanter's harassments. I'll be grateful for the feedback from the neutral administrators who are not involved in the conflict. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[14] [15]. --A.Savin 12:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand. The request was withdrawn? Edit has not been abolished, there was no apology for the mistake. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not propose it retrospectively, otherwise to be fair you had to withdraw some of your RfD's too. --A.Savin 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that Andrey Korzun rejected the offer saying his nominations are not controversial.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with this deletion request. I don't understand why Andrey Korzun considers it normal to submit highly controversial deletion requests and openly accuse people having different opinions, but makes a big fuss when any of his uploads are challenged. I am quite sure that this disruptive behavior warrants a block. --Alexander (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Butko and ButkoBot placing files into "unidentified countries" categories

For some time, User:Butko and User talk:ButkoBot have been placing files from top-level categories such as Category:Buildings into "unidentified countries" subcategories such as Category:Buildings in unidentified countries, even in cases where:

  • the country is clearly identified in the name of the file
  • the country is clearly identified in the file description
  • the file description identifies a city, state or territory or other location in a known country
  • the file description contains correct geographical coordinates that unambiguously identifies a country
  • the file is overcategorised into both Category:Something in some country or more specific place and Category:Something, or
  • several of the above

For example here and here.

There were no such category change in the test run leading up to the bot approval as far as I can tell, and there does not appear to be any consensus for such edits. In fact, there appears to be significant opposition to them by users including Mattbuck, Beyond My Ken, DarwIn, Rodhullandemu, Faqscl, Jmabel, Gnangarra, Rmhermen, Herzi Pinki and myself:

Most of these objections have been brushed off, several of them have not even been dignified with a response, and the mass edits continue unabated contrary to consensus. In my opinion, this is unacceptable and needs to stop. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorting by country manualy and by bot. You can find thousands of examples --Butko (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The second one of those edits you linked (to File:Fort_Sumner_Sunrise_(8360141882).jpg) is an error... The location is in the US state of "New Mexico", not the country of "Mexico". Revent (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing --Butko (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't change the subject. This is not about edits that place files into country-specific categories. This is about edits that incorrectly place files into "unidentified country" categories. It's good that not all your edits increase entropy, but it doesn't change the fact that you've made a mess with lots of edits like this going back at least to December, and you're piling up the mess far faster than you're cleaning it up, even after ten different people have asked you to stop. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that my edits decrease entropy and fix mess in main categories because I'm not alone who work with this. With help of different users I can sort out a lot of files. I see a great work in my watchlist. Maybe annoying name "unidentified" call to change to exact name. Number of users who work more then number of users who write complaints. --Butko (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Placing files for which the country is not unidentified into a category that suggests it is does not fix anything. Those categories are for files which have been properly reviewed and the country could not be identified. If you think there is consensus to the contrary, please name those "different users" and link to discussions, as I have done above. I do a fair bit of work on properly categorising files from top-level categories as well as "unidentified" categories, and I pay attention to the file histories. I can't recall seeing anyone else working on moving files for which the country is not unidentified into a category that suggests it is, so I am curious as to who exactly these "different users" are. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@LX: "Those categories are for files which have been properly reviewed and the country could not be identified." is a reasonable interpretation of these categories, but that's clearly not Butko's interpretation (and even the old wording of the template implied that the country could be determined). Perhaps we should make a category called category:Buildings in countries that cannot be determined, but that sounds a bit pointless, and for such cases they're probably better left out of the "by location" substructure entirely, or perpetually left in "unknown". --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If you need one or more temporary hidden categories or user categories as part of your sorting work, please feel free to create them, but please don't multiplex an existing, visible category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is tricky, because we *do* have a problem with high-level categories. Our manual diffusion speed is too slow, and bulk uploads dump in a lot. Butkobot has done this to my uploads too, but perhaps as a result of this discussion has also resolved the issue properly. Perhaps someone can work toward a bot which does category intersection of [[Category:* in unidentified countries]] with subcats of category:Countries? Anyway, now that everyone is engaging, I think this can be deescalated into a discussion somewhere rather than a user problem. I suggest we continue at either Template talk:Unidentified_countries or User talk:Butkobot. @Butko: are you willing to commit to discussing this to resolution before sending more into "unidentified"? (Or at least limit it to files uploaded from Flickr?) --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we have a problem with high-level categories and that backlogs keep growing. I just don't think that Butko's approach is the solution to the problem. But my main concern is that after all these objections, the response is not to stop, discuss and develop consensus but to charge straight on like a blind rhino. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Natsume96

Although indicated as Own work, all uploads seem to be copyvios. Alex Spade (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, mass-deleted, user warned--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Hernandezcarba05

Although indicated as Own work, the vast majority of the uploads seem to be copyvios. --Leyo 14:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid we have to treat them case by case, and the user has not yet been warned (only got one deletion notice).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to help, then. --Leyo 19:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
All listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DUI ejemplo.PNG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by User:INeverCry

I was blocked by User:INeverCry on the basis of one edit when I have many thousand edits here.[16] She put me in a category of a blocked sockpuppet that she created here. No checkuser was ever done on wikipedia and I'm not that person.

02:38, 9 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs) blocked EChastain (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Mattisse)

If an editor is blocked on wikipedia, are they're blocked here also and put into a sockpuppet category? Please excuse the alternate username, but my talk page was blocked and my ip was blocked. Thanks for any help you can give me. Xyz123qqq (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Using socks since 2006. CU results: en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse. Xyz123qqq blocked indef as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington, those links are on English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Can someone please direct me towards the policy on Commons whereby an editor with 50,000+ edits is summarily blocked without any degree of oversight from the community, has talk page access revoked, and all email access revoked. The way that admins are acting in such cases on Commons is not good and makes them look no better than the WMF with it's abusive use of a global ban against myself. The editor in question should be unblocked now! 121.221.49.78 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are globally banned, you are not welcome on Commons does not matter how many edits you have. Get first the global ban lifted.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked the IP. We don't allow blocked users to edit AN with socks & ip's. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked another sock and reverted his edits. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Continued violations by User:Dapopewarrior, already blocked for previous copyvios

File:Menzieshill closure 2015.jpg by User:Dapopewarrior has just been deleted as a copyvio. (Even gave name of newspaper whose site it was published on two days prior to upload here!)

User already warned about copyvios then- apparently- continued to upload and was blocked over a year ago (for a period of three months). Since then, three further files of his/hers have been uploaded; I can't guarantee that the others were uploaded (rather than just caught) after the block, but the one mentioned above was definitely recent.

21 out of 25 of this user's uploads have been deleted as copyvios (and possibly out of scope); this makes me very sceptical about the remaining four.

Attribution is weird- this "own work" has author "Madison Elementary School Projects"- nothing meaningful on Google- and this says author is "Menzieshill High School", which I'm guessing he's associated with. Both have the same EXIF camera model, so I'm inclined to believe they *are* his own work. Still weird, and why the discrepancies between claimed and EXIF dates on some uploads?

Anyway, is there anything we should do here?

Ubcule (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ blocked indef. Third block, that's it. I vote to delete the remaining files per Com:PCP. Or does someone want to open a regular DR? Either way, it needs to be dealt with. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I nominated one, and I think the rest is OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'm still suspicious of the Discovery Point one, but I can't find any evidence that it's a copyvio...! Ubcule (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Contributions of Blythe Spirit

Please read this and determine if anything should be done with respect to this editor's uploads. Thank you. --NeilN (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from allowing the use my René Bazinet, without my consent, in fact I'd very much appreciate their removal from Wkimedia. Common courtesy and consideration should be exercised in such cases and the ownership of a photographer’s work should be respected. I had previously composed and posted a comprehensive profile/bio, of René, only to experience others making inappropriate edits and finally being notified by an administrator, "John of Reading" that due to a lack of published references it didn’t meet Wikipedia standards, in any event. I had originally added the images, which are copyrighted, to accompany my composition, but was under the misconception that others could only use them with my permission. The policies regarding permission and image utilization were ambiguously stated and I did not interpret them correctly, as it turned out. Neither was I aware that once they were added to Wikimedia I relinquished the privilege to remove them, from that site. I decided not to press the issue and for about a year they have not been used. I’m sure you can understand and appreciate why I wouldn’t want my photographic work to be used by unauthorized people to represent another's text, especially, after I deleted all of my previous contributions, from the René Bazinet page. Thanking you, in advance, for honoring my wishes and deleting the images I took of René Bazinet, as I'm disinclined to give my express approval, of their use, for the above mentioned reasons. Blythe Spirit (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Opened deletion request on behalf of the uploader (req at enwp) as a courtesy: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Blythe Spirit – czar 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Smart manoel

Smart manoel (talk · contribs), multiples copyright violation. Ignore the warnings he received. Fabiano msg 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Serteko

I'm not sure what to make of this. Very odd edits for a supposed new user. He continued editing (equally oddly) while ignoring my question on his talk page. This may be the same person as User:Serkot, in which case these edits are a mix of OK and maybe in one case (changing a redirect to point to a page that doesn't exist) possibly less than competent, but if it is someone else, then this looks like vandalism to me. Posting here because I may not be able to keep an eye on this myself over the next day or so. - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account for self promo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cynocyno

Cynocyno is uploading images of en:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam‎ that are web grabs, but after manipulating them, and then listing them as own work. Since this is a recent death, they are then repeatedly reinserting these copyvio images on to the en.wiki article. I've tried explaining to them on en.wiki, but they don't seem to listen. File:APJ ERODE.jpg is an example of the manipulation being done. where they are over writing the background, so it's difficult to find the source. I'd also tagged another such manipulation yesterday. Can someone please do something? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The deleted manipulated images are: File:APJ.jpg and File:Kalam at Chennai.jpg, the former a crop of a syndicated news image and the latter a TV clipping crop. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User on enwiki, certainly able to understand the information and warning. I left a very last warning on his talk page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed map!

Alternate history world map of 1964 from the novel Fatherland.
Alternate history world map from the novel The Man in the High Castle. Geography would have been much much easier and the world would have been a much sadder place.

For a long time, there is a controversial map on commons. Many similar language maps available but each different. No any reliable source .In 11 February 2014, User:HistoryofIran unilaterally fixed many changes within the borders of Iran. Removed Afshar language, Khorasani Turkic, other Turkic dialects from Fars Province, Azerbaijani retract up and partial regulation Turkmen languge southern Turkmenistan without any satisfactory exp. Similar changes have been made in other maps. [17] Also, an ongoing edit war the Turkish language in Turkish territories. This map should be deleted or supported by reliable sources. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think images on Commons require reliable sources as do assertions in various language Wikipedias; the problem of accuracy arises when and if such images are used in articles, and it is then up to those with local knowledge to determine whether to use the image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like you are one of two people who have been edit warring over this. Commons can have more than one version of a map. I strongly suggest each making your own maps instead of fighting over this one. If you want yours to be the one that gets used in encyclopedias, then providing some decent citation for yours will definitely help. - Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We have very creative maps of all sorts including imaginary nations. I posted two examples of fictional maps from novels. What language starts where and ends where is a topic debated by linguists far and wide so I wouldn't worry too much about it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

Can someone please take a look at Krishna Chaitanya Velaga's uploads. A lot of copyvios have been deleted, but today I came across some that he had uploaded using his flickr account of Indian army images. I've tagged a few more, but Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga gives a background of the Indian army images. Perhaps there's some flickrwashing going on too, as they've uploaded book covers to flickr to move here also. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The user was given a final warning by Yann. —SpacemanSpiff 15:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, I'm not familiar with these government licenses but File:44th Airborne Division 2.jpg seems to be released under IWM Non-commercial license but uploaded here as Open Government License. As it's a scan of something that's probably out of copyright, it may be ok, maybe you can take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, also deleted. Yann (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Adminship of Magog the Ogre

Keeping this open has no benefit at all. Now that the issue is resolved and involved parties have apologised to one another, I think this can be closed. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be dealt with, and since Magog the Ogre appears to rescinded their retirement that time is now. I also have zero faith that any admins will do this themselves.

Magog the Ogre's recent behaviour brings to question their level of clear and impartial judgement when it comes to their access to the administrator tools. These actions include:

  • Rage-quitting in which they twice blocked themselves indefinitely and then for a third time on a temporary basis after which they would re-evaluate if they wish to remain on Commons.
  • Attempted extortion of another admin, commanding them to block another user or else they themselves would block that admin and initiate an immediate de-admin request.
  • Indeed blocking that admin after their refusal.
  • Not only reblocking the user in question (myself), but also in effect tripling that block without consensus from 3 days to 9.
  • Attempting to justify the inappropriate use of "cool down" blocks which are against policy.
  • Most likely abusing their access to the checkuser tool as part of their rage-quit to see whether Fastily and myself were socks of each other.

