Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:Nub Cake prolific source of youtube screenshots
It would seem that this user is a source of images of Turkish politicians from youtube videos and other problematic sources. I have left a quick note on the users page, though I think that we are going to need someone with suitable language skills to have a solid conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- billinghurst: I must be missing something. Most of the more recent files you tagged as copyright violations are screenshots of videos published under a free license, which was explained on the file description pages. What's the problem? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why these files were deleted. Can you please clarify? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Josekale
Josekale (talk · contribs). Usuario que posiblemente inflinge copyright. Ver su discusión y sus subidas. --Jcfidy (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
CommonSense Link in German Upload Page to be removed
The Wiki Commons German Upload Page for own works calls in step 2 to use CommonSense [1]. But this project has been stopped (project page says "R.I.P"), so this link to CommonSense in the section "step 2" - Make information retrievable - should be removed. --Polimorph (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Polimorph: German Upload Page? Please provide a link. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: Da die Seite auf Deutsch ist, mache ich auch auf Deutsch weiter. Ich beginne hier und folge unter "B) Formular bisherige Hochladeart" dem Link "Es ist ausschließlich meine eigene Arbeit." Dort steht dann
Schritt 2. Mache die Datei auffindbar. (Commons hat mehrere Millionen Dateien) Verwende einen aussagekräftigen Zieldateinamen. Benutze keine Standard-Dateinamen! Beschreibe den Inhalt der Datei. Suchmaschinen suchen nach Text, nicht in den Pixeln eines Bildes! Benutze das CommonSense-Werkzeug, um passende Kategorien zu finden. Und diese Seite ist R.I.P. Vielleicht nicht für so viele mehr relevant, da inzwischen mehr der Wizzard genutzt wird (?), aber trotzdem sinnvoll es rauszunehmen oder? Grüße --Polimorph (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Please review the situation
Personal attacks
I edited the File:Visa policy of Ukraine.png file and another user then added some wrong information (that some countries require an invitation letter for Ukraine) which was not confirmed by any source so I removed it. The other user quickly undid my edit (which he does all the time), then I guess realized he made a mistake and undid his own edit but with a note that says "Twofortnights，你妈在天上飞，你的孩子没屁眼。" Google translates the Chinese part as "Your mother flying in the sky, your child did not asshole.". Now even though it makes no sense, I am pretty sure mentioning my mother and an asshole is not related to the file edit description. This user is harassing me all the time, several files and several wiki articles were locked because he pushed to add something that was disputed without ever willing to discuss on talk pages, always without any meaningful explanation like here where the reintroduction of content that has no source is justified with "It's necessary to exist.". But this is another level, it is absolutely unacceptable to resort to personal insults. Even if it's just a saying, it's terrible manners to address me in a language I don't speak, but to use a rude saying is something that deserves admin attention.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I checked the meaning of the phrase with a native Chinese speaker. She said "That is a very nasty insult". I looked at the edit war created by Whisper of the heart and I do not see any reason for it to be occurring. I support a block on "Whisper of the heart" for both edit-warring and insult, followed by a reversion of the images to the last solid copy by Twofortnights. Please also look at the user contribs ([7]), this map may not be the only one affected by the POV editing. I see templates which were changed, files which were changed - it's only because Twofortnights is active on his watchlist that we even know about all these edits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this matter deeper. On my part I didn't know how to handle this issue, therefore it was usually shrugged off as some edit warring or a one-off content dispute, but it's been going on for a while. It repeatedly happened in so many files and articles, he comes in and adds something that is POV or simply nonsense and then pushes for it without willingness to discuss until the file or the article is locked and then moves on to another one. But the dots were never connected. I try to keep all those hundreds of files in visa maps field neat and tidy, in line with references on Wikipedia, and it's not always easy to keep it cool when someone like that comes in trying to destroy the work or spew vile insults at you, so thank you again.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the first offense of unappropriate language usage, I have realized that it's my fault and I sincerely apologize to Twofortnights here. Although there was other things annoying me at that time, I shouldn't make my mood out of control and use unfriendly word to other people online. In the future, I will pay more attention to the online etiquette. Once more, I am terribly sorry for using uncivilized language.
For the edit war, I don't think this accusation should be for me only because my edits are not "POV or simply nonsense", actually those are constructive edits with valid sources. Currently, nobody here is trying to "destroy" files and artiles. If you find it is "not easy" to maintain contents, it would bring you lots of convenience by cooperating with others instead of treating others like potential enemies.--Whisper of the heart (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the first offense of unappropriate language usage, I have realized that it's my fault and I sincerely apologize to Twofortnights here. Although there was other things annoying me at that time, I shouldn't make my mood out of control and use unfriendly word to other people online. In the future, I will pay more attention to the online etiquette. Once more, I am terribly sorry for using uncivilized language.
- Thank you for looking into this matter deeper. On my part I didn't know how to handle this issue, therefore it was usually shrugged off as some edit warring or a one-off content dispute, but it's been going on for a while. It repeatedly happened in so many files and articles, he comes in and adds something that is POV or simply nonsense and then pushes for it without willingness to discuss until the file or the article is locked and then moves on to another one. But the dots were never connected. I try to keep all those hundreds of files in visa maps field neat and tidy, in line with references on Wikipedia, and it's not always easy to keep it cool when someone like that comes in trying to destroy the work or spew vile insults at you, so thank you again.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I've revdeleted the cursing summary in question. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Huraimi
Huraimi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) with two uploads (1 & 2) meant to degrade the represented people. I don’t know how this should be handled, so I will follow a more experienced user here. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Jan Arkesteijn overwriting files with false colour versions
- Previous consensus and extended discussion with a mass of evidence on ANU started February 2016:
- Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
I regret the necessity of bringing this time-consuming case again to AN/U, however it is clear that Jan Arkesteijn is ignoring the community consensus that:
I ask for this consensus to be enforced, and for Jan Arkesteijn to be subject to a block greater than the previous duration of 1 day in March 2016.
Example files are:
- File:Leyden-Rubenshuis-Noël.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) the colour shifted version reverted by me today.
- File:LuisdeVelascoII.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) the colour changed version reverted by me today.
- File:Jacobuskerk Den Haag3.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) reverted by me today, though initially appearing a crop/rotation, the original photograph had been falsely coloured without explanation or an overwrite comment stating this had occurred.
- File:Gerard ter Borch - Zelfportret.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) though called an update to a higher resolution in the upload comment, the file appeared significantly differently coloured to the previous upload, or the version available at the quoted source. Reverted by me today.