Now I am aware that the first thing that will be said here is that I am just attempting revenge. However, these are serious actions, and I ask everyone to consider whether if another user or admin raised these issues, they would be able to say the same thing to excuse it away. What I think should happen really doesn't matter, because even in a full de-admin procedure the ultimate decision is up to the wider community. However, over the past week I have raised the issue of inconsistency in dealing with admin misbehaviour. Considering INeverCry acted in nearly the same way (rage-quit, blocks other users/admins, possibly misuses checkuser, blocks themself) and a nearly immediate de-admin was initiated, Magog the Ogre's similar actions also demand proper review. Fry1989 eh? 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I behaved extremely poorly that day, no arguments. So, I'd like to make a statement, with several bulletpoints:
  • With what I am about to say, I do not by any means want to give the impression that I am not contrite or unrepentant about the whole affair. I am also not trying to save my skin (as I will explain below, I have only one objective in mind: keeping Commons a better place).
  • I have not performed a checkuser on Fry, Fastily, or anyone else with whom I've ever been in a dispute. Any other CU can verify this.
  • Apparently I set a bad example, and INC has followed it. Either that, or it is just a coincidence. In either case, to the community, to INC, I'm sorry.
  • My reblock of Fry and my block of Fastily were wildly inappropriate. This is the reason I blocked myself for two months. I thought I deserved censure for my poor behavior. I realize this sounds odd, but I figured someone ought to do it, and no one would want to touch it with a ten foot poll.
As for my administrator and checkuser rights, if only for my personal happiness, I would be glad to give up all rights, and I probably would have done so. Nevertheless:
  • Several very kind and gracious users posted on my talk page, in spite of my poor behavior, to let me know they didn't want to see me go, and they thought we would be better off if I didn't follow through.
  • When I considered the number of deletions and blocks, etc. that I perform, and the already staggering lack of manpower we have for Commons administrators, it seemed to me like Commons would be worse off if I were to give up my administrator rights. For what it's worth, between my time off and with Fastily gone, already I see a ton of problematic files laying around that no one is catching(Example of vandalism that sat around for 11 days). I even see some problematic checkuser ranges which operated for a while with impunity while I didn't catch them (here are two: [18] [19])
So I am going to be bold, and to propose a solution:
  • I will never ever ever block Fry again (or Fastily, should he return). I will not speak poorly to him. If I engage with him, I will be politer to him than would be the Queen of England.
  • I will never block someone when I am upset with them or with whom I am not impartial.
  • Should I violate either of these clauses in any capacity, I will voluntarily give up all administrator rights. No need to bother with a deadmin request.
If Commons is not OK with this, that is fine. Like I said, I am not doing this for me. I am doing it for Commons. I do not want to see us turn into a place where copyvios and selfies take over.
With that, I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I don't think INC followed in your ogre-footsteps. IMHO a coincidence, nothing more. Nevertheless, the situation created is a big mess. For further blocking you and/or removal of certain rights: In the grand scheme of things, the transgressions are outliers. You performed so many admin/cu actions without fail before. I hope Fry is OK with your proposal. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fry didn't lose much in the grand scheme of things; it is Fastily who lost much, and it is Fastily whose feelings that you and others should be considering when it comes to Magog's proposal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think Magog's proposal would be fair to Fastily, who is both desyopped and gone. Do you believe that if Fastily had made similar promises, the community would allow him or her off the hook? Let's face it: the reason that Fastily was desyopped while Magog was not is because Fastily is unpopular while Magog is popular. I don't believe that popularity should me equal a "get out of jail free card". Allowing Magog retain his sysop privileges doesn't do justice to Fastily or INeverCry. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Michaeldsuarez: difference is that Fastily showed poor behaviour for years and that desysop would have happened sooner or later. INC made a promise and broke it while Magog's actions are a "first time offence". He appologised, made a plan of action and he showed a huge amount of self reflection. If Fastily dealth the same way with critisism as Magog does he would still be an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Magos is a human, humans making errors. Magog the Ogre has excused for his behavior. Desyopping him because he made one time a (big) error is not fair at all imho. Magog is doing a lot for commons (admin + cu actions and all the code(bot) work). I think we should forgive him. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Steinsplitter and Natuur12. --Leyo 13:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I am not familiar with the event in question or in Magog's history here. I also don't think I have interacted much if at all with them elsewhere so I don't have much experience with them either way. I do share concerns about the actions and suggested at IRC within the last few days before they started editing that perhaps the admin and CU permissions should be removed, at least temporarily. Now that they have returned the situation has changed somewhat but this does seem to have the signs of "I'll just leave for a while and when I come back things will be settled down and everyone will have forgotten about it" mentality. That's a tactic I have seen a lot from experienced editors and admins over the years get out of troubling situations and I would only suggest that we treat them no different than any editor. Regardless of status or access, if an action would not be tolerated for one individual and is for another, that isn't how we should operate. If the community decides that the action was inappropriate then their status as an admin or CU shouldn't be a get out of jail free card. That happens on other WMF sites a lot and I would hate to see this one fall into the same habit. With all that said, if the community decides to forgive them for this one time error in judgement I am ok with that. Commons seems to be losing a lot of experienced admins of late and I would hate to lose another one. Reguyla (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How about we ask Fry for his opinion? He brought it up and I really would like to hear from his side as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As requested, I will respond. I have not only refrained, I have not even read the progress of this discussion since my initiation as I felt any further comment would only add to the sense that I was just trying to get revenge on someone it is well know I don't get along well with. I will say that I find the recent loss of 2 admins and possibly a third in less than 2 months is unfortunate all ways around. I am also quite sure that there are many users whom hold Magog the Ogre in the highest esteem. My experience with them however, and Fastily's experience with them as I understand it, has been relatively negative. That's no different than most users' experiences here however, you get along with some and you don't get along with others. My reason for initiating this however comes from three main concerns.
  • Inconsistency in approaching admin rage-quits, which I raised both on INeverCry's de-admin and on the main de-admin discussion
  • Threatening another admin to do a course of action or else
  • Increasing the time of a user's block 3-fold, an action that can either be interpreted as an incredibly poor release of judgement, an oversight as part of their highly emotional state during rage-quit, or as being vindictive
What I desire is for the community to take these actions seriously, and decide what is appropriate in dealing with them. I do not want excuses that "Fry brought this up, so let's give it a pass" which has been my fear but am happy to see has not been the case. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This still needs a proper conclusion, not to be swept under the rug by an archive bot. Fry1989 eh? 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think an apology has been given by Magog and any further demands for sackcloth and ashes is beating a dead horse. Use the time saved from typing another book on this topic to help the project instead. All this drama of late - and even more amazing as all the dramaturgs profiles claim they are grown men - is unbecoming to users of this project and unnecessary to the goals and outcomes of Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine, then don't ask for my opinion next time and summarily ignore it for a week until the archive bot sweeps this away! I wouldn't have even commented on here if Hedwig in Washington had not requested I do so. I have been incredibly restrained in my reaction to this situation, your claim of my demanding sackcloth and ashes I find really over the top. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ellin is exactly right. This can be archived safely. Yann (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I for one hope this isn't another example of Admins being extended extra latitude over editors which its shaping up to look like. This appears to be a clearcut case of an admin doing whatever they want, people get upset, they leave for a while till things cool off and then come back and apologize when things have cooled down. I also know that if an editor screws up and does something like edit warring, personal attacks or maybe even editing through a block they would not be treated the same way if they just leave for a couple months and then come back and apologize. They would not be extended the same "courtesy" regardless of how long they had edited the project or how much they did. They would be cast aside. So to me this goes back to the statements I made above. If we are going to treat one class of editor differently than another, then we need to stop doing that and treat every editor consistently and according to policy. What we need to do is show that this project doesn't care if you are an admin or editor, if you screw up, there are consequences even if you storm off in a huff and come back after a break. Reguyla (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I do want to clarify that I don't think a desysop is necessary in this case. Had he simply left and came back I would feel differently. In this case he knew he screwed up, blocked himself for a lengthy period and stayed away the duration of the block. My reasoning just isn't of the he is an admin so we should let this go variety as seems to be some folks feelings above. Reguyla (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with points made by Steinsplitter, Natuur12, Ellin Beltz, Yann and Reguyla above. I think archiving this discussion is appropriate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree to with Steinsplitter, Natuur12, Ellin Beltz, Yann, Reguyla and Walter Siegmund. -- Geagea (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to see at least Reguyla gets what this looks like. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You are indicating that everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid. That's not really an appropriate way of discussion. To me it looks like Magog knows he behaved badly and I trust he'll do his best to have no temper at Commons in the future. If he doesn't succeed they can still remove his admin privileges.--Stanzilla (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm indicating that there is an appearance which many users sense that admins get preferential treatment in these situations. I haven't asked for any specific course of punitive action against Mogog the Ogre, and I really don't hold any desire to see one carried out (after-which we have all had time to breathe, which perhaps was best after all). What I do have a problem with is how this has been dealt with. I take issue with how it's being closed. Whatever you think of Magog the Ogre, this is a case of a admin misbehaving, and that is always a serious issue. What should have happened, is that after Magog the Ogre stated their apology and their response on how they will act in the future, is that there should have been some sort of a consensus response of "this is what we expect from you, and we will hold you to it in the future" and then this AN should have been properly and officially closed by an admin. It shouldn't be left open from ignorance, and swept away without official closure by a bot. That's my complaint. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Reguyla to a point - users should be treated equally but this is also a matter of trust. Everyone is human and can make mistakes but the fact is that some of us take criticism better than others. Irrespective of his/her contributions, Magog has made an error, apologised for it and offered a pathway for future conduct. I know some of you will have raised hackles when you read this but AGF comes to mind. Let us accept Magog's statement and move on; if there is cause for concern in the future, we can always revisit this issue but let this be water under the bridge. Fry, you had a disagreement with FDMS and in the end you went and discussed the issues. Now is a good time to put grievances to one side and get on with the things we value you for - your contributions. For what it's worth I would rather have Magog stay on and do the admin and check-user tasks that are being sorely missed. I would also have been happier if we hadn't lost INC, Fastily and yes even Russavia. Green Giant (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (1)

For what it's worth, Fry, I don't think you're being at all vindictive or inappropriate. I don't think anyone else does either. As for the other positions (unequal treatment), I will refrain from comments here (unless someone asks me otherwise) because I'm not sure it's appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to hold a grudge, we have fought enough times that I thought I could, but that isn't fair. You have been the bigger man, and I am sorry. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fry, it takes some guts to write this here on Commons. I hope the two of you find common(s) grounds. Let's go back to work!
Fry and Magog: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Mr. Ibrahem (talk · contribs)

Uploaded a lot of recent books as {{PD-old}}. Many them on Arabic. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mr. Ibrahem. Yann (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked him for a week and nominated one book more for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: I would assume good faith here. See comments in the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mikbenu90 (talk · contribs)

Could an admin please look at this users contributions. I suppose this is the same user as Mikhail1990 who was blocked indef. 28th of July; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikhail1990

As Mikbenu90 he has made some uploads, mostly pictures of himself (?) and some of young women, maybe schoolmates. These are out of scope, I think, and should be deleted. Last summer he uploaded a photo of a school; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%C3%B8renskog_vgs.jpg It`s hard to tell if this is his own or not. He has also uploaded a photo of an aircraft https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KLM_Dutch_Airlines.jpg Apart from this he has only edited his own userpage. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nelmo Styles

Nelmo Styles (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) 

"New" user starting their Commons career by vandalising user pages and uploading full length movies ripped from 20th Century Fox.

I'm guessing this is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet associated with the recent weird Facebook-coordinated attempt to turn Wikimedia into an Angolan Pirate Bay that's been mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15#Movicel12, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15#NG commons, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15#Marcelino P.J and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Adolfo Paulino. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Josef Hashever (talk · contribs)

I see the actions of User:Josef Hashever as very problematic. I've already deleted as a fake - and as a fake it is a terrible propaganda against a religious group. Even this document is probably a fake - or it would be a copyvio. In no way Commons would be a second Wikileks. We are not the place to leake documents and not a place for publishing (such) documents the fisrst time - it would be a kind of original research. And there are other Copyvios of images too. Copyvios, Fakes - I would think, this user should be bloked indefinetly. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indef'd by Steinsplitter. --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Abusing commons for publishing fake material is vandalism. Blocked therefore. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, fakes and copyvios should be deleted right away, and the user should be blocked if he continues. However if such documents were real, and were not copyvios, I don't see anything in our rules which would prevent them being published here. But with the current copyright laws in Europe, the documents would need to be more than 70 years old, at the very least. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly fake, the wording is very unprofessional. I already asked for a global ban via email. No need to spread this dirt any further than it already is. Just disgusting. Maybe we can extradite this user to the US and let dentist Walter Palmer do the rest? Just a thought. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all. @ Yann: yes - and because of that I wanted to have a second and maybe a third pair of eyes. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of my username and my personal name

By accident I came upon the user page of User:JoJan-JoJan in Special:Contributions/JoJan-JoJan. My username is JoJan and I have made contributions for more than 11 years. I found it strange that this person uses a doubling of my username. Looking at his/her contributions I found several stranger things. He/she re-uploads several images that I uploaded some time ago, even images which require an OTRS permission. This is a breach of copyright, claiming that these images are his/hers. Furthermore, there are uploads with even my personal name included in the title. This requires, in my opinion, a closer look and an intervention by an admin. JoJan (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please notify the user on his talkpage? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of his contributions to french wiki were reverted, some even as vandalism. I'd say just get rid of this impersonator. Other opinions? --Denniss (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I blocked this user for 3 days pending further enquiries, and nominated his files for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JoJan-JoJan. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013

Livioandronico2013 is a photographer who has nominated many pictures at FP. The quality of his photographs has improved considerable, but sadly the quality of his behaviour has not. When challenged about some technical aspect (photo editor used, noise reduction applied) he has not infrequently been caught out in a lie. Most recently at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg. On the grand scale of things, such lies are small, but dishonesty is not a helpful attribute. But worse, Livioandronico2013 responds to an Oppose vote by repeatedly claiming to care nothing for the reviewer's opinion. The reviewer is then attacked and mocked. At the FP, some childish animated gifs have been added to laugh at me. At Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Unacceptable, things have lowered to a pissing contest where I am mocked for having fewer featured pictures. At this point, I think an admin-enforced break might help Livioandronico2013 reflect on how to behave like a gentleman. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is gentleman: Put even the early part Colin:"The problem, LivioAndronico, is that I really don't appreciate you lying. At the time I made my comment, the image had been edited in paint.net, hence the lack of colourspace. You replied "No Colin, just photoshop". Grow up a bit and stop lying. I can see it has been reworked twice since then; I'm not blind. This isn't the first time you've been dishonest when challenged. Stop it."--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no problems with the reviewers, only with you that you think you are a God--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I had the votes and negative opinions by The Photographer,XRay,Yann,Daniel Case,Laitche,Mile,Code,Benh,Diliff,Julian etc.. and I never quarreled with them indeed, because one thing is opposing another insult!--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I would say that you have sometimes quarrelled with me about my opinions and advice on your photo processing. I don't think you have an issue with accepting opposes, but you do have an issue with taking constructive criticism. Diliff (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Put a single case,It is not good to see you defend friends, I thought you were more objective. I was wrong.--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your assumption that I'm only commenting because I'm 'defending friends' is just another example of your inability to take constructive criticism. If I really have to, I will go back through old nominations and find an example. It's not something I've kept track of though, because I never expected it would come to this. Diliff (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You find and then we'll talk (Tell me if you do not understand something) --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This may be an example to prove Diliff always supports Colin and vise versa. :) Jee 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If I could be bothered, I'd find the cases where reviewers complained of over-strong noise reduction, only to be "told" that no NR had been applied, which was clearly untrue. But where I agree with LivioAndronico is his statement that he has a particular problem with me. It had got to the point where I was reluctant to review his pictures, knowing that some abuse would follow no matter what I said. But it isn't acceptable that one can chase away hard reviewers by being frequently unpleasant to them, so I make the effort every now and then. We're here to judge the pictures, and without reviewers, there is no FP. My review of his image was fair and accurate. There was no need for what followed. -- Colin (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Insult will be right for you but not for me--LivioAndronico (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fontana del Quirinale (Rome) - Statue of Dioscuri.jpg A previous example of where a completely fair review is treated in bad faith.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Intern of St. George in Locorotondo.jpg Canvassing and more bad faith: "Is ridiculous that people come here only and only to oppose only my photos, but this is not said and not stressed ... There are some people horrendous here ,but luckily they are only 4" (i.e. the four people who opposed as "horrendous"). -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The same things, but not you get bored? Already seen and magazines and I was stuck. Your insults those not you show them?--LivioAndronico (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are other insults--LivioAndronico (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't take Featured Pictures so seriously. Almost any Commons contributors can review pictures. No expertise is required. If you find the comments of other reviewers objectionable, ignore them, stop nominating images, or try the Quality or Valued images forums. Featured Pictures is intended to encourage other photographers and to help them improve their skills. If it doesn't do that, we should terminate it. It is common sense not to review images if their creator finds your comments unhelpful. Arguing with other contributors is similarly unproductive. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok Walter Siegmund, I follow your advice ... I ignore them. Hello and thanks Clin--LivioAndronico (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Walter Siegmund, it is not "common sense" because FP is about reviewing and determining the finest images on Commons -- it isn't Flickr or Facebook. It isn't acceptable to chase off oppose votes by being offensive to the reviewers. Arguing is not necessarily unproductive, it completely depends on the respect shown by parties involved. You can see here, that Livioandronico2013 treats oppose voters with bad faith. Dillif has now got himself added to the "biased" reviewer list. All nominations at FP should be suitable for review by any Commons user, not just friends. -- Colin (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my comments. "Almost any Commons contributors can review pictures. No expertise is required." You are giving FP credence that is unsupported by the facts. Moreover, "determining the finest images on Commons" does not further the aim of Commons as stated in Commons:Project scope, a policy of Commons, unless it serves to "encourage other photographers and to help them improve their skills". I've seen many of these disputes since I began contributing in 2005. Most could be avoided by staying mellow. The result of many of those disputes was that good contributors left Commons. How does that help Commons? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can review pictures. That doesn't mean it's okay to be show bad faith or be disruptive. If a reviewer was voting support on every single nomination (as we experienced recently) without explaining or responding to requests to stop, would you them to continue contributing? No, you'd probably ban them, as is what happened. I'm not saying Livio is as disruptive as that, but the point remains: Everyone can in theory review pictures, but there are limits to people's tolerance. The thing is, you're obviously not involved in FPC. You don't care whether it succeeds or fails. In fact you pretty much acknowledged you don't even think it particularly belongs on Commons because it doesn't fall within the Commons scope. That suggests you only really care about closing this thread as quickly as possible with the minimum fuss, regardless of whether it actually resolves the original problem on FPC. And it's also easy to say 'stay mellow' when you're not involved. If everyone could always 'stay mellow', there'd be no need for this page, would there? As for good contributors leaving Commons, that is a concern, but so is disruption and bad faith which could also cause people to leave. To do nothing and just condescendingly tell people to stay mellow could just as easily cause people to leave. There needs to be some way of maintaining order and if people leave because they won't play nicely with others and are disciplined, so be it. To be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting it should come to that. I don't want Livio to stop contributing, I just want him to understand that certain behaviour is not acceptable to the community. Diliff (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wsiegmund, your "mellow" comment is simply patronising and superficial. You appear to have QI and FP mixed up. I'd appreciate another admin looks at the bad faith and unwarranted comments by Livioandronico2013, rather than using this noticeboard to make off-topic remarks about the purpose of a forum they don't appear to understand. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had my own issues with LivioAndronico, and many have had issues with me. Colin's comments most often make a point and I often agree with them, but they are a bit too "honest" and maybe could be toned down a little imo. It's hard enough to take lesson, so let the truth be bended a little. When in a bad mood, we all tend to see the glass half empty, and this is amplified when we don't fully get all nuances of English language. I was surprised by Livio's reaction here or here but it's true that my sentence can lead to misunderstanding. Thankfully Diliff explained quite well. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Benh, I can defend myself with robust comments, but please, in the FP's listed here, in what way is my review "too honest". It is completely neutral and factual. The issue here is bad faith, which he openly admits to disliking me: "The golden side-light is good but not quite the right angle -- the face is in shadow as is the horse. The face is also not sharp. " in what way is that review flawed? So why the bad-faith response? -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin nothing wrong there, but I could find some where u can be a bit more sarcastic (just don't want to search for it, but think you believe me). I only mean that being too honest is not necessarily good, and one doesn't want to hear too honest a statement when it's wrong for her or him. Just bending it a little (like turning a "it's not good", which is not wrong either, into a "could be better") should avoid conflicts in most cases. Anyways, who am I to say that? ;) - Benh (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I do not desire to nominate pictures to Commons Featured Picture because of the unprofessional behavior of some regular users in that part of the project - and the lack of protest about it by most of the others. I was already an administrator on Commons when this happened, so there was no concern if the nominator is new, old, or has any credibility or not. IMHO, if politeness cannot be found, then the words should not be typed. However, artistically, this whole "noticeboard of user problems page" was very inspiring to me. I made an image which addresses these situations, please see -- here --. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Har har, your image is just hilarious. Anyway, back to the actual issue here. You've made your point about your personal experience with FPC (but you gave no specifics about which nomination(s), how long ago, etc), but what about this specific issue here? Where do you stand? Or are you content to just throw vague accusations about behaviour into the ring? Just like Wsiegmund's "stay mellow" suggestion, "if you can't say something nice, don't say it at all" is great in theory, but in the real world, the big wide world of different cultures and different languages, feelings will inevitably and inadvertently get hurt. What is perfectly normal language for one person is an outrageous insult for another. But that's not really what we're talking about here. This is more about disruption and being untruthful about images than anything else. Diliff (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, I love your card. You forgot "collegial". But your comment about "lack of protest about it by most of the others" is exactly why I disagree with Wsiegmund. If we don't stand up for each other, when someone behaves atrociously, then it appears that such behaviour is tolerated by the community. Perhaps nobody stood up for you because they were too busy being mellow. Nothing was ever achieved by mellow people: passion changes things. But let's be passionate without bad faith. And all I see, as amply admitted by Livioandronico2013, is bad faith. Ellin, I would be interested to know what discouraged you from FP, but that's off-topic here. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Livio, although I don't agree with Colin about your image (the most recent version at least, I didn't check others), I think that Colin is mostly right about your behaviour. You shouldn't answer like you did in your nomination. Receiving criticism may be difficult, but it is necessary to participate here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Criticism is useful only if it is constructive. Criticism is ok, an insult not,at least this is my opinion. (Tell me if you do not understand my English) Thanks Yann Clin --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Criticism has almost always been constructive towards you and your images, certainly initially anyway. But when it is rejected or dismissed by you and you show you're not interested in discussing or fixing problems with your images, that's when we're likely lose patience with you and say things that you might consider insults. Diliff (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
LivioAndronico, you allegation that my criticism of your pictures is not "constructive" is completely baseless. I have often offered advice, particularly technical advice, which I think everyone at FP believe you could do with taking on board, and it is met with mocking, lying, ridicule and your repeated assertion that you do not value my opinion. I do not insult your pictures. You offer them up as the "finest on commons" and at times they fail to achieve that and I along with everyone else at FP have a duty to explain their oppose reason with why it fails. I am not your teacher and I am not your mum. Others on Commons will testify to the effort I go to help others where my experience/skill is appropriate, yet you make it impossible for this to occur. And it isn't just me. Slaunger, Diliff, Benh and others have all offered advice and this is not always taken as kindly as one would hope. Look at the FP's I linked, and the initial review, and tell me where the insult is? Can you find a single opening review of mine where anyone might consider it an insult? I think you need to take a break and a long hard look at yourself and consider what is driving your bad faith towards me, and your rudeness to others who dare to think your image is not FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes beacuse my mother is educated sure,anyway call Slaunger is more simple --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Livio, please respond maturely. It would be even better if your reply actually makes sense too. What does "anyway call Slaunger is more simple" even mean? I know English is not your first language, but please, try to make yourself understood, stop with the sarcasm and keep to the actual points raised. Taking one off-hand irrelevant comment and making it the entire basis of your reply is childish, unhelpful and only makes you look more foolish. Diliff (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There are colleagues who support and develop image evaluation projects (i.e. FPC/QIC) because they want to improve contents on particular topics (often depending on their own field of interest regarding photography). This is actually what I consider the main purpose of FP/QI. Some other protagonists just seem to be on an egotrip and are obviously just interested to have as many self-made images as possible got assessed as FP/QI. They regularly nominate self-made contents (often photographed just for the sake of FP nomination, without questioning oneself if the picture really can be used on wikis or elsewhere) and rarely or never nominate pictures by other people. Such an egotrip is not necessarily "evil" for Commons, but it surely is, as soon as such people begin to consider themselves any "special", for example when they think they are allowed to insult other users without being sanctioned because otherwise Commons would loose a valuable photographer (or so). Well, I think as long as we have Category:Featured pictures by creator including this silly table + all the subs, we always will have this kind of egoshooter games, and I also think it is likely that if we delete it as out of COM:SCOPE, some of the current egoshooters will disappear from Commons quite soon. The question is, if someone here would then miss them. For my part, I wouldn't (just saying). --A.Savin 01:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I read the entire discussion and don't want to comment on the current "user problem" as per my previous stand "it is better to handle sub project (FP/QI/VI) issues there as wider community is not well aware of the rules and regulation of those sub projects". But I wish to comment on some general remarks/complaints about those projects. I agree with Walter Siegmund that "No expertise is required" is somewhat affecting the quality of reviews. Of course, we have a good number of photography experts and we have good number of people in some subjects too. But we lack behind in some ares, especially in "flora and fauna". I noticed some miss identified promotions recently; some promoted works are "not a view well describing the subject". Strengthening subject specific projects like Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life may solve this issue. Jee 03:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I also wanted to note also that since this discussion has started, Livio has accused me of not being objective and 'defending friends' but has actually changed his vote on one of my images from Neutral to Oppose and I can only assume that it was because he is being vindictive, although as with these kinds of votes, it's subjective and very difficult to prove. I'm just putting it out there and people can decide whether they believe he changed his mind about his vote or whether he simply wanted to punish me for criticising him. Diliff (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind often as in this case ,and not had problems with nobody --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying you can't change your mind, but when it happens less than 24 hours after an incident like this, I have my suspicions. Diliff (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Is a your problem --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 Question do you use google translate or babelfish? Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I see many users that I know, I add my stone to the wall. I, more than anyone, I had harsh verbal fights with Colin. He was a worthy opponent, me too, and this test we overcame, not him or not me but we, together. I am quite proud of this result and thank him for that. This can be frustrating to talk to a (user)name on the computer screen. Words and sentences need sometimes to be harder than in the reality because our communication senses are diminished, it still causes more complications and difficulty. The spoken language also can be a difficulty. No LivioAndronico you're not a bear or a wolf :) and to fight teeth and claws outputs is not the only way to communicate, you can say "mea culpa", if you are of course, or simply answer without aggression or irony, or simply not answer because it's sometimles better not answer than answer with a sarcastic comment. This will not reduce you. Hope this help... -- Christian Ferrer 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Anbumunusamy

Anbumunusamy (talk · contribs) continuously uploads files that already exist in Commons. Admin has to intervene. --AntanO 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: The user does not listen, and uploading continues. --AntanO 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Estandarte Real de España.svg & File:Guión del Rey de España.svg

These two files have errors in the colour and proportions, according the files descriptions, which are copied from the official source (Real decreto 527/2014, shown in the description too). Another user is reverting those corrections, without reasons, despite I left two messages in his discussion page and one in both articles (without reply of his part) and after I left a description of the changes. I would like some help. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Provide the official source so it is visible to all. Fry1989 eh? 03:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The source is perfectly clear in both descriptions: Real Decreto 527/2014, de 20 de junio, por el que se crea el Guión y el Estandarte de Su Majestad el Rey Felipe VI y se modifican las reglas 1 y 2 del Título II del Real Decreto 1511/1977, sobre el Reglamento de Banderas y Estandartes, Guiones, Insignias y Distintivos.. There it can be seen that the standard and military flag colour is crimson (carmesí), not red, and the proportions are: 800x800 (dimensions), 440 (height of the coat of arms) & 180 (each one of the distances to the up & down borders). Obviously the images in the source are for showing the coat of arms and colours, but not the proportions: these are in the text.--Echando una mano (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I protected the file. @Echando una mano: If useres disagree with your change, you must establish consensus for it. See COM:OVERWRITE. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me @Steinsplitter: but if I leave messages in discussion pages without reply (user's & files) the changes are minor, reasoned and according the source and the reversions are without justification... What should I have to do? --Echando una mano (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

delete image

Hi, I need to delete the image (double upload) with the filename File:UlrikeHaage_by_ThomasNitz2010.jpg. The one with 2012 is the one I want to use on the wikipedia page of Ulrike Haage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AufErsuchen (talk • contribs)

Hi AufErsuchen: I nominated the File:UlrikeHaage_by_ThomasNitz2010.jpg for deletion as you do not have permission from the photographer in a format that Commons can use. Please see the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:UlrikeHaage by ThomasNitz2010.jpg for information on how to proceed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

De-admin discussion of user Odder

Odder his behavior has been problematic for quite some time. This behavior includes wheel warring with stewards and wheel warring with the WMF twice. This let to a de-bureaucrat voting: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). Odder got enough support, but the message was quite clear. Please do not wheel war. In the meantime his comments in discussions where quite inappropriate a lot of the time and he was quite careless with private information related to OTRS. Those incidents where quite severe and in two of the cases there was a clear abuse of admintools. Now there is a new, severe incident where Odder overruled both Yann and myself and he is in conflict with both of us. He did so by unblocking Reguyla. This is jet another severe incident in a short time. While he could argue that Yann was involved I clearly wasn't. There was no new unblock request and the editor in question seemed to have accepted my rejection. Odder also didn't notified any of us. Odders unbock was a clear violation of the blocking policy. This behavior is unacceptable for an admin, let alone a crat and oversighter. It is not just this occasion where Odder used his tool to push his opinion, it is becoming a troublesome pattern. With this discussion I want to estimate if there is enough support for a de-admin or any other sanction against Odder. Pinging the once involved: @Odder: , @Yann: . Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, what Odder should have done is either discuss this block with Yann and myself or put the block up for review so that the wider community can give their opinion. Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that you posted that comment twice above. Reguyla (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Tnx, fixed. Copy paste error. I decided the use the spelling checker after I wrote that comment. Natuur12 (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This is just to confirm that I am aware of this, but currently unable to respond due to being on a mobile device. However, now that I have a minute, I would like to see concrete evidence of improper conduct, as statements like "not just this occasion", "yet another incident", "quite inappropriate", "clear abuse of admintools" are quite vague and hard to answer to. odder (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned three recent, severe incidents and yes overruling two collegue's you are in confict with violating the blocking policy is a clear abuse of the admin tools. There is also your revert warring with Yann "here et al", another occasion where you shoud have discussed it with your fellow admin instead of reverting. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, deleting a lot of files out of process without looking and without giving the community the change to review them which seems rather hypocrit given the two wheel wars with the stewards and WMF. If I remmeber correctly we send Fastily home for the excact same thing. Natuur12 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I already say my opinion about sticking a finger in the eye of WMF her (the last comment). I can see nothing new since. -- Geagea (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately 2 hours after this thread was started,[20] Yann has wheel-warred by blocking the user for a further 3 days (thereby extending the original block). If an administrator is to be held to account and desysopped for wheel-warring, then all other administrators indulging in the same behaviour must be held to account to the same standards. --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With regard to "he was quite careless with private information related to OTRS" the noticeboard discussion linked demonstrates the opposite of the assertion and cleared odder of allegations from Ktr101. This cannot possibly be used as part of a rationale for a desysop as the allegation was unfounded (and the incident appears to be irrelevant to any claimed misuse of admin tools as there is no evidence of admin tools being used).

When complaints come to the AN noticeboards about admin conduct, it is perfectly reasonable for the community to see that all administrators may be held accountable for their actions, and to expect timely responses to reasonable mellow questions. It is not reasonable for the fact that past discussion threads have been raised on these noticeboards that either proved nothing, or cleared the administrator of acting against policy or guidelines, to then be used for griefing by being misquoted, or twisted into something they were not. If someone wishes to commence a desysop against odder, they must present unambiguous and clear evidence misuse of tools by providing linked diffs in good faith, rather than relying on repeated hearsay and fussy allegations of "badness".

This is the difference between governance and disruptive witch-hunts. --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur Fae and you know it. Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I do not understand the point you are making, though your allegation about what I know seems deliberately personal. My rejection of the claim about the past thread linked is basic and factual. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Not convicted is not the same as cleared, therefor your conclusion doesn't follow the rules of logic. Natuur12 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point more clearly, though it appears to be an effective long term presumption of guilt for any administrator who suffers from unproven allegations being made against them on admin noticeboards. You quoted a past thread as evidence of misuse of admin tools, when it is not. Please provide evidence as part of a case against odder that he misused private information. Allegations that are unproven should and must be dismissed as tangential to any desysop procedure. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
This link is pretty clear don't you think? "which luckily have been leaked". (empahis is mine) This would I call being careless with private information. But this point was uttery ignored. Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to use a form of double jeopardy to keep on re-trying odder against old allegations, I think there is nothing explicit in Commons procedures to stop you. However it does seem to be a waste of everyone's time, especially your fellow administrators. This would set a poor precedent and is not suitable to start a desysop procedure. The evidence you have provided a diff to, appears to be hearsay to me. There is no evidence that odder was the one "leaking" material from OTRS and as odder (I believe) had no OTRS access at the time, you are punishing odder by holding him accountable for the actions of someone else who seems to have been acting in good faith as a whistle-blower. As a community if we are to stay healthy we must not endlessly witch-hunt whistle-blowers. Refer to McCarthyism. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In his unblock of Reguyla, odder said "abusive block by an involved administrator". Please provide evidence that Yann was involved. I see a couple of posts warning that the continued discussion wrt EChastain was not useful and beginning to be a problem. Reguyla then posted a clear trolling post to the village pump which cherry picked one en:wp incident presumably to continue the discussion that had already been closed in another forum. A final warning from Yann was reverted, which (even odder agrees) was unwise and was the last straw. Our admins, dealing with user-behaviour issues, have a tough job. This isn't deleting some image due to copyright, but dealing with complex people problems and offering several chances to stop problem behaviour before blocking. Therefore, I don't see now Yann is "involved" any more than any admin would become involved by posting several warnings prior to a block.

This repeated pattern, where odder reverts another's actions simply because of who peformed it (whether WMF, steward or other admin) is a problem. Odder seems over fixated on following his own interpretation of what policy says, or does not say, more likely, about procedure rather than concentrating on the point of it all. Whenever any admin finds themselves saying "no Commons policy that ..." remember that Commons policy pages are at best a rough first draft and very incomplete and immature. Most have barely been touched for years. Many policies and guidelines people think are on Commons are in fact on en:wp or meta or just folklore.