Since the block in March for failing to comply with this requirement, Jan Arkesteijn has made no effort to add sources to the huge number of past overwrites of official images of artworks with amateur digitally altered versions. That their disruptive and damaging overwrites have restarted, shows a lack of understanding of why the community came to a consensus to stop these overwrites or any self-awareness of why their personal taste when changing originals from the official gallery archives is not better than the professional archivists and curators we rely on for our highest quality GLAM uploads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Blocked as per community consensus here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Info I restored the change of File:Gerard ter Borch - Zelfportret.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) since Jan Arkesteijn is the original uploader and the community consensus was about files uploaded by other people. Léna (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Community consensus was about Jan's permitted actions, not about our policy on overwriting files or the requirement that our Source field absolutely must be honest. The version history displays the culture that policy has routinely been ignored for the sake of expediency wrt overwriting files both by Jan and CoatOfManyColours. But at least the version uploaded by CoatOfManyColours matches the current Source description. Whereas the more recent one by Jan is of unknown origin. Therefore I suggest you revert back to the honest version. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I split the file in two and must have done something wrong because now the history of the file is lost >_<. But at least there is one file with the right source and the other one with self-work template. Léna (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Community consensus was about Jan's permitted actions, not about our policy on overwriting files or the requirement that our Source field absolutely must be honest. The version history displays the culture that policy has routinely been ignored for the sake of expediency wrt overwriting files both by Jan and CoatOfManyColours. But at least the version uploaded by CoatOfManyColours matches the current Source description. Whereas the more recent one by Jan is of unknown origin. Therefore I suggest you revert back to the honest version. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Colin
Once the argument became circular and one began arguing with himself, I took action to quiet the drama for a few days. I promised in December 2015 to be the person who would, and have so done. Please let this be the last of the needless drama. There's far too much fun stuff to do around here to spend time ruining each other's day. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With respect to Colin's targeted sarcasm and ad hominem attacks intended to create a hostile environment, please refer to User_talk:Fæ/2016#Colin, where after over two years of being hounded I stated "Go away, you are obsessed with me, I find it creepy and it is unwanted attention." I had hoped that after a direct request for his long history of personal attacks and deeply unpleasant public hounding to end, he might back off or tone it down. I do not believe that anything Colin has written here furthers the aims of this project or aids our collegiate work.
Should anyone other than Colin feel there are real questions worth me answering, please ping me or email me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I know you'd like to characterise this as some kind of creepy obsession. But I'd be just as critical of anyone else who comes to the drama boards to tell complete lies. Don't worry, Fae, it's not just you. I'm pretty critical of several others on this site, one of whom is now globally banned and another lost his admin bit. It's just that Fae is dishonest more often than anyone else, by quite some margin. What Fae wrote above ("recent blocks show that a number of active commons administrators are confident to block based on use of 'bad words' ") is utter bullshit. Fae's bringing up of Dave's WP block log and then claiming "en.wp history should be irrelevant here" and shoving the fault for onto [other] people looking at it, is utter hypocrisy from a user well known to us all as a vocal critic of mentioning anything off-Commons in an argument when it suits his case. I ask anyone to find an example of where I've been critical of Fae that hasn't been justified by what he just wrote. In contrast Fae's statement above in this section is misinformation, generic personal attack, and irrelevant to this page. The conclusion from Fae's statement is that he doesn't defend that he lied and doesn't disagree that he's a hypocrite, but that he would like to get away with it please.
- Honesty is a vital requirement for engagement on Commons, particularly so when judging "user problems" or suggesting policy change. It is one thing to disagree on matters. Quite another to base one's arguments on complete lies and misleading remarks [I've had quite enough of that in the UK/EU referendum]. We don't censor valid criticism on Commons. So go on.. find one example where Fae has just been minding his own business, being truthful and fair, not being dismissively biased against Wikipedians/Wikipedia, not accusing anyone unjustly of "heteronormative" bias or other close-synonyms for homophobia, and where I've "hounded him". Find one example of a so-called "personal attack" that isn't actually fair criticism of his edits. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
::Can we all stop the bickering here ? ..... My behaviour was complained about which I've acknowledged blah blah blah so the best thing we all can and do is simply move on,
- Fæ and Colin - If you both have an issue with each other than start a new section instead of derailing mine (and I mean that in a nice way) otherwise go your seperate ways and enjoy editing here,
Could I ask an admin to close this whole section please - Keeping it short any more DR disagreements will be dealt with on the closers TP so keeping this open is now rather pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)- Thanks Colin - Much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 16:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- At first glance I notice that the message was indeed clear, however, I researched this carefully and there is clearly an attack behind soft words. Colin is a person with excellent technical photography knowledgebase and very observant qualities, with a power of the word very ceremonial and diplomatic. However, in deep down he is carried away by emotions, emotions that are exalted with users who have a critical position to certain matters of WMF. He force the view to support their convictions and decisions and in some cases reaching such attacks, and it's another example. @Colin: , I invite you to give you a look in the mirror, a look of retrospection into the past and what you want in this project now and in the future. I consider Colin a necessary part of the project belonging to users who blindly respect any decision of WMF. Colin invite you to be on the right side of the story before this project finished, I also invite you to apologize to Fae for all the damage done and leave messages with double meanings. All these things are not an obligation on your part but if a call to morality, decency, respect and obviously common sense.--The Photographer (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have outdented the section heading per Davey's request. I'm sad to see The Photographer joining in with Fae in the "let's say nasty things about Colin's motives" ad-hominem attack. You know nothing about what motivates me, and it most certainly isn't some undying love of WMF. I care when people make statements that are obviously and knowingly false or misleading. I care when people suggest others are homophobic or indeed have any hateful bias, when there is absolutely no evidence of such. I care when users show a bigoted attitude towards Wikipedians and Wikipedia, when both projects should be working together. I care when a known bully is defended so strenuously by that a user is forced to publish IRC logs as evidence. And I care when blocked users are enabled to edit here by admins. I care when admins abuse their powers to block users they are in dispute with and then to wheel war with others. I care when 'crats turn a blind eye to such admin abuse. I see that like Fae you choose not to discuss my actual criticism to see if it has any merit. Perhaps I'm bullshitting? It's quite simple. Find two or more examples of recent blocks where the block reason was merely "used 'bad words'". No "messages with double meaning". A simple yes or no. Is that an accurate description of recent events on Commons? -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a sarcastic remark, however, I wanted to congratulate you on your writing, it seems like a poem when translated into Spanish. Recently a man tried to kiss force, however, this situation has led me to change my point of view and take care of my words and I understand your arguments, however, it is important to be respectful to all those who are homosexual/heterosexuals/whatever. In my current work most of the time there uncomfortable homophobic jokes, I've learned to live with it, however, is only a small drop in the sea of ignorance lies in Latin America. --The Photographer (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer please don't judge me based on the awful results of Google Translate. Do you think this is all some random act of harassment towards Fae because a love of WMF? Was Fae innocently minding his own business? No. Fae spins a web of lies about blocks, bad words and the word "wanker". Hmm Tuvalkin used that term while making a very clear, hateful, and out-of-the-blue personal attack on me, for which he was blocked. Seems to me Fae is clearly trying to dismiss that block as an over reaction to some "bad words" that he suggests in some countries are terms of endearment spoken between lovers. So this starts with Fae insulting me and lying in order to do so. There's someone else who needs a block, and it's long overdue. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I am not a perfect user and neither is Fae, however, I have seen much more sincerity in comments from him than you. Fae's words are always sincere and without sprotocolar doohickey language. Both are driven by feelings, however, you use your intelligence that is superior to ours to generate conflict. Wikimedia Commons is becoming a fertile ground for hypocrisy, soft words in order to avoid "personal attacks" are used, however, behind those words well sought there is an interest to generate disrepute and insitación hatred in the struggle to have the reason, subjective arguments are used, but not to the recipient so that others can read how right you are. Perhaps in the background your comments to disqualify there is a real love, a love really contribute and stop being alone. However, the damage is done and words can not be collected from the ground. --The Photographer (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer, I get the feeling I'm reading the Google Translation of what you wrote, and most of it makes no sense to me. It seems to have turned all the meaning backwards. I've no idea what a "protocol gadget" is, but it sounds like something C3PO would like for Christmas. Your text claims Fae is sincere yet the whole issue here is that he came here and started lying about recent blocks. And this misinformation problem is just typical of Fae's interaction on Commons outside of File: space. Could you both just stop with the general smear tactics based solely bad faith and hateful views. Diffs. Quotes. Objective facts. Above I quote Fae and claim he is lying to us. He doesn't deny it. Above I quote Fae and claim he's hypocritical. He doesn't deny it. Fae regularly makes hell for anyone who cites evidence off-Commons, yet here is is doing it himself. These are facts that are quite easy to contest yet he does not. Instead we just get "Don't listen to Colin, he's a nasty person" smear. If there is anything sincere about Fae's claim that I'm creating a hostile environment, or Tuvalkin's claim that I'm dangerous, then it should be quite straitforward to get me banned. Alternatively, it's bullshit and both of you should be ashamed. -- Colin (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: I am not a perfect user and neither is Fae, however, I have seen much more sincerity in comments from him than you. Fae's words are always sincere and without sprotocolar doohickey language. Both are driven by feelings, however, you use your intelligence that is superior to ours to generate conflict. Wikimedia Commons is becoming a fertile ground for hypocrisy, soft words in order to avoid "personal attacks" are used, however, behind those words well sought there is an interest to generate disrepute and insitación hatred in the struggle to have the reason, subjective arguments are used, but not to the recipient so that others can read how right you are. Perhaps in the background your comments to disqualify there is a real love, a love really contribute and stop being alone. However, the damage is done and words can not be collected from the ground. --The Photographer (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer please don't judge me based on the awful results of Google Translate. Do you think this is all some random act of harassment towards Fae because a love of WMF? Was Fae innocently minding his own business? No. Fae spins a web of lies about blocks, bad words and the word "wanker". Hmm Tuvalkin used that term while making a very clear, hateful, and out-of-the-blue personal attack on me, for which he was blocked. Seems to me Fae is clearly trying to dismiss that block as an over reaction to some "bad words" that he suggests in some countries are terms of endearment spoken between lovers. So this starts with Fae insulting me and lying in order to do so. There's someone else who needs a block, and it's long overdue. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly a tricky attack against Colin remains unattended by the admins for more than one hour. Can we expect same laziness from them if the target was TP, OP or that banned user? Jee 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- For posteriority's sake, I'll just note that this was handled shortly after this message by @Jkadavoor had been posted here. As far as the subject of this section is considered, I don't think that the above comments either are ad hominem or create a hostile environment, let alone deserve a block. To be quite frank, I'd second @Colin's request for diffs to be provided, because the impression I'm getting after having read and then re-read all the discussions that have been taking place over the last two weeks is that we're just going round in circles.
- There are a lot of different claims and accusations being posted here—it's a discussion page, after all—however this has been going on for quite a while now, and if no evidence is provided, then there are hardly any chances for this personal conflict to be solved in a foreseeable future. I'm quite sure that anyone who's been following this conflict at least partially is already quite tired of it, so please, Fæ, provide some diffs of the alleged personal attacks or public hounding, and I'm quite convinced that some uninvolved admin will be able to take a look at them and take proper action if necessary. (Please feel free to start a new section or a subpage if you feel like doing so.) odder (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks odder for the update. But what I saw while re-reading COM:AN/B is the admin who handled the case was questioned and an inactive admin tried to revert him. (Thank God; we have so many sleepy admins in the reserve bench, who will jump in from the mars or moon to help, in case of an emergency.) And the admin who boldly restored the block was accused for edit warring even by you. Amusing! Jee 03:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly a tricky attack against Colin remains unattended by the admins for more than one hour. Can we expect same laziness from them if the target was TP, OP or that banned user? Jee 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- odder, I did not create this section and per my actual written text which I suggest people stick to, rather than Colin's increasingly hostile paraphrasing using words that I never would, I have not requested any administrative action. Colin was the one that made this a top level ANU thread about himself.[8]
- My note was a break-out as part of Ellin Beltz' thread, and explained why I would not be answering questions from Colin that were raised in that case, questions that pointedly created allegations about me when I was not a party in the case.
- Could everyone please note, I am not part of any dispute, discussion or argument with Colin here. I have deliberately avoided any direct interaction with Colin since my request last month of "Go away, you are obsessed with me, I find it creepy and it is unwanted attention" ref User_talk:Fæ/2016#Colin. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Claim: "I [Fae] did not create this section."
- Fact: Fae created the subsection entitled "Colin" within an existing topic, and everything he wrote in that section had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. It was just a generic smear about me. Section/subsection .. you decide if Fae is being devious with words.
- Claim: "Colin was the one that made this a top level ANU thread about himself."
- Fact: Fae already made a new section about me, named for me, about me, and not about Davey or Ellin, so Fae was the one who instigated an ANI thread about me. Davey rightly asked for this dispute to be separated from his own. And I complied by removing the = signs. I did not "make a section" - I simply raised the section-level of an existing section. Fae simply didn't use the correct number of = signs, for he had created a new topic. Again, Fae has a way of saying things that while partially correct, do not represent the truth.
- Claim "Colin's increasingly hostile paraphrasing using words that I never would"
- Fact I assume he is referring to '"let's say nasty things about Colin's motives" ad-hominem attack'. Ok, judge for yourself. Read the opening paragraph. "targeted sarcasm"; "ad hominem attacks intended to create a hostile environment"; "long history of personal attacks"; "deeply unpleasant public hounding"; "obsessed"; "creepy". Well that's a lot of nasty words about my motives. I'm not feeling the love. Do you agree? Seems like quite a fair description.
- Claim "I [Fae] have not requested any administrative action"
- Fact Fae created a (sub)section about me on "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" with my name in the header. Hmm. The whole purpose of this board is to request administrative action about problematic users. In his opening sentence he links to Commons:Blocking policy while claiming I'm making a hostile environment. If that's not a request for administrative action, I don't know what is.
- Claim "My [Fae's] note was a break-out as part of Ellin Beltz' thread, and explained why I would not be answering questions from Colin that were raised in that case"
- Fact No, you didn't. You just smeared me, making no reference to Ellin's topic whatsoever.
- Claim "I [Fae] am not part of any dispute, discussion or argument with Colin here"
- Fact Fae makes implicit reference to Tuvalkin's recent hostile insult to me which used "bad words" and for which he was "blocked". He even mentions the bad word, and lies to us about possible unoffensive meaning in some countries. The purpose of his lie is to claim there is a new Commons culture where someone might be blocked merely for using a bad word, which might not be bad, rather than for what Tuvalkin actually did, which was horrible and completely unacceptable.