Odder and Yann seem to be at odds with each other recently. When thinking of "involved", odder should consider that he is himself currently involved with Yann. He should have, as Natuur12 noted above, referred the matter for others to consider. Furthermore, the block had already been reviewed and Regular had now (a) decided it wasn't important as they were too busy IRL and (b) continued to use their talk page to rant about how Commons was now just as bad as evil en:wp, which is again just a continuation of their trolling here. Thus the unblock was simply disrupting Commons to hassle Yann, and served no positive purpose. -- Colin (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The unblocking of Reguyla is the last inappropriate action by Odder in a growing list. We can't trust Odder any more about the use of his admin (and other) right(s). Specifically, I was not involved in the issue regarding EChastain, so Odder's argument is nonsense. In addition, several experienced users have agreed that Reguyla's post was inappropriate, or/and that his block was justified: Colin, Natuur12, LX, and Pitke. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be back in a few months to see what remains of Commons once this little civil war runs out of participants on both sides. The other option is you could all grow the fuck up and stop having a dick measuring competition. Nick (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Nick. I had given Odder a very friendly message yesterday " I still didn't loss my trust in you. Hope you will consider this seriously, cease fighting and find any other alternative measures which is less distributive to this project, if you want to continue your protest against WMF actions." and he replied "As far as protests go, I already protested this out-of-policy punitive block, and was, of course, ignored and attacked. I'm tired of this, and have no plans to get involved with this ever again....As far as I am aware, the Foundation are currently working towards getting people involved with the ban agree on this solution, but I haven't got any information on any progress, since it's just been the weekend. Hopefully we'll have more information in the coming days." I concluded that discussion with a "Thanks for your reply.". But unfortunately he seems slipped out of his limits of self control. Odder you should aware that a crat/OV/CU must be capable to control himself in difficult situations. Now there is no difference in your behavior compared to recent incident by INC. BTW, I have no problem to give you one more chance. (If I remember well, you had guaranteed in BN earlier that you will not wheel war again.) Jee 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Overwriting a other admin's {{Unblock}} decision is not okay and this is not mellow. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that "mellownesss" should be so prized within this community. Some situations require confrontation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I simply cannot trust oversighter who is careless about OTRS wiki's nature and privateness. Who cannot secure the text in private wiki cannot secure the oversighted datas. I was surprised that it is considered cleared - nothing is clarified from my side. (ps. I'm not monitoring this page that often, don't expect a reply.) — regards, Revi 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jee, Steinsplitter and Revi. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support de-adminship and de-crat of Odder (and implicitly to start a discussion on either of those). Odder seems to be a law unto himself and repeatedly so.
I'm unfamiliar with other admins involved in this, but obviously standards should be applied equally. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see a gain in this discussion. As far as I can see, there was no abuse of admin tools; the matter at hand is one unblock. I've not looked into the merit of the block, but the way it was operated looked hasty; perhaps the same applies for the unblock, in which case they seem equally bad per Commons:Blocking policy. It's a matter of perspective: if one only looks at the log, the wheel warrer seems Yann. --Nemo 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    To summarize our policy in this area for those less familiar with it, Wikimedia Commons has no separate policy for Wheel warring, though the blocking policy refers to the English Wikipedia definition. That definition states "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." In the case above where odder is accused of Wheel warring, the block log shows that:
    1. Yann blocked Reguyla's account for "trolling"
    2. odder then reversed this block on the basis that it was an "abusive block by an involved administrator"
    3. Yann blocks Reguyla's account again with no comment in the block log.
    In line with the definition, odder cannot have wheel warred, however by the same definition Yann has wheel warred and is the only party who has unambiguously used administrator tools in contravention of policy. --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree totally that Yann was wheel warring. He should have discussed the issue with odder before reverting it, he should have used the correct date and generally didn't show very good sense when he did what he did requiring that my block, that wasn't even necessary in the first place, to be fixed. A couple feel it wasn't wheel warring in their opinions, probably because Yann is an admin and an admin wheel warring would be a serious situation that they wish to downplay, but that is how some of us perceive it and generally speaking that what policy reflects as well. Reguyla (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not have the time to review all the facts. I will do so over the weekend. Blocks are meant to be a preventative measure. If Reguyla's block is not preventing blatant disruption (such as vandalism) it should be lifted. Non-obvious blocks should be enacted by community, not at the whim of individual administrators - primarily to avoid wheel wars and such disagreements. I appreciate and support the below proposal to deescalate the conflict. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The question here is not whether Reguyla's block need to be lifted; but how was it should be lifted. While checking the timelines in VP we can see LX (a non admin) warned him first. Then Yann blocked him and mentioned it in VP. After that Pitke (an admin) collapsed the discussion. Then Reguyla made an unblock request; declined by Natuur12. So logically it is a block endorsed by three admins although Pitke's comment is not 100% clear. According to Commons:Blocking_policy#After_blocking "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." (bolded by me) So we need clear consensus for an "unblock" though we don't require a clear consensus for a block. I've no problem to support lifting of block if there is a clear consensus arrived at ANB. Jee 02:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I'd like to mention that I do not disagree with the recent block of Reguyla by Yann. --Pitke (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The OP already stepped out as the involved parties seem arrived in an agreement. The block of Reguyla still stands as two other admin (at least) agreed to it. So nothing directly related to this single incident remains although some people (including me) raised some generic concerns on what the community is expecting from a person having higher rights like crats/OV/CU. We already saw the fall of two CUs recently. Hope Odder and all those having some higher rights in this community will generously consider the voice of people that raised in this discussion and act carefully in future. Suggest to close this discussion and move on if no further strong disagreements. Jee 03:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about the leaked OTRS info if that is indeed what happened but I don't feel a desysop is necessary. Clearly I am involved but I wanted to levy my opinion anyway. There are other admins I find more problematic than odder at the moment. Reguyla (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The outcome of this AN/U discussion is:

  • Yann and Odder don't undo each others admin actions;
  • Yann doesn’t close DR's started by Odder an Odder doesn't close DR's started by Yann.
  • I fixed the blocking time per complain at COM:AN/P

I don't see any benefit from keeping this thread open, therefore closing. Let use move on. :-)
--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I talked with both @Odder: and @Yann: off wiki via IRC to establish a solution for this problem. To me it doesn't matter who drew first blood at this moment. What is more important is that the current situation which has been slumbering for months stops to prevent further harm to the community. I believe that both users where willing to agree to the following:

  • Yann and Odder don't undo each others admin actions;
  • Yann doesn’t close DR's started by Odder an Odder doesn't close DR's started by Yann.

It would be great if both of them could confirm whenever they agree with this proposal or not. Of course this is not sort of legally binding agreement but more of a gentlemen's agreement. As for myself, I will walk away from this fight. If someone is not satisfied with this proposal feel free to proceed without me. Natuur12 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine with me. Yann (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm that I fully agree with this proposal. I would also like to thank @natuur12 for his efforts in mediating this conflict. odder (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment While this may address the concerns between these two users, it does nothing to address the broader concerns Commons editors have about odder's actions. ColonialGrid (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is the best solution; thanks Natuur12 for your efforts. "I have no problem to give him one more chance." (I had seen some comments that Yann too made same mistake. See, this is about how a crat plus OV should be. We've 250+ admins; and many of them behave stupidly in many cases. But that is not the standard we expect from a higher role.) Hope this issue is resolved and will not repeat. Jee 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Natuur12, for getting this sorted. As all involved users agreed on the solution found and the solution is objectively reasonable, I suggest to close this case. --Krd 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Regarding Reguyla's conduct

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since it lead to this very discussion, I want to note here that I agree with the decision by User:Yann and User:Natuur12 regarding Reguyla. However, I disagree that block was the correct action. Instead of blocks, I propose any discussion or threads by Reguyla regarding English Wikipedia decision to block him should be immediately closed with {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. I would also ask users not to engage with him on this topic. Commons is not an English Wikipedia Complaints Department. Do not bring disputes from other wikis to here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

とある白い猫/15 First, thanks for the notification about this discussion. I don't know why another user had to leave me a message when an admin who presumably knows better opened it. I also think this is a pretty childish thing to do because I told you on IRC I didn't need you or anyone else as a mentor for me on ENWP because the admins and Arbcom refuse to simply follow the decision the community already decided on. I do agree however that you can close the discussion, not because I agree with the merits of your proposal though but because there is no interest in addressing anything I bring up and would rather blindly follow decisions made on ENWP, another wiki as you put it without doing our own due diligence here first. If you are going to ostracize me in the community とある白い猫/15, at least have the balls to tell me you are going to do it without blindsiding me with discussions without notification. You wonder why I complain about admins doing crap against policy and to help themselves, this is the kind of shitty conduct that does it and costs the projects editors. Reguyla (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Multiple accounts

నోముల ప్రభాకర్ గౌడ్ (talk · contribs) and Nomula Prabhakar Goud (talk · contribs) seem one person and runs self promotion images and copyvios. Over to admins. --AntanO 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked one for copyvios, tagged both, copyvios and duplicates deleted. Yann (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas G. Mertens

Could someone help him to understand COM:OVERCAT? I do not want to mislead because of my poor English. Thanks in advance. Regards, KurodaSho (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to explain in french. Pleclown (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. --KurodaSho (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kephir

There appears to be a problem with the behaviour of this user. Both myself and AnonMoos have noticed their nominating of files for deletion that we happen to have an interest in. In particular, this DR most recently. The file in question has been on Commons for 4-5 years, what possible interest Kephir might have in it I can not tell except that it was one of my early uploads. The reason for nomination I find very thin, indeed we have countless fictional flags on Commons and that alone is not grounds for deletion. They need to move on to more productive things than chasing myself and AnonMoos around. Fry1989 eh? 19:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not chasing anyone around. Commons' purpose is not determined by any particular uploader's "interests", but by COM:SCOPE. Which is not a particularly precise document, but it seems that administrators tend to agree with my interpretation of it, given the outcomes of my deletion requests. Keφr (keep talk here) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Your reasons in particular to flags is flawed, as is the agreement of any admins which follow along with you. Commons has had a long history of moderation and acceptance of flags that have a fictional basis, that status alone is not a reason for deletion as you appear to believe and that is something that has been discussed several times before. You have nominated several files that I have either uploaded or worked on, and I find it very pointed. Whatever your reasons for nominating images that AnonMoos had interests in, they also are under the impression you are harassing them and they have made as much clear. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
AnonMoos' suspicion of questionable nominations can be further seen here. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, excuse me, but I do not believe that I should be held responsible for other people's unreasonable suspicions. Keφr (keep talk here) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Fry1989 -- There's no need to use a generic pronoun, I'm masculine (I think I have that specified in my preferences, though I'm not sure how other people would access it). It's a pretty safe bet that the majority of passionate vexillology/heraldry nerds are male... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we as a community perhaps establish some objective guidelines on when a fictional flag is in or out of scope? The Muslim flag of Greece, for example, I would consider in scope, since it could for example be associated with the Muslim population of Greece. Though ideally, such flags would actually be used in such communities, like this one. The usage of LGTB variants of national flags is of course well-established. Fictional flags originating from notable works of fiction are a certainty as well. But where do we objectively draw the line in other situations? Tom-L (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated fictional flags for deletion before, when there are other grounds such as that it is deliberately misleading. Others have felt the level of scope based on how well known the image is should be considered. Being fictional alone is not acceptable grounds to delete an image, and ANY admin that goes along with such nominations are not following previous consensus. Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Tom-L -- There are many hundreds of "Special or fictional" flags on Commons, and there's been a de facto practice for many years that such flags are not usually deleted just for being special or fictional, but rather only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). As long as such flags are clearly labeled as being proposed/fictional/"special", then there's rarely a problem.
While Kephir may have good intentions on some level, unfortunately he hasn't acted or reacted particularly well within this particular context. He keeps trying to deny by loudly repeated bare assertions that such a practice exists -- when those who have been around Commons much longer than he has know that it has in fact existed. Also, Kephir committed a big blunder in making an inappropriate deletion nomination Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png which was firmly rejected, yet he's never said whether or not he will take into account "lessons learned" from his rebuff there when formulating future deletion nominations, and still uses the same generic boilerplate cookie-cutter cut-and-paste language which he used in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png to nominate other files for deletion. The final misbehavior was when Kephir somehow singled out the file File:National flag of the Whoovians.svg, which has little to attract notice on any basis other than being the "special or fictional" flag image file most recently uploaded by me, and so strains credulity as anything other than a personal revenge deletion nomination...
I've already told Kephir that the right way to change things is not to snipe at individual files, but to start a public discussion on this issue (but NOT doing it the way user Antemister did it, starting the discussion under his personal user page and only notifying people that he knew would agree with him), but Kephir seems to have no interest in this, and prefers the path of continuing to stir up turmoil around individual files... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kermboy28

Smells like another Jermboy sock. I wouldn't delete their single upload, but I would block them to prevent further disruption. Fry1989 eh? 01:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. @Fry1989: do you like to have User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/Philippines semi-protected? --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't really see the need. All my subpages are on my watchlist so I can undo any bad edits with ease, and there is not any constant attack like some pages receive from socks. Also, it kinda helps me catch the Jermboy ones since, whoever they are, that person has such a singular focus. Fry1989 eh? 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe we can safely say Reallynotjermboy27 is another sock. This time they have done a Jermboy red flag, creating a road sign that does not exist. I have a copy of the Philippine traffic signs manual, there is no truck roll-over sign. Fry1989 eh? 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done, file burned, ashes strewn over the Pacific. Blocked as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces in Battle of Shanghai 1937.jpg

Removing content:
Restoring content:

So two users are removing information from file description while two others (mainly Takabeg) is restoring them. At first it looked like a content dispute which I would not normally escalate here. While I do not quite understand what this is about but at a glance I do not see any reason why Japanese and Chinese descriptions would need to be removed. Any thoughts?