I think it is fair to conclude that Fae continues to lie, to make deliberately inaccurate descriptions of events or other peoples words and motives. I've often said that one can tell what Fae is up to because that is exactly what he accuses others of. Well Fae accuses me, in this opening section, of making "ad hominem attacks". In case he's unfamiliar with the meaning, ad hominem is "is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument". I didn't make any ad hominem attack. I directly accused Fae of lying to us, and of being a hypocrite, based on what he had just written. This wasn't to further another argument (which is what ad hominem requires). In contrast, rather than defend himself, Fae creates this (sub)section to attack my character, motive and other attributes in order to avoid answering the question. Fae is the one making an ad hominem attack. This has gone on long enough. Too many lies. Time for a block. -- Colin (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fae: I have not requested any administrative action. So what the hell are you doing here? This is the administrators' noticeboard, and every report on ANs of course needs administrative actions. I recommend admins to close this thread ASAP, seriously. And I support too a block on Fae, if he continues to report Colin for ad-hominem attacks. Don't you have any other statement? Are you a robot that just repeat phrases without being tired? Fae, if you cannot handle the comments made by other users here especially Colin, just leave Commons. ★ Poké95 11:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Pokéfan95: , you may have missed the history:
- "what the hell are you doing here?", well I did not create this section, it was created as a new top level thread by Colin without my permission, this is why I have not asked for any action. You need to ask Colin why he is using this noticeboard in this way.[9]
- My note was part of Ellin Beltz' thread, explaining why I was not going to respond to Colin's questions in that thread. All this section now appears to be doing is creating pointless self-perpetuating drama with no meaningful external references. Had it been left as it was, this section would have been archived with the rest of Ellin Beltz' case.
- I am not part of any discussion or argument with Colin. I have avoided direct interaction with Colin since my extremely clear request on 15 May 2016 of:
- I can see no benefit in answering any question you raise in the future, as you deliberately use every possible occasion to troll and hound me. If you have anything to say, you can ask an administrator to act on your behalf. You are determined to grief me. Ever since your "raging gay" deliberately offensive jibe, words like "bigot" and "hatred" just build on that disruptive campaign. Go away, you are obsessed with me, I find it creepy and it is unwanted attention. ref User_talk:Fæ/2016#Colin.
- If anyone wants to have my account blocked, then they should create a section about my contributions to this project, where meaningful evidence about what I have done is provided beyond recycling text from this noticeboard in an attempt to prove something or other about the meaning of words. I shall continue to ignore Colin as doing otherwise proves to be a terrible waste of my time and everything I attempt to say is actively twisted in bad faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why Fae repeated all the lies above. But he's now added an additional lie.
- Claim "I shall continue to ignore Colin"
- Fact Fae created this (sub)section in order to smear me. Filling a paragraph with nasty descriptions of me. In big bold letters above he adds more nasty comments, and takes my words out of context to give the appearance that I made a "deliberately offensive" insult about his sexuality (I did nothing of the sort, as the history demonstrates -- I merely worded an example badly and I have already given him my apology months ago for this, which he does not accept like a gentleman). He is quite clearly not ignoring me. Another lie.
- Fae's contributions to filespace are well known, but play no part in any decision to block. Fae's contributions to talk/Commons space are also well known and his difficulty in expressing himself in anyway approaching truthful and honest is also well known. This is no way to conduct oneself in a community. Every one of us should be open to fair and honest criticism. If I have done some thing wrong, if I have lied, if I have behaved poorly, then I have no problem with an honest and fair criticism. But the campaign against my by Fae to smear me at every opportunity whenever he is rightly criticised is dishonest, defamatory and nothing less than harassment. This does not create a safe environment where users can be rightly criticised, if they are then smeared with the sort of bullshit that opens this section. There is more than enough evidence here, and more than enough history well known to this community. I ask for a month ban and a clear statement that Fae's lies and deceit will no longer be tolerated. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why Fae repeated all the lies above. But he's now added an additional lie.
For those requiring longer term diffs, please see my previous complaint at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 56#Proposed topic ban for User:Fæ. Fae dodged any admin action by conveniently taking a short wikibreak. No solution was found. I got lectured on American Free Speech and told to kiss and make up like I was an eight-year-old girl who'd had her hair pulled. Someone nearly burst into tears at the though that Fae's file uploads might get interrupted. Ample opportunity was found by Fae to continue smearing me with his lies, quotes out of context, and misrepresentation of the facts, often in bold font. Well because no solution was found, Fae went on to accuse those organising the POTD on the Main Page of homophobia. See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#NSFW Main page images. He used the fancy word heteronormative but wikilinked it so we were all able to understand that it "is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia" and is a belief that has the only norm is heterosexuality. You can read my response, which deals with the facts about POTD and you can read Fae's response which is to further smear me and accuse me of all sorts of things that should get someone banned. Later here he lies about not being Russavia's friend. No more loyal friend could you find, but I guess certain friends might get you WMF-banned so he's playing "Peter denies Jesus" and nobody is fooled. And now in the section above this (Archived to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59#Part Two) he spins some lies about recent highly offensive insults by Tuvalkin towards me, which got Tuvalkin blocked. And when I complain about his lies and hypocrisy, he creates this section once again to smear me.
In the previous AN/U people expressed the desire to retain both of us. An interaction ban was suggested but quite rightly rejected -- it is a cowards solution and just censorship. And it offers no solution to the other people Fae falsely accuses of anti-LGBT bias or lies about or smears when in dispute. Neither I nor Fae have given you the opportunity to find some compromise or sticking plaster solution. Both of us are making claims that should get the other person banned or at the very least blocked for months. Either you regard Fae as sincere and ban me for all the things he accuses me of, or you accept the evidence I've presented that Fae is smearing me with bullshit, lying to us all, dishonest in his presentation of the facts, etc, etc. And this has been going on for years. I know you're reluctant, but the cognitive dissonance of maintaining this is too much. We can't both be valued contributors and both demonstrate behaviour worth a ban. One of us is wrong and has to go. For a lengthy block at least. So, admins and 'crats, time to demonstrate you have the nerve to do more than make speeches but to make tough decisions. -- Colin (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- O.K. Colin, you're absolutely correct. Please see your talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a sockpuppet of globally locked user Szm020730. This user re-creating/creating hoax flags for cross-wiki abuse on multiple wikis (for example, sulutil:Szm0001, sulutil:SzmabcABC, sulutil:020730szm). Please, block this user. Thanks. Ks [在这里找到答案] 01:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC).
Comment -- An indef block would be in order. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Locked by the steward RadiX. An other sock: Szm101. Ks [在这里找到答案] 09:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC).
- I blocked Szm101 indefinitely. Also I tagged both users and deleted all contributions of both. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyvios
Can someone look at the contributions of this user? They look like in-game assets. [10] --NeilN (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GabrielPintabona. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jim. --NeilN (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Four users, four copyvios
Greetings: Tonight I noticed the following uploads & user names:
- 16:03, 26 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+317) . . N File:Sarah-Wayne-Callies--NBCUniversal-Upfront-Presentation-2016--01-662x993.jpg
- 15:39, 26 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+407) . . N File:Sarah-wayne-callies-at-free-state-of-jones-premiere-in-los-angeles-06-21-2016 1.jpg
- 17:21, 26 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+362) . . N File:Sarah Wayne Callies blue dress.jpg
- 17:32, 26 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+381) . . N File:Sarah Wayne Beauty.jpg
The uploads are all within two hours, all same topic, the last two images were watermarked Getty, the other two were found in reverse search. There are other pictures of Ms. Callies on Commons, I didn't find more of this type. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I like to point out that the master sock is User: Chace Watson. Wikicology (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked them. Whether it's Chace or not, using 4 accounts to upload copyvios is more than enough for blocking. INeverCry 16:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've blocked them. Whether it's Chace or not, using 4 accounts to upload copyvios is more than enough for blocking. INeverCry 16:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
NeilN in english wikipedia
u ring been edit war. 188.32.108.46 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is not English Wikipedia and it is not clear exactly why you're bringing this here. Pinging NeilN. Wikicology (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikicology, it's just another IP of a sock I've been blocking. --NeilN (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP. Natuur12 (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP. Natuur12 (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikicology, it's just another IP of a sock I've been blocking. --NeilN (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! This user wrote some messages on my talk page about a file for which I opened a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jumbers theare pool squash.jpeg. He tried to communicate with me in French, but that is likely not a well mastered language, as he seemingly did not get the lead to COM:SCOPE given and writes like if he uses an automated translator, despite his recent added Babels on his user page. I'd like having some assistance by someone who has a better mastered language (Chinese? If his Babels could be relied upon...) in common with this user, as I'm in trouble to explain the points of scope, copyright and sourcing of media due to the language barriers. Please feel free to use my own talk page for this case if necessary. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
User mass-deletes justified requests for exposure correction or rotation
User ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Contributions (internal links don't work here as usual). Can somebody please stop him? This user has repeatedly attracted my attention as he was rejecting many justified requests for image rotation or exposure correction. E.g. see his edits in File:Baiersbronn.jpg. I recently had a short conversation with him about this. Now at least he has started to upload some new version of underexposed files, but his fixes are rather poor [11] [12]. Still, he mass deletes request for manual rotation [13] [14] [15] ... I have reverted most of these, but my time is limited and I think he needs some more input from other users, as he doesn't really seem to know what he's doing. (I'll be offline now.) --Sitacuisses (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- With regard to "File:Baiersbronn.jpg", I do not find cause for rotation
- With regard to fixes,I make lighting (contrast) better
- With regard to delete request for manual rotation, See special:diff/200692459 --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- File:Baiersbronn.jpg needed to be rotated. The original image was severely tilted. As for fixes, only upping the contrast didn't do much for File:Altötting —Wallfahrer.JPG. I've now uploaded a new revised version of it. As for incorrect rotation requests, those highlighted by Sitacuisses were not incorrect rotation requests at all. - Takeaway (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 warned by me for requesting rotation of files to unconventional degrees like this file or this file. This rotation request made the file unusable and therefore violate COM:OVERWRITE. There was a difficulty to explain to the user why rotating files to 145° is bad. User:FDMS4 also failed to explain to him the same thing. I believe this is a continuous of this misunderstanding. User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 should avoid from dealing with rotating files. -- Geagea (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 doesn't seem to understand the difference between straightening an image (and thereby cropping it a bit), and tilting a complete image thereby creating a huge amount of white space around the tilted image, which is not okay. - Takeaway (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 warned by me for requesting rotation of files to unconventional degrees like this file or this file. This rotation request made the file unusable and therefore violate COM:OVERWRITE. There was a difficulty to explain to the user why rotating files to 145° is bad. User:FDMS4 also failed to explain to him the same thing. I believe this is a continuous of this misunderstanding. User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 should avoid from dealing with rotating files. -- Geagea (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- File:Baiersbronn.jpg needed to be rotated. The original image was severely tilted. As for fixes, only upping the contrast didn't do much for File:Altötting —Wallfahrer.JPG. I've now uploaded a new revised version of it. As for incorrect rotation requests, those highlighted by Sitacuisses were not incorrect rotation requests at all. - Takeaway (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Sitacuisses, here’s the internal links as usual:
If you see that it is better to forget Category:Images requiring rotation and Category:Underexposed images, I can do this --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
User name
Is user name User:Thefuckedkiwi a violation of COM:IU? My reading of it says yes as the work F*** could be offensive to some. Only 1 edit to date but still Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Bipsfan1
Because of this user, my uploaded File:Bipasha Basu and Karan Singh Grover grace the green carpet ceremony of IIFA 2016.jpg got nominated for deletion as he uploaded a new version of the file without "Bollywood Hungama" watermark. The file is owned by Bollywood Hungama. The first version of the file which I uploaded contains Bollywood Hungama watermark, which means that I uploaded the image from Bollywood Hungama. Because of the absence of the watermark of the copyright holder on the image, some other user considered it as copyright violation. I've also reverted his revisions to my revision two times. I've also warned on its talk page not to revert, but he kept on reverting. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️I👨👩⋡ 13:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
eliminar usuario
hola: Queria eliminar definitivamente el usuario que he creado, ¿cómo puedo hacerlo? Un saludo, Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abarbagal (talk • contribs) 09:17, 08 July 2016 (UTC)
- Estimado usuario Abarbagal. De conformidad con la política de protección de datos de la Fundación Wikimedia, las cuentas de usuario, una vez creadas, no pueden ser borradas. Puede, no obstante, solicitar un cambio de nombre de usuario si lo desea. Un saludo. —MarcoAurelio 18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry! - I misread the title of the page and thought I was on Commons:Café. Apologies to the administrators. —MarcoAurelio 18:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Abarbagal, nobody even administrators can delete your account due to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. You can only stop using your account if you decide to no longer contribute on Wikimedia sites. Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please see m:Derecho a desaparecer for a bit more information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
BomDiaJapão
BomDiaJapão (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) keeps reverting me by removing the "no permission" tags I added on their files even though I told them to send an email to the OTRS. ★ Poké95 12:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Misuse of user talk page. --Leyo 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
User Salilchaudhary
Salilchaudhary (talk · contribs) seems to be uploading numerous pictures of Rishi Chaitanya Ashram taken from a website (www.gurumaa.com) thru facebook. He claims he has the permission to upload them (Commons talk:Deletion requests#Image for deletion is clicked by me.), but even then, most of them have the name of the ashram and the website. This seems to me a classic case of uploading publicity.
Pierre cb (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged all their files as copyvio and sent them a last warning. ★ Poké95 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As per the deletion of the images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2016_July_09_10:30#Salilchaudhary_.2840_edits.29 with the tag of copyright an email to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org has been shared by the concern organization from info@gurumaa.com to grant me the permission to upload their images anywhere across the globle as those images were clicked by me and also request you to rollback all my images been removed from wiki commons.
Let me know if anything else id required.