Due to the edit warring I protected the file until issue is resolved. Current version has the information removed.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is not edit warring, it is vandalism and anti-vandalism.
The fact is quite simple and clear here: This photo does not have "Original Caption" at all, given that the source 「世界画報　日支大事變號・第四輯」, 第十三巻第十二號, 國際情報社, 昭和十二年 ("The Pictorial World - Nisshi Dai Jihen Go No.4" Vol. 13 No. 12, Kokusai Joho Sha, 1937) is true and it was truely published in 1937, on which this photo was originally published out without any caption. While, User:Takabeg has kept using a caption that was published in 1995 to fake his so called "Original Caption". Such intentional cheating and faking behavior in Wikipedia community including Wikipedia Commons belongs to vandalism. Such vandalism shall be prohibited.
The source published in 1995 that persistently used by User:Takabeg was written by Japanese author 平塚柾緖 (Masao Hiratsuka). When this photo had been taken in 1937 the author 平塚柾緖 was just born. The caption 平塚柾緖 added on this photo is not the "Original Caption" at all. Without the real Original Caption, the best way to describe this photo in wp Commons is to use source neither from Japanese nor from Chinese. Otherwise, if a non original caption from Japanese source can be used, other caption from Chinese source, such as saying "日军施放毒气后戴着面具和中国军队作战" (Japanese army was wearing gas masks when using toxic gas agaisnt Chinese army) from this one "侵华日军“毒魔”培训基地：毒气战军事学校" can also be used. The current description is based on a USA source written by Brent Jones, but just simply and straightly described what the photo is directly/plainly shown and nothing more. Another USA source regarding this photo can also be found on a magazine published by U.S. Naval Institute. And a discussion in 2014 regarding user Takabeg COM:AN/U#User Takabeg also support current description, but user Takabeg has totally ignored this and kept doing his cheating and faking edition.
Again, cheating behavior is a vandalism and it shall be prohibited. --Lvhis (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing about the revision history REMOTELY looks like vandalism. It is your typical content dispute which I am NOT touching with a 10 foot pole. I am however unhappy about the edit warring on content. I am unsure what the exact dispute is. We do not typically use the official captions. The file description field should be explaining what image conveys without going into conjecture. I am also unsure why something as simple as this could not have been discussed on the talk page. If you disagree with an existing file description, you should be suggesting an alternative, you should not be removing it entirely. Overall I am not impressed thus far. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In the previous discussion COM:AN/U#User Takabeg a neutral description for the image file had been worked out which is similar to the edit by user Lvhis. STSC (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In the edits I see both of you removing the content instead of this neutral version you mentioned. Even then it is a revert war. Mislabeling content disputes as vandalism is unhelpful. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The neutral version was to have the description only instead of the caption. STSC (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It still does not explain why translations of the file description in Chinese and Japanese were removed. It doesn't explain why such an act is mascaraed as counter vandalism. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The key point in this issue or problem is user:Takabeg's cheating behavior. User Takabeg needs to explain why he used a non original caption to cheat others as "original caption", i.e. to made a fake one. He also needs to explain why he removed a sourced Chinese description (please be aware that was a sourced Chinese description, not a translation from Japanese description done by wiki user). In that discussion COM:AN/U#User Takabeg, administrator User: whym gave some very reasonable suggestions "... to come up with a minimal and descriptive caption of what is depicted" and "having Japanese Navy Landing Force wearing gas masks in the Battle of Shanghai and nothing more in the description". Administrator User:Hedwig in Washington agreed on user STSC's suggestion "we just use a neutral description like 'Japanese Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks in Battle of Shanghai'". Let me repeat my point: "Without the real Original Caption, the best way to describe this photo in wp Commons is to use source neither from Japanese nor from Chinese." If a non-original-caption description from Chinese source can be removed, equally a non-original-caption description from Japanese source can also be removed. As for a Chinese translation, if you think it is very needed, we can translate from the current description. Again, Cheating behavior is a vandalism. If one does not want to make vandalism, why does he need to cheat people and make a fake claimed "Original Caption"?? As for my counter-vandalism editions, I gave edit abstracts: this one "STSC's edition was correct.", this one "cheating,vandalism", and this one "The so called "Original caption" is purely cheating. It is a vandalism! Warning!". And then I updated the discussion link in the talk page and waited for user Takabeg to challenge my warning and discuss his vandalism in the talk page. While, instead of challenging my warning in the talk page, he went to your talk page and posted a message in Turkish, not in Englishe for this wp Commons file titled in English. But per your complain or criticise, to be perfect, next time when I do counter-vandalism, I will gave some detail in relevant talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lvhis: If by original you mean official, absolutely not. We aren't an official mouthpiece of any government. It is very clear to me that this is a content dispute and has nothing to do with vandalism so stop calling it vandalism. "Non-original" is not an acceptable reason to remove file descriptions and is disruptive. Revert warring is also disruptive. Continuing act in this manner will get you blocked, if not by me but by some other administrator. Same goes for Takabeg and STSC. It is a different story for content if we have conflicting sources. It appears like there are. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@とある白い猫: You should ask Takabeg why he has kept labeling a non-original-caption as "original". Had he not deceptively labeled so, it would have been a pure content dispute. You can ask administrators User: whym and User:Hedwig in Washington about this content dispute and the dispute history, as they are very familiar with these. I can't help to have to raise a question: why did not Takabeg go to administrator whym or Hedwig in Washington, both of whom are familiar with this file and content dispute, to ask for assistance this time? Instead, he went to you and I felt at beginning you were not very familiar with the content history of this file. I am glad that now you are saying "It is a different story for content if we have conflicting sources. It appears like there are." I hope user:Takabeg was not playing some trick like canvassing that violates wp behavioral guideline. If he did be doing so, hope you are not cheated and misled by such behavior. --Lvhis (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lvhis: What you are describing is a content dispute since the dispute involves the content. Arguing otherwise is kind of pointless. So kindly stop. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment At first, User:Lvhis must stop personal attacks. US Astoria is the personal webcite of Mr. Brent Jones, and not affiliated with the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately it's personal website. On the other hand, Sino-Japanese War: Records by News Photographers of Japan, U.S., and China is a published secondary source and a neutral identifying reliable source. The editor is Masao Hiratsuka, who was the leader of the Pacific War Research Society (太平洋戦争研究会) and the Library of Photography for Modern and Contemporary History (近現代フォトライブラリー). I've heard that the Pacific War Research Society has left-wing trend. At least, they are neither right wing nor nationalists. Takabeg (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Takabeg: You finally come to here! First, you did not answer one of the key questions: why you have kept labeling a non-original-caption as "original"? Second, source from 平塚柾緖 (Masao Hiratsuka) or 太平洋戦争研究会 is from Japanese, whose credit on neutral is not more than that of sources such as this one from Chinese. Regarding sources from USA, I have given anther one in my first reply to とある白い猫: "Proceedings Magazine - January 1998 Volume 124/1/1, 139 published by U.S. Naval Institute", and the caption there reads as "Military Planners justified using gas by citing Japan's use of it against China in the 1930s". Be noted: this one was published in 1998, and they did not follow what 平塚柾緖 (Masao Hiratsuka) described in his book published in 1995! As the involved parties of that combat, sources from either Japanese or Chinese cannot be neutral. Here, sources from USA, the non-involved party, are neutral and more reliable.--Lvhis (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please move content dispute to the file talk page. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of user profile

Hello Admin team,

My user profile was unnecessarily deleted by Tavo (user). Why? I am a real user and am currently a registered user on Wikipedia as well! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mirza_Mushtaq_Baig

I would like my user profile reinstated please.

Thanks and cheers, Mirza --Mirza Mushtaq Baig (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it now going to be standard practice for admins to randomly taunt editors like this? First delete their user page, then start deleting their images for utterly fatuous reasons?
The userpage was deleted as "Userpage of non-existent user". Yet very obviously, Mirza exists. After all, moments later Taivo started deleting their uploads!
The deletion rationale Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Tea Cup is Supporting 307 Pounds (of Honda Indy race car).jpg seems to be a new policy of setting tasks for uploaders in order to "prove" that they are the image owner. It is described as a "routine request", yet it is anything but. We do not ask this of image uploaders, we work by an AGF process of believing the licensing claims that they make.
Taivo, why are you harassing this new editor like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You didn't ping Taivo.    FDMS  4    02:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion seems valid, Taivo just picked the wrong deletion notice. Yann restored and re-deleted as out of scope as requested by Motopark. More a linkfarm than user page. --Denniss (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my mistake! Taivo (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Anbumunusamy

Anbumunusamy (talk · contribs) I have already reported about this user for his copyvios and continuously uploads files that already exist in Commons. But, again he continues after 3-days block!. @Yann: --AntanO 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. WJBscribe (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

LiXuanze

This user has made numerous unclear edits. They have reverted several files with the edit summary of "sorry" (example). They have also uploaded historical duplicates of several files (File:20131201000100!Flag of the Hungarian Revolution (1956).svg being a duplicate of File:Flag of the Hungarian Revolution (1956).svg as uploaded on December 28, 2012). They have also been blocked on Wikipedia for replacing images with the same "sorry" edit summary. I'm not sure this user has any clue what they are doing. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another example of their "sorry" changes to images. I would request this user be blocked, they have no valuable edits to the project. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So is someone gonna look into this? Fry1989 eh? 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User already recieved a final warning. Natuur12 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of their uploads here and on English Wikipedia have been copyvios. I agree that they don't seem to know what they are doing; I'd be hard-pressed to point to any genuinely constructive edits of theirs. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue was archived without action, though LiXuanze is continuing to disrupt the project. Today they uploaded a number of flags or coats of arms, both here on Commons and on the English Wikipedia, which are duplicates or near-duplicates of existing images, but with all the original author information stripped out and replaced by theirs. They have then inserted many of these images into English Wikipedia articles where they do not belong. I suspect they have no idea what they are doing. Many users have attempted to reach out to LiXuanze, but LiXuanze is completely uncommunicative except for using nonsensical edit summaries such as "sorry image". The user apparently lacks the competence to contribute here, and should be blocked on Commons (as they currently are on English Wikipedia) to curb further disruption. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a playground. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I also agree that there are very serious concerns. Blocked. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor / Administrator went too far

I gasped when Didym suggested that all of my contributions to Wiki-Commons be deleted. That would mean years of work taken away with a single click. It would be understandable if Didym explained the basis of Didym's decision on each file, but Didym did not do that-- instead "cut off her head" take everything out! I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2007. I have created and added to many articles. As time went by, I have learned the rules. Everything that I donated to Wikipedia has been my own, and may I add, with great pleasure I will continue to support the wonderful contribution that Wikipedia has given to the world. Please review Didym's hasty suggestion. Chaos4tu (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Some doubtful uploads. One photo is from circa 1883 and marked as "own work". Are you older than 132 years? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For what I see at a quick glance, Didym is mostly right. You don't own the copyright of most of your uploads, so tagging them as "own" is wrong. You need to fix that to offer any sort of credibility to your claim. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This removal may be classified as vandalism. Please contribute to the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chaos4tu. --Leyo 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Warned. Yann (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan Mihai Pitea

I want to inform administrators about this user User:Dan Mihai Pitea.
I uploaded a more historical accurate version for Coat of Arms of Wallachia to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Wallachia.svg, because the older version was an original research, a coat of arms that never existed, not even close.
This user was surprised by the form, by the tinctures and contested the draw on Wikipedia Romania. After tons of talks, explaining, sources, some users propose this version https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fd/20150811114342%21Coat_of_arms_of_Wallachia.svg.
I uploaded the version on this page, with sources, because is used already in many country's, projects, so it will repair the mistake not only for Romania.
But the user continues his war in commons, because he lost the argument.
I don't want to transform this in an edit war. I wrote to him in Romanian on wiki, to stop personal attacks, edit wars, he has no arguments. He replied the same thing, that i have no sources, i made an original research, he don't like how she looks.
Because the image is used also in other country's, and affects other community's, please do something, ask sources from him, stop his reverts, you know how to act on this.

You can see i was the first to put sources to base the image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_Wallachia.svg&type=revision&diff=167970057&oldid=165233643
He reverted the image, the sources.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_Wallachia.svg&type=revision&diff=168112036&oldid=167970057
I worn him on wikipedia Romania, in romanian, i reverted, now he reverted the image only, but he left the sources. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Wallachia.svg&action=history Viuser (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • There is no problem on Wikimedia Commons having two different images of the same thing. I suggest that you each should be uploading to a different filename instead of fighting over this on Commons. Each Wikipedia (and any other user) is then free to make its own decision about which version is preferred. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with you, Jmabel. Since he has already uploaded it here (look at the 11 different versions of the file in the history and then you'll understand why I demand reliable sources) there is no need to paste it over this one. I removed his png file from the ro.wiki article and he still hasn't attained consensus to add it back, so he used the backdoor, pasting his work over the svg file momentarily featured in the article (and dozens of articles), the latter one. --Mihai (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Daverdis and File:Pavillon royal de France.svg

What this user's interest in this file is unclear, but they appear to believe they can just keep reverting for no reason. Permjak uploaded a version of the file that has been current for 6 years, but Daverdis must have taken objection to the thin black borders. Permjak then thickened them, but that's still not good enough. I see no valid reason for Daverdis' apparent ownership of this file. It should be noted that the construction of the fleur-de-lys on Permjak's file are superior. Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done File protected for 6 mo and I cleaned up the mess. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jrhdzporg

Jrhdzporg (talk · contribs) ignores some warnings. See Special:Contributions/Jrhdzporg. Thank you. --KurodaSho (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I am off to bed, see this. Natuur12 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept being disruptive so blocked for the period of 7 days. Natuur12 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef, removed right to edit own talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiruz

Tiruz (talk · contribs) Copyvios since 2014. /St1995 11:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning, files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Shabeeb1

Shabeeb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has continued to upload copyright violations for over two years now. He was given a final warning re copyvios in July 2013 [21] by Túrelio, but that did not seem to have stopped him. I have tagged the new copyvio images and a couple of others for evidence of permission, but can somebody do something as these images have been used for a really long time on other projects. —SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:CheloVechek

CheloVechek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user twice undid corrections of orthography that he described as "vandalism on user page", though it even wasn't a user page, but a file description. Chaotic Good (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@CheloVechek and Chaotic Good: the file is protected to give you both time to discuss Russian orthography rules (for writing foreign names I think) before continueing to edit this page. Ping me if you find a consensus. Ankry (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 Not done no need to block anybody at the moment. Ankry (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Russavia (talk · contribs)

Since we currently lack a community decision on the matter. I am starting a discussion for this here. The user is clearly avoiding a WMF Legal enacted global ban. I honestly am confused what is going on with this user which I hope this discussion will clarify.