Salilchaudhary (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Did you follow the steps described at COM:OTRS? (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) If yes, add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field of each of the images you already uploaded. A member of the OTRS team will review the email sent by the organization. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded a lot of historical images as own work. Many are likely to be in public domain, but review of user contributions are needed. Romanian speaker involvement is needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- There does not does not seem to be any Romanian speaking administrators, nor a Commons Village Pump in Romanian. Does anybody know a trustworthy contributor who knows Romanian? Thuresson (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Modification de nom d'utilisateur
Bonjour, Pourriez-vous svp renommer mon nom d'utilisateur "Amisdeleuro" ? Par exemple en "olivierf". Merci ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisdeleuro (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please use this form to request a change of username. Thuresson (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a spam only account. Reguyla (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Anal Brothel (talk · contribs)
I submitted some of their contributions for deletion but I think this may also be a violation of the Username standards. Reguyla (talk)
The user has uploaded several images, that have been deleted as copyvios in the past. Their newest upload is File:ElishaKriisatBeverlyHills.jpg, claiming on en-Wiki "which is my property and under licensed by me" (in the article's history, where it is used). However, the image seems to be a cropped version of [16] or [17] - but I am no photographer. As the user is on their last warning due to previous copyvio uploads, it would be great if a more experienced editor could double-check the situation. Maybe the user just doesn't understand copyright. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Smoothest Aashu
Blocked for plenty of socking a enwp. Could use a search, file del, block here too. I tagged (clumsily -- will get it right next time -- first time using that script) several. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
And please don't overlook File:Kya Main hoon hero- Smoothest Aashu.ogg. Consider deleting it first. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Natuur12. Yes, just another garden-variety spammer. Still a few out there when you search the name. Thanks again, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted the spam uploads but it seems that the accounts have been abandened a long time ago but wow. He doesn't know when to quit. Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting the rest, Natuur12. Speaking of rest, Smoothest Aashu should give it one and maybe focus on singing lessons or something more constructive than self-promotion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting the rest, Natuur12. Speaking of rest, Smoothest Aashu should give it one and maybe focus on singing lessons or something more constructive than self-promotion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted the spam uploads but it seems that the accounts have been abandened a long time ago but wow. He doesn't know when to quit. Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Natuur12. Yes, just another garden-variety spammer. Still a few out there when you search the name. Thanks again, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can sb more experienced look at their contribution? I just marked few images as obvious copyright violations (various sources). Their whole (or almost whole) contribution seems to me to be copied from various sources: all images marked as "own", none has EXIF info, mainly low-res, various quality etc. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged all their untagged files as "no permission" per COM:PRP. ★ Poké95 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Botaurus-stellaris possibly starting edit war (German speaking admin needed)
Zunächst mal nur als Warnung; erstmal weitersehen, wie es weitergeht.
Bitte mal hier drauf schauen: User talk:Botaurus-stellaris#Kategorieeintrag „Lakes of Brandenburg“ für Havelseen in Brandenburg. Vielleicht ist Bot.-st. auch sauer, als mögliche Vorgeschichte siehe Category:Havel lakes in Brandenburg: Versionsgeschichte – Wikimedia Commons, speziell Special:Diff/36995091/39702147 (offiziell nicht derselbe Nutzer) versus Special:Diff/39702147/202362914 (von mir). — Speravir_Talk – 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Steinsplitter. ★ Poké95 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Specifically the contributions in the user talk namespace. This user doesn't seem to be here to help improve our repository of free, educational media. I have no problem at all with the fact that Commons is not censored when it comes to educationally useful media relating to human sexuality, and whether the photos that this individual is commenting on were uploaded for educational purposes or exhibitionistic purposes is a topic for a different discussion. The comments themselves, however, are certainly out of line. To the extent that the uploads are good faith uploads for bona fide educational purposes, I'm sure the uploaders don't want to be bothered with details of this individual's grooming and masturbation practices. And if the advances are welcome, well, then that's just not what this site is for. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Santhosh Panjala
Hi, could an administrator please take a look into this account? They are constantly uploading non-free content. They should be blocked and their uploads be nuked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I sent them a last warning, let's see if they will upload another copyvio after my warning. ★ Poké95 10:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
User SPAMER
Libasr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) sube imágenes promocionales con el fin de hacer spam hacia su sitio web de ventas. --Jcfidy (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Alternate universe or what?
Please see my questions for the uploader at File, thanks Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- What administrator action is needed here? If you are concerned about the scope/appropriateness of the image, please open a DR and discuss (de)merits there. Эlcobbola talk 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that, but thought someone else might be concerned since the map seems to bear no basis in reality, but has been used by the same user on various language projects to show nearly all the nations of the world officially believing in various types of astrology. In fact, no nations officially believe in any type of astrology (except perhaps India), and the three types of astrology he distinguishes don't even have any correspondence with the ones explained in English wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Til Eulenspiegel, when you use the default Vector skin, then you can find on left side of the file page under Tools a line “Nominate for deletion” (auf Deutsch „Löschung vorschlagen“). Clicking on this starts a script, where you can add your reasons, and this script also adds a box into the file page pointing the discussion page of the file deletion request (it will add a new section there, when there are already older requests). I suggest you add in first step a very short reasoning, then open the discussion page and write there everything elaborately. — Speravir_Talk – 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- (tangent:) User:Speravir, it is not necessary to damage one’s layout of Commons by switching to the Vector skin in order to have nominate for deletion: It still shows up under "tools" while using the grown-up’s skin, Monobook. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- But Vector is the default, and simply because of this I wrote, how to find it there. — Speravir_Talk – 23:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- (tangent:) User:Speravir, it is not necessary to damage one’s layout of Commons by switching to the Vector skin in order to have nominate for deletion: It still shows up under "tools" while using the grown-up’s skin, Monobook. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Til Eulenspiegel, when you use the default Vector skin, then you can find on left side of the file page under Tools a line “Nominate for deletion” (auf Deutsch „Löschung vorschlagen“). Clicking on this starts a script, where you can add your reasons, and this script also adds a box into the file page pointing the discussion page of the file deletion request (it will add a new section there, when there are already older requests). I suggest you add in first step a very short reasoning, then open the discussion page and write there everything elaborately. — Speravir_Talk – 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that, but thought someone else might be concerned since the map seems to bear no basis in reality, but has been used by the same user on various language projects to show nearly all the nations of the world officially believing in various types of astrology. In fact, no nations officially believe in any type of astrology (except perhaps India), and the three types of astrology he distinguishes don't even have any correspondence with the ones explained in English wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Til Eulenspiegel: I opened a DR, as I agree that this is nonsense. Reventtalk 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Issued warning to User:Heffron_Drive7 re upload of copyright images
Heffron Drive7 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Hi. The user has recently uploaded multiple football/soccer club images to Commons that are clearly under copyright. This is the repeat of behaviour undertaken in May 2015. On this occasion I have issued a warning that such uploads should not be undertaken again. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I have evidence to proof the copyvio user for uploading a few Naruto related fan artwork images from the internet, but so I think they do want to get rid of it.
HarvettFox96 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Flickr washing possible User:Jin-gook
I checked File:Sofia_Carson_at_2016_Premios_Juventud.png purported to be properly licensed on flickr for our use [18] and found it at Getty Images [19] with another photographer credited for exact same image. Looks like all uploads are from same flickr account [20] are dubious. Don't trust. See Special:Contributions/Jin-gook Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Inappropriate crops
Despite earlier warnings, a block, and an agreement to desist, User:Joe Vitale 5 continues to overwrite other people's images with cropped versions that presumably suit his own tastes, but not necessarily the photographers'. He just did one of mine, which I've reverted. As an aggrieved party, I'm not the right admin to decide how to deal with this. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Repeated removal of proposed deletion notices
Sajith Tikiri Hannadege, has uploaded a number of photomontages, which are made up of images that have been accessed from various websites. This is clearly in violation of the copyright provisions. He also repeatedly states that these montages are completely his own work. I have placed proposed deletion notices on those images however he continually removes the deletion notices, presumably in the belief that by removing the notices the images will not be deleted. I'm not familiar with the policies & procedures on Commons so I would like an administrator to investigate and take the appropriate action. Thanks. Dan arndt (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan arndt: I left a warning. I see you restored the DR notification templates already... that is fine, I would have done so if you had not.
- I have not looked at the images, but even though COM:Collages is just an essay it's also firmly based on the law.... collages are derivative works, and clear copyvios can be speedied. Reventtalk 10:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: should I change the DR notifications to a speedy delete or should I just let things run their course? Dan arndt (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan arndt: I'll try to look at the rest for any potential speedies,,,usually someone checking new DRs catches and closes them anyhow. Reventtalk 12:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: thanks have placed a speedy on one I missed earlier. Appreciate your advice from a relative newbie. Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Botaurus-stellaris
This went too far now in my eyes. (The discussion was in German, but I try it in English this time. Sorry, it will be a bit longer – I have to translate some sentences. If there are mistakes, feel free to correct me.)
I had put several lakes from cat Lakes of Brandenburg into subcat Havel lakes in Brandenburg and so I removed them from the supercat. User:Botaurus-stellaris reverted this second change, and therefore I wrote on his talk page (User talk:Botaurus-stellaris#Kategorieeintrag „Lakes of Brandenburg“ für Havelseen in Brandenburg), soberly pointing to the according passage in Commons:Kategorien and asking for taking back his own changes (confer Special:Diff/163966323/202420738). Later I noticed User:Srittau had partly reverted Botaurus-stellaris’ changes with pointing to COM:OVERCAT in the editing comment (what is the English version of the passage I’ve cited in German), only facing a revert by Bot.-st. again.
Bot.-st.’s first reaction in his talk page (Special:Diff/202420738/202468329): “Havel lakes in Brandenburg is anything, but a subcat of Lakes of Brandenburg. Then there could exist a cat Rhin lakes in Brandenburg, as well. The category Lakes of Brandenburg gives a nice overview of the categories about lakes in Brandenburg, and so it should be.”
Then came an answer by Srittau/Sebari (Special:Diff/202468329/202480626): “Of course, Havel lakes in Brandenburg is a subcat of Lakes of Brandenburg. Hence the lakes abelong ccording to COM:OVERCAT only into the subcat. Please, do not revert changes, which re-establish the right state according to our policies. If you wish a list of all lakes in Brandenburg, a regular (gallery) page is more appropriate for this.” My reaction was (Special:Diff/202480626/202482990): “Correct, there could be a category Rhin lakes in Brandenburg, if someone would create it. And there could be some more subcats exactly like the already existing subcats Lakes and ponds in Frankfurt (Oder) and Lakes of Senftenberg. By the way I noticed, that Srittau has reverted some of your double categorisations. That you in return reverted these again, is IMHO not bearable. If you do not agree with actions of 2 users and the consenting opinion of a third one, then search for supporters in Commons:Forum.” (I had not noticed until then, that Srittau is identical with Sebari.)
Bot.-st. didn’t show a change of mind when responding (Special:Diff/202536127/202616448): “Category Havel lakes in Brandenburg belongs to category tree Havel lakes, and there it is linked.”, which prompted my response – still orientated on facts, I think (Special:Diff/202616448/202675214): “By all logic Havel lakes lying in Brandenburg are inherently also lakes lying in Brandenburg, and hence they are amongst other categorisations also defined as corresponding subcat. Your spurios argument with a nice overview is irrelevant yet, because – I’ve pointed you already to this above – there even exist other subcategories of this type (but for one of them the lakes are double categorized).”
The last step until now was Bot.-st.’ rude and offensive reaction to my latest answer (Special:Diff/202675214/202756656): “You have, after all, absolutely no clue. Go away from my page and write your whisked shit on toilet paper and flush it down then.”
So, what I expect is, that Botaurus-stellaris will respect the necessary re-reverts, or in general respect Commons policies, and, of course, that he in future will refrain from this kind of ad hominem “argumentation”, especially in this vulgary way.
If you think, I made a mistake in the early stages, what could lead to this trouble, let me know, too. — Speravir_Talk – 20:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Notified Botaurus about this discussion, and warned him against edit warring, since he appears to have been the one reverting multiple editors. This probably needs more than just that, but I don't speak German. The active edit war appears to have died down, though it looks like it's mainly because the other participants resorted to discussion, and were insulted for their pains. Reventtalk 03:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding your "The active edit war appears to have died down” and so on: Yes, that’s the reason, at least from my side, but I wouldn’t be surprised, if it would be thesame for@Srittau. — Speravir_Talk – 23:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I still think our standpoint is right and policy-backed, but I am not a fan of edit wars, and in the end I don't care about those category too much. --Sebari (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Speravir: @Srittau: I suggest you seek a wider consensus (ANU is not the place for that discussion) at somewhere such as COM:CFD or COM:FORUM, unless you just want to let them stand as-is. If Botaurus continues to be insulting, please come back here. Reventtalk 10:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: Discussing in COM:FORUM was already suggested by me, simply because it’s the only official place for German communication. But it seems to me, Bot.-st. has no intention to start such a discussion. — Speravir_Talk – 16:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Speravir: @Srittau: I suggest you seek a wider consensus (ANU is not the place for that discussion) at somewhere such as COM:CFD or COM:FORUM, unless you just want to let them stand as-is. If Botaurus continues to be insulting, please come back here. Reventtalk 10:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I still think our standpoint is right and policy-backed, but I am not a fan of edit wars, and in the end I don't care about those category too much. --Sebari (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Revoking file mover
I've just removed the file mover user right from Gage. His uploads are valuable, but he consistently uses the right to simply add his name to file names in disregard of COM:RENAME, and ignores talk page comments. Reventtalk 11:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- He can, if needed, use the template to request moves. Reventtalk 11:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems they want recognition for their work. This isn't bad but insertion of personal name/username into a file title is worrisome and this may be considered disruptive. The user wrote "Must attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere, other than on Wikimedia and its projects." 'under permission' and "Gage Skidmore" under author. These are enough. A block might be appropriate if they refuse to stop after warning. Wikicology (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikicology: Even the names are fine, for new uploads... the issue is with renaming copies of his images that were uploaded by other people years ago, and not discussing it when asked to do so. This was really just an FYI, as removing the flag solves it... he can just ask with the template. Reventtalk 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I trust your judgement. Wikicology (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Wikicology: Even the names are fine, for new uploads... the issue is with renaming copies of his images that were uploaded by other people years ago, and not discussing it when asked to do so. This was really just an FYI, as removing the flag solves it... he can just ask with the template. Reventtalk 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems they want recognition for their work. This isn't bad but insertion of personal name/username into a file title is worrisome and this may be considered disruptive. The user wrote "Must attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere, other than on Wikimedia and its projects." 'under permission' and "Gage Skidmore" under author. These are enough. A block might be appropriate if they refuse to stop after warning. Wikicology (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just my 2cents but I've moved the files back, This user has to have his name on every single image taken and it's been discussed at EN more than once, It's rather pathetic really but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This point raises the question why we favour the uploader over the author of any media when it comes to a renaming question. I'd extend the COM:FR#reasons #1 to include an "original author", that would not be a big deal as proceeding with the reason 1 is always at the discretion of the filemover. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, original authors often ask this question. However, the description page has been provided for authors to mention their name and COM:FR#reasons #1 never encourage author or uploader to insert their name on file title. File names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray and not according to its author or uploader. Gage action is a clear violation of Commons:File naming and Commons:File renaming. Wikicology (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Grand-Duc: The long-term stability of filenames is quite important. Moving a recent upload is no big deal. Moving a file that has been on Commons at a stable filename for two years, and is used 18 places, to one that is actually less descriptive of the content of the image, just because of a personal preference, is a problem. So is not explaining the reason why you moved a file in the log. Continuing to do so several months after ignoring a request on your talk page that you explain the reason why you did so previously is a reason to not be a file mover anymore.