I expect this to turn into a drama heavy discussion so I kindly ask everyone to take extra care in being polite and civil.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you rewrite this as a request for sysop action based on specific events caused by Russavia please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a request to start a discussion on the matter. The community has not cast it's decision based on the WMF Legal action. User is avoiding said action (ex: [22]). These are enough of a reason for us to start a discussion on the matter. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If there are legal issues, such as the actions of WMF Legal, or there is no action being requested, then the thread does not fall within the scope given at the top of this page. --Fæ (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Sockpuppetry in defiance of a global block is well within the scope of this page. Question is, does the community agree with the decision of WMF Legal or not. I am rather tired of hearing people complain about the absence of a community decision on the matter of Russavia. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I am a little unclear on the purpose of this discussion. Is it to just talk about Russavia (which has been done plenty already IMO)? I'm not sure what the goal is here. Reguyla (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The question to asnwer is: what action should we take when we see Russavia. Do we block on sight or not? If not what activity is Russavia allowed to participate? Simple arguments over technicalities will not cut it which is why a community decision is needed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ask WMF legal? --Diego Grez return fire 20:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
PS. I may be much in disagreement with Russavia's banning, but a global ban involves expelling them completely from the project. Blocks on sight should be performed. --Diego Grez return fire 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be obvious for anyone paying attention to number of WMF Office blocks of Russavia. First question is do we agree with that decision or not? If we agree with it, this ends the "lack of community decision" argument. If not we have a lot more discussion in our hands. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Question is, does the community agree with the decision of WMF Legal or not. No, this is absolutely not the question, as WMF legal cannot release information on the case. We cannot make an educated decision to agree or not agree on an action we do not know anything about. The real question is, do we trust the WMF legal team to make a good decision. If we seriously answer no to that we may as well stop contributing to this site entirely. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the legal team have never made any mistakes, so we should blindly support whatever they do, without questioning them in any way or asking that this community be consulted when they are making such high-importance decisions as banning a then-administrator in good standing. Sounds like a good plan, doesn't it. odder (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, the test isn't whether they may or may not have ever made a mistake. In real life there are all sorts of people who make important decisions on our behalf, whether that's a head teacher dealing with pupils, or a brain surgeon trying to decide whether to remove just a little bit more of that tumour that is right next to a vital artery. Lots of times, we have no say in this. You don't employ your head teacher or the brain surgeon at the hospital -- someone else interviewed them and is monitoring their competency. The same goes for the WMF team that decided Russavia should no longer edit here. It is out of our hands. It is simply juvenile to think that every part of a "community" has full say in every other part. In real life, that head teacher has to deal with confidential matters that simply cannot be shared with parents. And the surgeon has to rely on training and experience that none of are competent to comment on. This is the order of things in life. Deal with it.
Oh, and Russavia was not "in good standing". He was appreciated for the large number of images he sought and uploaded for Commons, but not for his mellow and understanding personality, and had been de-cratted by a community who were ashamed of what he did and wanted to distance themselves from him. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I don't appreciate being schooled about life, so stop it. At no point did I say that we as community should have a say in everything that the Foundation do, so your metaphor is quite far-fetched. However, the issue here is what kind of decisions the Foundation can make on our behalf.
I can't count the number of times I've said this, but traditionally, the Foundation have not gotten involved in everyday running of the projects, including the granting and removal of administrator privileges to volunteer contributors (as opposed to granting of CheckUser and oversight privileges and granting of admin rights to their own employees). However, with regards to russavia, not only have they removed admin rights from a volunteer for the first time in the history of Commons, but they have also banned the person entirely from all projects, without informing the community—or a part thereof—in any way whatsoever, and are still refusing to do so.
Surely you can see that this in itself is setting a precedent and is therefore hugely controversial and can be seen as the Foundation expanding their power into a territory that was previously entirely volunteer-managed. That some people are trying to use this opportunity to silence russavia—and those concerned by the circumstances in which he was banned—due to their personal dislike of him is just disgusting and has nothing to do with community building or community healing but everything to do with going on a witch hunt. There ought to be no place for this sort of behaviour on Commons, and it happening for the past six months is simply appalling. odder (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, your previous comment was entirely sarcastic. Do you really expect to be treated like a grown-up after making comments like that? If you just want to sound-off about how unfair life is, buy a t-shirt with a slogan and walk about a bit. You ask "the issue here is what kind of decisions the Foundation can make on our behalf.". Well look at the Terms of Use: "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves or the Wikimedia community or its members (as described in Section 10) to terminate part or all of our services, terminate these Terms of Use, block your account or access, or ban you as a user". So, they can ban people independently of the community. That's the ToU you sign up to on every single edit you make. If you have a problem with that, have a dialog with WMF and if they won't change their ToU (unlikely) then fork the project. No other options. Russavia is not alone in being banned by WMF. I agree it is controversial, but simply for reasons I have already explained: that the culture here is infantile in its approach to dealing with hard problems. You may not like it when I put it like that, but that's how it is. As for your rhetoric about silencing russavia, I don't see you campaigning that the other WMF-banned people should be given a platform for their views? There's a whole other internet out there for Russavia to express himself. He's banned and should no longer edit here, particularly so on any forums that involve dialog. That's just how it is, odder, and WMF have made that quite clear to Russavia and to any admin who thinks they could unilaterally permit Russavia to do so by unbanning a sock or restoring deleted content.
I keep repeating, odder: what do you hope to achieve? Do you think the community can reverse this ban by moaning enough? If Russavia has committed something for which a WMF global ban is deserved, then that's pretty serious shit and I don't understand why you think those who are deeply uncomfortable with such an editor returning should be subject to continued harassment from you and others over that viewpoint. Indeed, it is getting to the point where you being a 'crat is unjustified. You should be part of the solution and trusted to keep us safe, rather than part of the problem and seeking to expose us again to users who bully, intimidate and harass. If you don't think Russavia has done anything justifying that WMF global ban, then that's entirely a matter between you and WMF and not my concern. -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Harassment is a very serious accusation that should be accompanied by corroborating evidence and should not be used lightly. It certainly is not something that should be a passing comment. If you genuinely feel harassed or someone else is harassed, that should be a separate thread and perhaps escalated to WMF legal if you think is very serious (by which I mean stuff like real world harassment). I think both of you should take a deep breath. We should be discussing the conduct of Russavia, not each other. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: Repeating your opinions doesn't make them any more true. I would very strongly suggest you withdraw your comment about me harassing anyone over anything. It is despicable, and I would never expect you to accuse me of anything like that unless you can prove it (which you can't).
The culture here isn't "infantile", as you say, because it cannot deal with hard problems–it's infantile in its assumptions that anything that the Foundation do is God-given law that cannot be questioned or commented on. The truth is, the Foundation have given themselves a right to ban people and then swiftly and secretly proceeded to use it towards a Commons administrator, without consulting us in any way. They also made the actions permanent and non-appealable, which is totally disgraceful. It's just mind-boggling to me that a quite reasonable request to have some information about the ban released to the community, or a part of it, is met with shouts of protest from the community and a defiant "no." from the Foundation. You speak about healing the community and finding a solution so often — don't you think that getting the Foundation to release at least some information about that ban is required to reach any compromise here? odder (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, your sarcasm in the first comment wasn't helpful. Your hyperbole in the above "anything that the Foundation do is God-given law that cannot be questioned or commented on" is also not helpful. It's verging on trolling to frame other's viewpoints in that manner so I'll ignore it. I don't see where there are "shouts of protest from the community" about requesting information from WMF. You're quite entitled to ask WMF for the information. The Global Ban Policy may be new, but the ToU has for a long time given WMF the ultimate authority to ban users -- back in the history to the first version on wikimediafoundation.org or further to the first version on meta. Do you object to the operator of a website having ultimate authority over who may use their facilities? It is possible that a release of information about what led to the ban may satisfy the community. The lack of information is certainly being used as an excuse by a vocal group to maintain their campaign, and prevent the community moving on. But I can also understand there may be legal reasons it cannot be disclosed, and possible that sufficient disclosure that the community fully understands all the issues would release information about third-parties which subjects them to unfortunate consequences. I can also understand the position WMF finds itself in where choosing to disclose some ban cases but not others leads indirectly to a release of information (or rumour) about the others. If this is your main problem, the lack of disclosed information, then make it your mission to get it. Go set up a petition and ask people to add their names to it, if that might make a difference. Give WMF an idea of how the community feels that goes beyond half a dozen vocal users. Then figure out how you deal with the response. As far as I see it, your issue is entirely with the WMF, so stop making it about Yann or me, or any other user on this site. Because, if one assumes Russavia really did so something seriously f***ing terrible, as WMF imply he must have in order to be banned by them, then I hope you appreciate that our position is quite rational, and it becomes inexplicable that a respectable functional community should have anything more to do with him. -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 Comment I have thing more positive to do than hunting Russavia, so I am not going to do so. But he should not be allowed to do any action, specially edits which are aimed to disrupt this project. I don't care as long as he only edits his own files, but he should be blocked and reverted if he contests any decision, including deletion requests. Harassment and intimidation are not acceptable here, whatever the number of edits made. That should be clear. Yann (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I am specifically refering to his last reopening of deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norton Rose Fulbright.png ,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Northeast airlines uk logo.svg. I don't mind if anyone think that these DRs should be reviewed, but Russavia's edits there should be reverted. It is particularly disruptive that a bureaucrat like Odder supports a banned user. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you do mind that russavia thinks these DRs should be reviewed, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to speedily close them like you did. It is particularly disruptive that an administrator like you would try not to let this be discussed. Regards, odder (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with that statement from Yann. WMF legal made the decision to block so I would let them chase him around. If you feel like doing it then that's on you but its clear that he can just create another account so as long as the edits are positive and helping the project I wouldn't bother with it. Its better to keep the devil you know so to speak. At least we will know which one is his. That's just my opinion though. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Yann. He should have zero community involvement. Persona non grata. His friends should encourage him to find another hobby. Users here cannot "allow" Russavia to participate (e.g. engage with him, unblock sock accounts, etc), no matter whether they agree with the block or not. Anyone doing so is extremely likely to find themselves also blocked by WMF. It's basic ToU stuff. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The big question... Why Russavia has been blocked? I understand his block evasion is policy violation, but considering his great valuable contributions to Commons (including uploading high quality files, one of them the Image of the Year 2014), may be actions against the unfair actions from the WMF.
Most of the users (includeing me) disagree the WMF actions against Russavia, because we (the communbity) didn't decided his block. By contrast, the many users that agree with the Russavia block are very likely to know why he has been blocked, deffending the position of the WMF instead of the Community, I think.
I don't support his policy violation (socks and others ones), but I condemn totally the actions by the WMF by hidding the actual reasons to the Community. While WMF still hidding the reasons, neither user have the rights to deffend the WMF actions instead of the Community (in particular, INC that appears to have personal problems with Russavia, and done clearly disruptive and bad faith actions like blocking two admins). Don't forget that We are the Community, the base of the WMF, not the other way, IMHO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Just repeating what I wrote elsewhere, no disruptive accounts should be allowed here (or elsewhere for that matters), whatever the number of edits. Any account which main purpose is to create issues should be blocked, even if he has done one million edits. Yann (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Some feedback on a few comments above. As I don't want to get pulled into the drama-mongering, I'm making a separate statement.

  1. odder has done a huge amount of work keeping the project free from unlawful or unpleasant harassing material, helping to keep this a safer environment; he is not shy of lobbying the WMF for more open and transparent governance, making him a important and increasingly rare critical voice. If odder is outraged here, perhaps he has reason to be?
  2. Russavia did a lot of work behind the scenes keeping normal users safe and handling unlawful material, this thread is a good point to thank him for unpaid time he put in to that work, as well as his top notch educational content contributions. He never had the opportunity to reach "one million edits" but his "main purpose" (per Yann's phrase) was always to support the mission of this project up until the point when the WMF made that impossible.
  3. I have yet to see a single published allegation against Russavia of harassment that consisted of more than allegations of schoolboy level humour and bad language, nothing close to the sort of criminal bullying and truly nasty personal intimidation that some of our long term contributors are targeted by, including Russavia himself. Ill judged schoolboy trolling or offensive language are well within the authority of our community of administrators to handle. There was never any need for WMF employees to sweep aside community policies if this was the basis of their lock.
  4. Most of the community recognize that Wiki-politics and personal politics must have played a significant part of the unexpected and extreme WMF office lock of Russavia, even those that would have lobbied in a community vote to block Russavia from editing. We can do little more than tut and feel ashamed for the dis-empowerment of our community in the absence of the WMF stepping up to the mark to explain their actions, or to deny that this was a political lock, after a request by certain influential people who gave credence to extreme and unprovable claims against Russavia. This lock is counter to any spirit of natural justice as Russavia is denied a process of appeal or examination of evidence in order to clear his name, instead he and the rest of us are met with hostile silence. That is not governance, it is self-defeating complacency.

--Fæ (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Fae states above and I really can't say it better than that. I would also add that the statement that Yann makes about disruptive accounts should be allowed is true, if it were true. In this case it is not and its the WMF and the community making these accounts disruptive. We are perpetuating a cycle of disruption by chasing them around. Positive edits aren't disruptive and as long as this project is about editing and building knowledge then the contribution should be taken on its merits, not on the grounds it may have been done by an editor that was blocked against or without consultation of the community. Reguyla (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've nothing further to add to the above comments, other than to say that I've been told by a WMF member of staff (on the usual condition of anonymity) that they believe the ban will ultimately be lifted and is essentially temporary in nature, but for undisclosed reasons, is considered by the WMF to be necessary in the short term. Nick (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've been told differently, and what I heard frankly made me want to throw up. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I object in the strongest possible terms to seeing only a Selected Few being given information regarding russavia's global ban, and I second Fæ's request to have this information released publicly, or at least to a specific, agreed-upon part of the community, and not just to certain people meeting unknown criteria. odder (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As far as I am aware the reason why WMF legal is so discrete about it is to avoid disclosing such personal information. We do not need to be told private personal details. It is possible to infer personal details even when such information is anonimized. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has evidence then I would like to see it published and I can make up my own mind with regard to culpability, based on my ethical values and community agreed policy. The rest seems defamatory gossip, and we would do well to firmly discourage anyone spreading it. --Fæ (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Without taking in block polices in to consideration, since it doesn't seem to be on anyodys mind anyways(...), we need to think of the outcome of this. If this prolonged discussion continues it can only result in two outcomes. One, we chose to keep the block on the banned user in question and nothing else happens as a result, since the user isn't able to that account anyways. However, if the account is ever to be unbanned by the WMF (for some reason) the user would still be blocked on Commons. Blocking an admin, without evidence of said blocking rational, given with diffs as would be customary for all other blocks of its kind, isn't good. The second outcome would be to unblock the user, which wouldn't matter anything as of right now since, as I said the user is banned and not able to edit using that account anyways, and unless unbanned it will stay that way. So no matter what the outcome is, it will not matter in the end unless WMF unbans the user. If you want to add or change the blocking policy weither or not it should be allowed to block a user which is banned by a higher instance, then bring that proposal as a policy proposal, not like this with personal attacks and block out of precedence. (And if someone were able to follow my rederic, you will heerby be awarded one cookie!) Josve05a (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) IMHO, we can reconsider such matters when and if the global ban is lifted. The decision we cast here should hold true as long as the circumstances remain the same. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is not much to do here, though it would be helpful to reverse out of process blocks. Russavia may be WMF-banned, but that has no influence on the community. One of his accounts may be be blocked, but he (as a person) is not [community-]banned so the block doesn't have to be "enforced" on other accounts.
So everything continues as before, WMF takes out its own trash. --Nemo 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That is kind of why I started this discussion, to give the community a chance to reach a community decision. The discussion here implies at least some users are willing to enact a community-ban on top of the wmf ban. We however are discussion other aspects of the issue below. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Random section break (and WMF comment)

This is a mostly a response to Nick's response above regarding what he supposedly heard from a WMF Staff member about our intentions. Because of the number of emails I've received over the past hour about this it is clear that multiple people would like me to comment on it and so I'm separating it out here to be more visible rather then have it get lost in the thicket of responses. I apologize in advance for the length, but I want to ensure that I'm clear. I added a section break to split it out but if anyone would prefer it organized some other way they are free to adjust it (into a part of the last section, bullets, whatever) as long as the content isn't changed.

Let me be very very clear: whomever told Nick that we believed any global ban to be temporary in nature is either mistaken or lying (my guess is mistaken or attempting to show that they understand. No one who has anything to do with the Global Ban process in Legal, the Community Advocacy team or the executive leadership has any plan or expectation to unban any of the Globally Banned users and even if they were I can promise you that someone who has refused to even accept the ban would never even have an appeal acknowledged as they have failed to show any good faith desire to change. The process of a Global Ban (compared to, say, an office action lock that my normal Jalexander-WMF account may occasionally have to do) is explicitly created for ban's that are permanent. More then 100 hours of staff time went into each and every one of those bans to ensure that we were absolutely sure that was the right decision.

While I appreciate a desire to know more details about the ban that just isn't possible. Doing so without revealing the victims and exposing them to more abuse is close to impossible and that is not a risk I am willing to take. While in theory I would have no concern some of the victims themselves who came to us talking to the stewards or the community (and I certainly wouldn't stop them) the reaction of people when harassment from him IS reported amidst all of this makes me have no confidence that it would help anything and so I can in no way blame them for feeling that the risk of more abuse and harassment outweighs the likelihood of getting the community to understand. In fact I know that some of the victims who approached us (and some who never did) have reached out to some users and while I appreciate the frustration that "not everyone knows" I honestly can not blame people who are concerned about airing their issues in public. I will, however, say one thing for the record: None of the people who approached us about looking into a ban for Russavia were from English Wikipedia. All of them were either members of the commons community or non-english users within the global community. I know that there has been a meme that this was all because of his issues on that project, it couldn't be further from the truth, and while I imagine that this statement won't change a whole lot of minds I certainly feel better having said it.

For the most recent global ban we did indeed go to the stewards before we took the action so that they had a better understanding. We expect that we will do something similar for future bans, however doing so retroactively is not a suitable option because the victims at the time spoke to us believing it to be confidential and without their permission I'm not going to break that confidence. Jalexander--WMF 19:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Global lock is not only legal. Its a good practice also. This is not intended to be a judiciary system. It's the private owner of a website enforcing its contractual rights to determine who may contribute to that website. WMFOffice [23] --The Photographer (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is simple enough of a solution to the issue of the potential revealing of the victims. Give the information to oversighters who have all been identified to the Foundation and who have experience in dealing with confidential matters, including non-public personal information, harassment and illegal content. Make them sign the confidentiality agreement and, for additional protection, a specially-crafted non-disclosure agreement that would allow for legal action against them should they ever release any information relating to the issue. Having volunteers sign NDAs is a longstanding procedure within the Foundation, and it could easily and effectively be used in this situation, too. If the accusation against russavia are confirmed that way, I would expect oversighters to immediately start a procedure to community-ban russavia; as an oversighter myself, I would be the first one to start such a procedure. odder (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it that simple? If one communicates on an understanding of confidentiality, that the limits of disclosure extend no further than the necessary minimum of employees of WMF, one can't simply extend that to a larger group on the basis that they in turn promise not to tell. It seems you want a significantly large group to know, such that they could collectively persuade the community one way or another. But this in turn means that it is impossible to work out who leaked, should someone break their NDA. I think the best you could hope for is that those who gave WMF information in confidence are asked and agree to release it to some larger group (such as the oversighters you suggest). But you can't demand anyone does that, especially given your declaration that, as one of Russavia's strongest advocates, you are one of the oversighters who would be told. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: I'm not demanding anything, actually, and I have no idea where you got that impression from. Other than that, you are entirely correct, and I am being told that the Foundation will try to work with the people directly involved in the russavia case on some sort of a solution that resembles my suggestion. There are currently 6 oversighters on Commons, so that's not a very large group, and given our experience in dealing with non-public information, we are the group that's best suited to deal with this. That you consider my being a so-called russavia advocate enough of a reason not to share the information with me is quite interesting; my opinion is quite contrary, that particularly because I am supporting fair treatment of russavia, I should not be excluded from receiving the information if it's shared with the other oversighters so as to ensure proper balance. But if you have a better suggestion of an existing group of Commons contributors that could be given this information, I'm all ears. And if you think I can't be trusted with this information, then perhaps it's time for a discussion on revoking my oversight access. odder (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
odder, earlier you said: "don't you think that getting the Foundation to release at least some information about that ban is required to reach any compromise here". So you think it is "required", and don't currently seem willing to let it be until you get that information. Sounds like a demand to me. But I hope now the statement from James helps you realise it isn't WMF being unreasonable but about confidences that should not be broken -- it is up to others to agree to extend the circle of "who knows". -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What would be the advantage of odder revealing this information to Russavia? I mean Russavia is probably aware of the information WMF is aware of as it is information on his conduct. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The WMF is only aware of nonpublic conduct related to users who told the WMF about it.    FDMS  4    23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit more than that such as checkuser info etc. but I get the impression multiple people complained to WMF Legal about Russavia. I would consider it very unfair if we are doubting Odder's conduct on the sole basis of his position towards Russavia. And even then, Odder is mainly complaining about a lack of info more than anything. Kind of like innocent until proven guilty... -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather doubt Odder's conduct based on a recent incident involving him and a severe breach of confidentiality.    FDMS  4    00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
FDMS is being unfair. The "recent incident" is the opposite of the argument posed. Anyone with doubts should read the discussion linked for themselves, it explicitly dismisses an allegation against odder and provides no evidence of misconduct. --Fæ (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, my comment about odder and oversiter was not intended to spark a discussion about his suitability for that role or whether we trust him with confidential information. I mention it purely from the point-of-view of the victims who gave WMF information -- they may not trust odder to keep that information secure (either secure from russavia, or from the other russavia-supporters who continue to edit here). I can see advantages to odder knowing, in that as a 'crat I keep expecting him to show leadership (and keep being disappointed :-() However, we should be careful not to consider this group as a jury. I would be interested to know what role you think this group would play. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the situation - I've been told something wrong by a contact at the WMF, other people have been told varying degrees of information, either through their WMF contacts or from those people who complained about Russavia. That's an untenable situation which we really cannot afford to repeat. There needs to be a formal, properly constituted two-way mechanism for the WMF and the Commons community to keep each other informed.
I'd have said the Commons community needs to propose maybe six candidates, not necessarily bureaucrats or administrators, but a good cross section of the community, to serve as a "Communications committee" purely to be a formal channel between the Commons community and the WMF. The committee would be told about upcoming bans and expected to express their view concerning the ban in a way that helps the Commons community understand the issues, they would also be expected to canvass the community for viewpoints concerning new features, ask about feature requests and generally try and improve the relationship between Commons and the WMF. MediaViewer and Super Protect would be the sort of things that would be consulted on first, in a sensible organised fashion, by the Communications committee and feedback then passed to WMF for actioning.
The first task of this little Communications committee would clearly be to deal with the Russavia situation and explain to the community as clearly as can be possible in the circumstances the reasoning for the ban and what actions they would recommend. I don't envisage this being an Arbitration Committee able to undertake administrative actions as a body, only to make recommendations on how the community should choose to proceed.
I'll also add, I wouldn't serve so it's not a 'power-play' on my part. Nick (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the bum steer you just gave the community further up, you are the last person who should serve on any "Communications committee". There already seem to be moves to involve the community or representatives from the community in future such decisions. For reasons already explained, the information in the Russavia ban can't just be released to any random group of people we elect into some committee. It's quite a different sort of matter than some technical change to the UI or granting of certain powers. Let's see how odder gets on with getting more information about this case. Whether some extra group of user beyond the existing steward, 'crat, admin is worth creating as a communication interface, is probably a big discussion for another time.
Again, I'm nervous that this talk of "cross section of the community" makes me think people are setting up a jury that will reach some verdict on russavia and declare some sentence. They may report back an opinion, based on information seen (which may be incomplete), about whether russavia broke the ToU in a way that meets the WMF Global Ban Policy, but they have no power to change the WMF decision. This isn't a court where we can summon witnesses. It is quite possible that any extra information released would limited and not paint the full picture, leaving some still unsatisfied about the reasons for the ban. And quite possible this endeavour is futile and no further information is released. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There is one thing I don't get: what makes the difference of informing representatives of any wiki community beforehand about global bans when they can't share the information and nothing can be done to prevent or appeal the bans? The only reasons I can think of is that people are (1) either curious about the reasoning, (2) disagree with one or more global bans or (3) don't trust the WMF staff/don't believe they made the right decision. None of these reasons are valid to then share confidentional information, so I think no community member should be informed at all about any ban. And it's also not helpful to repeat your arguments over and over and over... It won't help anyway as bans are permanent and non-appealable. Like Colin said: if you disagree, just quit editing. Trijnsteltalk 10:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding a communications committee, I do not see the necessity as we have enough oversight users to fill the same role. What would be the point of providing confidential information to a user that the community hasn't granted oversight permissions in the first place?
I think the more logical option would be to have it the other way around where WMF staff would respond to inquiries from the community if such an action is deemed necessary. We can create a process for this if need be in the future. These people aren't the jury and really weather or not they agree with WMF Legal is fundamentally irrelevant. Everyone knew this from the start.
We currently have a deadlock between transparency and privacy and it is a good thing that this has polarized our community which proves we care about both. I would appreciate if we stopped calling each other names, question each others integrity or ask disagreeing users to leave the project simply because the other person is leaning closer to the other position. I am not blaming or accusing anyone and am merely asking you to dismantle tension by more careful consideration of posts.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
とある白い猫, I'm not at all sure we have a deadlock between transparency and privacy. Nobody is campaigning for more information surrounding the several other WMF global blocks. And I don't think anyone has seriously suggested breaking anyone's privacy or exposing confidential information without their consent. It is more what Trijnstel said, that there's a refusal to accept WMFs word on this particular block of this particular user, and a belief that a release of information might settle the matter. That comes down to trust and prejudice, and this is what divides us. The second division is the "shock" expressed that the owner of a site might have ultimate say in who uses their facilities. So there's a power battle and the russavia case used as a political football.
As an example is the claim that "Most of the community recognize that Wiki-politics and personal politics must have played a significant part of the unexpected and extreme WMF office lock of Russavia". Reality check: The vast majority of people who edit on this site and other WMF projects would respond with "Who?" or "Hmm, vaguely heard of that issue; not interested". They don't watchlist the drama notice boards. And many, if told that the owners of a website had banned a user for breach of ToU, the details of which need to remain confidential, would respond with "And?". This is already evident in the general lack of interest in the other banned users.
Ultimately, the WMF need to work hard to restore and maintain the community's trust, and form a better partnership that removes the prejudice we see displayed in this dispute. And also the community needs to come to terms with a hierarchy of authority that does indeed let the WMF permanently ban users without the community consent.
とある白い猫, wrt to your "leave the project" comment, this isn't a "go away please" request but comes from the the free culture meme : "you only have two rights on (this project): the right to fork, and the right to leave", see the essay en:Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia for example. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not see why you lay the extreme cases as the only course of action. We have a scale here on this issue. On one side there is privacy and on the other transparency. We are trying to argue what fine tuning would be a good balance where we do not sacrifice either value.
Take it or leave it remarks have traditionally been the source of escalating conflicts and are overall unhelpful. They never provide an added value to the discussion and only serve to upset some people. Ergo, I find them unnecessary in this discussion. I would suggest discussing privacy and transparency aspects more since that's what this discussion morphed into.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement with Colin. The Wikimedia Foundation, through technical issues (Echo, VisualEditor, MediaViewer, SuperProtect and maybe Flow) and through the actions (behaviour and/or judgement) of several members of staff (Erik Moeller, Sarah Stierch, Oliver Keyes and Ryan Kaldari) has lost a lot of trust within the community. We need to be able to trust both the judgement of the Foundation as an organisation and the behaviour of the staff individually who are working for the Foundation. It will need those of us who are more critical of the Foundation to give them a bit more leeway and more benefit of the doubt and it will need more engagement from the Foundation. Nick (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Although its uncommon for me to say this I generally agree with Colin on this point too. Like Nick says the WMF has done a lot to lose credibility and trust from the community and it will take time to gain that back. Statements of "Trust us we know what we are doing" don't work when there is no basis of trust already present. Reguyla (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the fact is "he is banned by WMF", and community has no chance to overcome it. So, ban should be enforced. End of story. — regards, Revi 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, When Wikimedia becomes a community driven project, then we will discuss why Russavia was banned and what he must do to get unbanned..and until such time (if it ever happens), the community has no say in this ..just drop it ..--Stemoc 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Fundamentally I do not disagree with the assessment. However, the transparency angle was brought up and I think that would be a productive outcome. I think from the start that has been what was lacking which got some users concerned, rightfully so IMHO. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The point for today, as raised originally, is that although Russavia is banned, excommunicated and cast into a pit of eternal flame, he's still here. So what do we do with all the socks? Technically no-one has a means to make them stop. If a sock pops up, says "Here's a helpful suggestion about this one image", then is that comment to be ignored, followed, or blanked with extreme prejudice, no matter how (as a single comment) helpful it is.
With "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it is impossible to exclude recurrent socking by the energetically committed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We do have means to stop him but in the process we would cause collateral damage where we end up blocking too many unrelated users. I want to think of the matter beyond specifics concerning Russavia. Normally if someone points out a copyright problem or some other issue, I would be hard pressed to ignore it. That said reliability of a globally banned user would be of suspect. For instance if said user is wiki stalking other(s) on wiki where he or she contests their actions constantly, I would then outright ignore the users suggestions regardless of merit. I have a very low tolerance to such gaming of the system and community patience. So I suppose my take is, it depends on the circumstances. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Korean Wikipedia has 10 years-old troll with +200 socks (lot less compared to rissavia's total amount) yet we suffer from Toarushiroineko's said collateral damages. (false positive) However, banned user is persona non grata defined by WMF, the operator. Whether you like russavia or not, this does not change. Unless you are going to create fork of Wikimedia Commons, you have to comply with the wmf decision (which sometimes I don't want to do, for example the f<censored>ing superprotect.) no matter you like it or not. — regards, Revi 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That's incorrect. WMF complies with its own decisions. WMF can't give orders to volunteers. --Nemo 14:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
WMF can remove any volunteer. We as volunteers can choose not to help enforce such a decision since it is not required of us. What about this is incorrect? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
So in all this discussion we seem to be right where we started. The WMF banned him and we can't do anything about that, we also cannot do anything to stop him from continuing to contribute and we, he and the WMF know that. As noted above there are things we could do to "stop" it but those are unlikely to succeed unless we are willing to completely lock down the entire site and prevent everyone from editing, which isn't realistic. So, do we continue to chase him around? Do we just ignore it and let positive contributions be what they are or are and improve the project or are we going to revert positive contributions based solely on the source and create a bigger problem and more drama. I can't speak for others but I for one would rather have positive edits, banned user or not, rather than someone who gets frustrated and starts doing vandalism or other shenanigans. Not that Russavia would do that, but that is a common result from people when the community continues to revert positive edits. Reguyla (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is as hopeless as you claim. One possibility remaining (which I think is unlikely but...) is that sufficient information is released to sufficient number of trusted users to change the some minds about the ban. Odder has already stated that in that case he'd be the first to start the process of a community-ban. And I have to be hopeful that a community-ban, where russavia is no longer encouraged and supported by a disgruntled handful of users, would finally lead him towards getting another hobby. If that information-release doesn't occur, then we are left with our stalemate wrt trust. We're not talking about blindly thinking the WMF is infallible, as some have argued unhelpfully above, but about contemplating the probabilities and considering the statements by James and others about how much process went into the ban and the denials that it concerns certain areas one might consider political. If the ban is unfair and involves nothing more than Jimbo getting pissed off about a penis-painting, as some suggest, then we are being lied to and taken for fools on such an epic scale that I don't find that compatible with my continued contributions here -- and surely that is doubly so for those who are/were friends of russavia. Look at the WMF Global Ban Policy. That's pretty serious shit. It's time to stop denying what likely occurred, and time to stop using this issue in power games. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem here isn't in people supporting the ban, because the WMF has authority to implement those and there seems to be plenty of people willing to act to block him. I also don't think it really matters whether a few trusted users know or not, its still not going to change anything. As Nick has suggested I have also heard some stories about why and about how it may change in the future and I also know that my name was brought up for a WMF ban in relation to ENWP. I also seriously doubt that the WMF spent 100+ hours on a decision about whether to ban Russavia. I fully believe that politics had a huge part to play in it and although other factors also likely came into play, that was probably a significant contributor. The bottom line is as long as he is willing to create accounts to contribute then there isn't much we can do unless we are willing to go to extreme measures to prevent it and I would rather those contributions continue to be positive than to create yet another vandal. What I am saying is that as long as the edit is positive, then I wouldn't personally chase him around. I don't think he should interact in discussions, vote and participate in delete discussions and the like, but providing input via IRC or doing things like that in a more consultational role isn't a concern to me. The individual doing it can determine on its merits if the change is worth doing or not. As for the act of socking, again, I wouldn't waste my time chasing him around as long as the edits are positive. If they are not then that changes things. I also think a community ban is a waste of time. He's already WMF banned and we cannot change that, but if this community held a ban discussion and the outcome was no consensus or that he should not be banned its just going to cause more tension between us and the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla: To summarize.... We are a community of communities. We are responsible not only towards commons but EVERY project that depends on our content. We cannot have members of our community engage in harassment of our members as well as members of communities that depend on us. I do not believe there is any disagreement on this general stance against harassment by anyone. Above, WMF Legal explained that Russavia has actively harassed multiple editors whom are members of the commons community or non-English users within the global community. Several members of our community didn't like the lack of transparency in this decision and above it was suggested that WMF Legal would provide information to members of our community that have oversight access. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is need to send information to any other group than functionaries of WMF. WMF functionaries are the ones that should deal with WMF bans. It's like an oversighter requesting information from a checkuser because they don't accept a checkuser's block. That's an inexistent procedure. It is not a choice; you have to accept it and checkusers are not forced to provide any information to those that were not chosen to oversee them. Oversighters are not employees and are not the ones to be called for Legal matters, are not selected for their expertise of Legal matters, are not even tested for having enough knowledge of WMF Terms of Use. So what if they disagree? Based on what?
We have to trust WMF when they act on their functions, otherwise there is no meaning if we are going to force them to break privacy rules whenever a group disagree with their conduct.
Also, Russavia has been breaking Commons' rules when he is creating abusive sockpuppets and harassing Commons users. We may have lost INC for that weird support some are giving to a banned user. Russavia's recent trolling on Commons, the way he responded to the lock, the disrespect to the work of volunteers and functionaries are enough reason to have him indefinitely blocked, no matter how many edits he had and are only a support to the ban decision. I can't see how a good user would great that amount of confusion. Not everything on WMF projects are publicly decided and there is nothing new on that. Like checkusers deal with checkusers' blocks, WMF functionaries deal with WMF bans. Move on.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In all honestly, Russavia was a much better contributor and admin than INC so lets not make INC a martyr and Russavia, Lucifer (though i can see the resemblance here lol) and i agree, this goes beyond an oversighter or Checkuser and even a steward I might add. I also think its ludicrous that it took WMF 100+ hours to come with a decision to Globally lock Russavia and also, he has created many socks across wikimedia, none of them actually targeted Commons users, if anything, they were mainly targeted at the WMF but again, there is nothing that we can do about this and It would be poor judgement in the part of Commons users to try to locally block a user just because WMF says so..when did we become their pawn? We do not have the power to overturn their lock so that we can locally vote on him being blocked nor does the commons community know the reason for him being locked (even though a few of us may have figured it out but won't talk about it since it will violate ToU), Would we intentionally hang a person without a proper court hearing just because the judge says so?, what is this, the 18th century?..and again, this is a WMF issue so its bets to leave it to WWF and it will be quite silly o the part of commons users to play 'policeman', just as there is an understanding between Stewards that any lock pertaining to a sock of Russavia or any other globally locked users is under the WMF jurisdiction which means a steward will not lock that account unless its abusive or intimidating, thus why there is a 'WMFOffice' account which handles the locks..Yann's decision to block Russavia locally is not justified and should be overturned (its not like he can log into that account anyway) The community has not decided to block russavia and Yann has no rights to overturn the community, only WMF can do that(sic) ..--Stemoc 01:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yann's block should remain due to harassment and intimidation of users at Commons both on wiki and off wiki. I despair that a handful of individuals continue to perpetuate some "saint russavia" myth and bring shame on us for enabling such a user to carry on his vindictive campaign. とある白い猫's experience below is absolutely typical. Spend less time with the rhetoric and more applying a clue stick to head :-)! Those repeating the "this is a WMF issue; leave it to them" are creating a false division. Russavia was a user on Commons and his actions affected users here and on other Wikis. It wasn't WMF staff that complained about russavia, but your fellow users, Stemoc. And their complaint was dealt with by professionals. Your comments insult and, frankly, perpetuate the intimidation those victims suffered. Are you so confident the WMF block is bullshit that you would unblock such a user as a symbolic gesture? Seriously, if you think WMF are lying then leave in disgust at the owners of this site. If they're not lying, then you cannot maintain any other position that to join with WMF in banning this user and ensuring he is kept out of our community. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if people like me leave, Wikimedia would be filled with people like you and thats actually far worse..would you nuke a whole country if only those in power are bad?....--Stemoc 12:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, do you think WMF are lying or not? Can you, for a moment, stop playing games and consider your fellow users who have had a terrible experience due to russavia. The situation here is not at all unusual -- in real life all sorts of judgements are made by those in authority using information that cannot be made public. -- Colin (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I unwatched this and several related pages to concentrate something more useful for this project. Just came here from a friend's talk. After reading all comments, I've a few doubts. 1. Jalexander stated that the complaint resulted in R's block are from users in this project and some other projects excluding EN wiki. So how a crat/OV/CU is eligible to receive that complaint for verification as they have no special right outside Commons. The only people who have such rights are stewards. 2. Outside of that WMF ban, R. is currently blocked by Yann on the ground "Intimidation/harassment" and nobody questioned it so far. How an ex crat/admin can sock here violating COM:BLOCK? 3. Do we need to waste our time for a user who has zero respect to our own community framework? 4. End of comments from me as I'm not watching this page. Jee 03:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: There is a legal framework for oversight users to receive some information through non-disclosure agreements. I imagine WMF Legal is taking their time to remove some private information discussing what info to obscure etc. The reason why we would do this is that some people seem to lack trust towards WMFs decisions and we would want the community to trust WMF. I'd like to think the exchange of information more in the context of that and less on Russiavia's benefit. If you read my remarks up to this point you will notice my lack of taking a strong stance in either direction. When I approached the topic with an open mind where I was trying to see the issue from every angle, even Russavia's perspective.
  • After all over the past few months I have personally observed that Russavia had been frequently making requests like "upload this" and "edit that" on IRC which were productive. If you feel you have been banned by the WMF unjustly, you would try to prove this by being on your best behavior and contribute in a productive manner. In doing so you would prove that there was a mistake and people were wrong about you. That would lead to appeals and an unban. We have had several problematic users whom reformed in a similar manner over the years.
  • However my recent interactions with Russavia on IRC that lead to this thread had been most unpleasant. I am more than aware that IRC conduct is not binding on wiki, however his IRC conduct is a good way to examine how Russavia utilized the tolerance we privileged him with. Aside from being subjugated to a stream of cursing and threats from Russavia for temporarily quieting him, I was unable to get him to acknowledge that he will be civil once. Hence I left his 24 hour quiet to stand which had expired yesterday afternoon.
  • By doing so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt where he would behave in a civil manner onward. His attitude in the channel since resembles that of a troll more than anything else and his tone is outright hostile towards whoever he disagrees with him. Often it isn't even criticism and just pure spite for the sake of it, so he mentioned something about having Windows 10 update issues and then expressed that WMF tech probably was involved as a reason why it is so bad. Also if someone posted something here siding with WMF's decision to ban him they are name called a WMF kiss ass. So your options are either you agree with Russavia or you are a kiss ass. I do not see any reason why we should tolerate such abuse on the IRC channel either. I will discuss what action should be taken on IRC end with my peers.
  • Wikimedia Commons as its name implies, is a community of communities and we should be in our best behavior even when we are subjugated to a hostile attitude over our decisions by our user base: Wikimedia projects and beyond. Since we expect such external negativity, we as a community should be at best behavior towards each other. Being productive does not give anyone a free pass on incivility. No amount of good work justifies bad behavior and bad conduct. If you are acting like a m:dick, do not be so surprised if you are treated like one.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We only have an indication from odder that any release of information is being considered. I suggest that until time that this happens or is refused, we suspend/close this discussion. とある白い猫 statement should stand as a reminder to all those playing politics and power battles -- stop with games: those with first hand experience of russavia's bad side regard your position as untenable and bordering on complicit. -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
White Cat, everybody know what is going on in IRC. I complained to IRC ops and the reply I got is "it is worth trying to develop a thicker skin and treat our IRC channels a bit like a pub, club or other social gathering, where people come in, have a chat, maybe fight a bit, and go away." I'm not a visitor of pubs; so decided to quit. I was hounded by some meat puppets and so I quit OTRS too. I had spent a lot of time there for the benefit of Commons; but what I rewarded is terrible nightmares. I'm glad some people, at least recognize my work there. I don't care our crats and admins like to make Commons also a pub "where people come in, have a chat, maybe fight a bit, and go away." But don't expect me there. Jee 11:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I hear nothing good about IRC. It seems those who shout most about transparency, community, accountability and press for the publication of all information, prefer to use a communications channel that is all about secrecy, cabals, gangs, anonymity and suppression of public information. Is it any wonder that our core demographic (young men) fall to their basest behaviour on such a forum, which appears to go unmoderated. Jee, there are plenty pubs that would ban you for the kind of foul-mouthed verbal shouting match you report, never mind actually physically fighting. Indeed, I rather suspect we'd all get along much better face-to-face over a pint of beer, than online where it is too easy to forget there is a person behind every user account. On a site dedicated to educational media, surely one should aim for the kind of behaviour expected in a modern office, where a lost temper had better be followed up with an apology, and where verbal abuse would very quickly lead to dismissal. I would be very interested if the moderator/ops you contacted could explain on-Commons why such behaviour is tolerated and why permitting it serves Commons purpose? -- Colin (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
IRC is fine. I find it most useful to get actual work done. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Russavia is being disruptive independent of whatever WMF provides

  • Yesterday I looked at File:AirlinerTHEMOON (9292899544).jpg which is of 1,459 × 1,106 pixels resolution and I would not call that low quality. Given how the file is within project scope, has no better version I am aware of and is not a copyright violation I closed it as keep. Russaivia decided to revert my DR closure decision. We do not tolerate this kind of behavior on commons. An admin decision on a COM:DR is absolute and should NEVER be reverted by anyone per our policies, guidelines and practices. Reasons behind this should be obvious. The decision itself can be appealed through a separate discussion as instructed by {{Delh}}.
  • This isn't even the first incident of this nature. A while back ago (as previously partially discussed), in the case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norton Rose Fulbright.png User:Odder nominated the file uploaded by Mkulk2010 for deletion which was closed as a keep by User:Yann. Then Russavia decided to make such an appeal about 11 days later which Yann re-closed as keep. I would have done the same as you would with any disruptive action of a banned user. This lead to an unfortunate brief revert war between User:Odder and User:Yann where User:Odder reverted to the version of Russavia and User:Yann reverting to the decision. Both users were asked to stop the revert war and they have. However I would like to note that actions of Russavia has lead to further disruption of the project. I closed this nomination as keep as I feel the logo is too simple and no compelling argument for delete was provided in quite a long time.
  • Furthermore, with File:Northeast airlines uk logo.svg the file was uploaded by Russavia on Dec 2011 nominated for deletion by Stefan4 in Jan 2012, a month later Yann voted it should be kept and MBisanz closed it as such. Russavia renominated the file for deletion last month (3.5 years later) which Yann closed as keep. This lead to another unfortunate brief revert war between User:Odder and User:Yann and had taken place at about the same time as the previous incident. I closed this nomination as keep as well since the logo is no more complicated than others on Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom. Russavia nominated it for deletion a third time today.
  • The avenue of appeal does not exist to renominate pages for deletion over and over again until the community succumbs to the desired decision in this manner. So our options are we either agree with Russavia on COM:DEL OR we agree with Russavia on COM:DEL. I do not like that we do not get to actually decide frankly.
  • It is clear to me that will of the community is of no consequence for Russavia. He will ignore blocks, IRC bans etc in a casual manner. As such, we should treat him just like how we would treat any other disruptive user.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is it that Russavia used a sock (ಮಾತ್ತದೆಡಲಾಗು) to make an edit with the summary: "とある白い猫, I suggest you read this --- "you get a boot to the head" -- why are you threatening violence to others?" and it was simply reverted (with the edit hidden), but the sock not blocked? This is clearly harassment, and like it or not, Russavia has now been locally blocked by Yann, so this is block evasion. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, blocked. Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"Boot to the head" is a quote from an old 80s Canadian comedy routine and song ("Ti Kwan Leep"), famous in certain circles in North America at least. By the way, I'm not sure I see why all the hair-pulling over the WMF block rationale, since Russavia committed plenty of dubious actions which were much-discussed when they happened... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm clearly not the only one who saw it as directed personally at とある白い猫; the edit summary itself has now been suppressed by Natuur12 who was the admin who also suppressed the posts (but oddly, did not block the sock). ColonialGrid (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
For what its worth the "Boot to the head" comment was made in IRC by とある白い猫 and directed at another user (Not Russavia) in a playful manner that I do not believe was intended as a threat of actual violence. Russavia just repeated it here as a sock, they weren't the one that originally said it. Reguyla (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So the phrase was referring to en:Boot to the Head and what Russavia neglected to mention is that the discussion was with User:FDMS4 and I was discussing actual work relating to commons, mainly files without {{Information}} that are not marked as -self and do not have a source (User:とある白い猫/List#Unsourced). I hereby would like to thank User:FDMS4 for his remarks in that discussion which have had influence fine-tuning the approach. With the post mentioned, not only did Russavia violate the "no-public logging" policy regarding IRC, he also proved how determined he is to demonstrate why he should not be unblocked. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's because he doesn't care and no wishes to change his path and privately write a long apology to WMF... just wants to mark everything he had been involved with for deletion, and then leaving on his "own terms". Tropicalkitty (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Even agreeing to be civil on IRC was too much for him. I repeat that IRC conduct isn't binding on wiki but it is an indication of conduct. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that for a second, he just doesn't want to listen to the WMF when he's told he's not welcome. Russavia is still editing, and contributing content, and until our admin corps takes this seriously and starts blocking him as a sock, he'll continue safe in the knowledge that it's just the nasty WMF and not the Commons community who want the block. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Russavia uses lyrics from song as his sock accounts and plane registrations, i see nothing wrong with that and I disagree with a community ban because this is starting to look like another witch-hunt, All of his contributions thus far with those socks has been positive and again, something i have re-iterated since he got locked in January, this is not our problem, this is WMF's problem, lets not make it our problem....Let the people who KNOW the reason for Locking his account deal with him and his socks, why the hell is the community doing their work for them?, remember, these people are PAID to block and lock his socks, what do we get? Until such time he becomes a problem as in goes on a vandalism spree etc, is the time the community takes action. Yann's block on his account is not justified, he was never blocked by the community so maybe the main problem may not be Russavia but the lack of faith and trust between community members ..--Stemoc 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this meme that "WMF blocked him so WMF can enforce the block" is a crock of shit. It's like saying "Judges should run around catching any criminals that have escaped from jail". Either you believe Russavia's ban by WMF was justified, in which case the community should join with WMF in keeping the bad 'uns out, or you think the ban is unjustified, in which case you should redirect your energy towards WMF changing their mind rather than hassling the other part of the community that actually has a clue. Stemoc, deal with your WMF problems another way. Don't expect your fellow users to put up with abusive users. If the reason for the ban ever comes out, and/or more parts of this community accept that the block is justified, I don't see anyone using your line that "this is WMF's problem". If WMF blocked someone for uploading child porn, say, would you really keep chanting that slogan "It's WMF's problem"? This is entirely about the attitude that a few users have wrt Russavia, and really very little to do with how the community should properly keep out users with serious social interaction problems -- no matter who presses the block button and no matter whether aspects of the block rationale need to be confidential. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Stemoc: Certainly it is WMF's problem. It also becomes our problem when the user harasses our users. We are a community that look out for our own. Russavia seems to think of his useful contribution as some sort of currency for bad behavior. I have had just about enough of his conduct. He does NOT get to post real names of commons users etc.
As far as I care, discussion in Russavia's conduct has reached a consensus. With his bad conduct in the recent weeks Russavia himself has exerted significant effort to prove that WMF's actions were justified beyond the shadow of doubt - as far as I care anyways. He is unwelcome here as per community decision as evident in the number and nature of the remarks made here. Hence, feedback from WMF Legal to oversight users as previously discussed would be for transparency purposes which wouldn't have an impact on this decision because that much is clear. Information on victims would be useful for oversight users so that they can notice this information if they are re-posted on wiki.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Who has Russavia harassed on commons? Personally, those that keep claiming that Russavia is harassing them are the ones harassing him. Again, all if not most of his edits are related to uploads of images, or fixing of his categories or nominating images for deletion and nothing more. When and if he becomes a problem, I will support his block...The irony is that he has probably made over 50,000 edits since getting banned and less than 100 of those edits may actually have been what you people call "harassment"..When someone points fingers at you, countering them is not 'harassment'..the pot calling the kettle black..hillarious...oh and Colin, even if WMF tells us what he did, there are a few of us who has been following this ordeal very closely and are actually aware of what has happened but due to ToU, we do no talk about it...you should understand by now why I still support russavia even though i know why he was locked in the first place..WMF is not always right and we should all remember that..--Stemoc 05:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment If potential victims of Russavia communicated confidentially with the WMF, although the WMF has no right to violate the confidentiality and has no right to expand the circle of confidants even under the pressure of a (small or big) part of the community of Commons, because for those who claim that the WMF has no real power here, it is the same vice versa, and I do not see how those who claim not to receive orders from the WMF would give him and make him break his confidentiality oaths if there is. If you don't like that, well change (or try) it for the next time or leave (or continue stirring arms). For those who want to violate the privacy I hope they will not face and be victims one day and they will not be betrayed and victims a second time because of a purely comunity fight. And for those who will say I mind I return the compliment to the wise ... -- Christian Ferrer 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Christian Ferrer: I have already commented on this part before, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so let me use this opportunity to rephrase my previous post. The Wikimedia Foundation is at this moment working with people involved with russavia's ban — that is, the alleged victims — on a solution that would be similar to what I suggested (ie. having some information released to oversighters). This is being done in direct cooperation with those people — there is no talk of breaking anyone's confidentiality, nor would I ever expect the Foundation to do so. I am assured that there is some progress, only the process is taking some time as the matter is, quite understandably, very complicated and time-consuming. Please appreciate that we are trying to constructively move forward towards a sustainable solution. Thanks, odder (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @odder: I'm happy to gave you this opportunity to rephrase your previous post. You too, do not doubt my good faith and if you are are trying to constructively move forward towards a sustainable solution, thanks do not force me spread. -- Christian Ferrer 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It's getting rather tiresome to see the answer to every single situation is "if you don't like it, leave". It should be the case that people co-operate and compromise and I'm seeing a worrying lack of compromise and co-operation here. Nick (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)