- Any author can require attribution by a specific form of their name, and even require the work be attributed by a specific title, if wanted... CC-BY specifically provides for that. Filenames aren't the way to do it, and 'old' files (that might be hotlinked) should only be moved if there is some better reason. Reventtalk 10:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- As an additional note, if you want people to actually use your images, and attribute you correctly, potentially breaking external hotlinks that might have been in place for years is a bad way to encourage it... the move also probably causes the image to score lower on Google. Reventtalk 10:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)@Revent: Well, actually I wasn't a critic of this procedural rights change at all. My remark was more a thought that jumped in my mind, triggered by the postings here, maybe better placed on Commons talk:File renaming... :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- The user in question has also abused his Licence reviewer rights. He doesn't use the rights very often (which is discouraged) and 9 out of 10 times he has 'reviewed' and passed his own uploads which obviously is not allowed, 2 images (1)/(2) as recent as June 2016...--Stemoc 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
This editor's abuse of tools is too obvious to ignore perhaps they are not just familiar with our policies and guidelines or they intentionally decided to ignore them. User rights are meant for editors who are familiar with our policies and guidelines. In view of the above concerns, I propose the remover of all the license reviewer right assigned to User:Gage. They are of course welcome to contribute images to Commons, participate in DR and so on but not to rename, and review, and patrol images. Wikicology (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Wikicology (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Half oppose I support the removal of the LR flag but his patroller flag is not a problem. Natuur12 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gage's edits do not need patrolling, IMO. He is obviously not a vandal. Reventtalk 23:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Natuur12 and Revent:I have adjusted the proposal per your comments. I also think removal of all the user right will be a bit too harsh and punitive. Wikicology (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)- Yes I do
- Yes I do
- Gage's edits do not need patrolling, IMO. He is obviously not a vandal. Reventtalk 23:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: To be fair, when he became a LR that was not explicitly the rule.... LRs are responsible for being up to date, though, and it's been the rule for years now. Reventtalk 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Revent - Ah right well yeah as you say he should've been up to date with it but maybe he assumed nothing had changed who knows, Anyway thanks for pointing that out, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 15:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: To be fair, when he became a LR that was not explicitly the rule.... LRs are responsible for being up to date, though, and it's been the rule for years now. Reventtalk 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Amitie 10g
Apparently this situation was not reported centrally:
(Block log); 20:19:26 . . INeverCry (talk | contribs) blocked Amitie 10g (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Intimidation/harassment: constant stalking of Ellin Beltz after numerous warnings)
I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with this block in general or its duration in particular, but I’m certainly saying that a block should always be reported here — especially one involving high profile contributors and less-than clear-cut decisions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing in Commons:Blocking policy that says all blocks have to be reported here. Commons:Blocking policy says that contoversial blocks may be discussed here, but not that they must. My block of Amitie 10g came after a recent warning by Christian Ferrer, and a previous related block by Natuur12 [21], Amitie has also been warned several times at AN/U and at Ellin Beltz's talk by Steinsplitter, ~riley, and perhaps others, though I don't want to go diff hunting when this situation is well-known and has been going on for quite a while. Ellin has told me she feels that she may have to retire from Commons to get away from Amitie. Nobody should be made to feel that way here on Commons, or on any project. Enough is enough sometimes. INeverCry 23:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- support the block and reasoning but I think it may be a good idea as Tuvalkin mentioned to post here when a long standing user is blocked indefinitely, If they are blocked for a certain time frame, then its fine, do not mention it here but indefinite ones should be even if its for harassment since there is basically no way out from indef blocks here as we do not have our own ArbCom and the only person that is allowed to do the 'unblock' is the blocking admin (i have rarely seen bans overturned on commons by another admin) so sometimes, things like these may need to be discussed as not every block demands an 'indefinite block'..Lets not be like admins on enwiki, it has become really hard to follow how many long standing editors were blocked there and why..that said, I feel any blocks longer than 3 months or so as well as indefinite blocks needs to be discussed here on this page or atleast mentioned so that we are all made aware.....just my 2cents..that said, stalking or not, an indefinte ban isn't really justified, it should only be for the "real trolls" of commons..It should be reduced to a 3 months ban (at the most)--Stemoc 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Without setting this as a rule, asking for comment on blocks or proposed blocks for long term contributors is a sensible norm. I am familiar with Amitie's content contributions including categorization work on some of my upload projects, so a process where it remains clear that those positive contributions will be welcome again in the future is helpful. Anti-social behaviour may be down to several things which are subject to change over time, and most of us are familiar with past cases where users had an illness or suffered depression which underpinned their online problems, including Wikimedia projects being an inappropriate outlet for their anger or other emotions. For these reasons permanent site bans should remain a rarely seen remedy compared to mediation or enforced breaks. Hopefully Ellin will waive a red flag earlier should similar patterns of unwelcome behaviour arise. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The worst sin may be forgiven. There's no doubt we have a problematic user (Amitie 10g) who has been blocked multiple times for repeated harassment of other users but I don't have much of an opinion on the benefits of an indef block of this user. Although, I doubt the Ethiopian would ever change his skin, or the leopard his spots. However, I am not sure the blocking admin would overturn their decision in favour of an indef block but I think one of the essence of reporting the incident here is for a wider community input. Thus, the community can decide on the duration of the block if this would be necessary. Wikicology (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Kaiketsu's constant uploads of non-fre images
Deeming from h talk page it seems this user uploads a huge amount of images that are not free and end up deleted. Is this allowed to any extent? Here's the latest, and the same user has quickly proceeded to add this derivative to 7 Wikipedia articles, so far, replacing an old but free image. I've seen this behavior for a long time. Maybe it's time to have a closer look at it? Don't know if the user has been discusssed before on this topic.
Warn or block user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: At a quick glance, the large numbers of warnings appear to be the result of the 'mynewsdesk' problem, not the editor. See Category:Files_from_mynewsdesk.com_with_unreviewed_licenses. Reventtalk 09:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- So I can go ahead and upload any amount of images, that subsequently are deleted as non-free, without repercussions, because they are from some particular news agency which I knew is controversial? I don't get it. The deleted images are by one person, uploaded by another person, without OTRS and with no other motivation than the mention of a disputed news agency. Is this an effective way to skirt Commons most fundamental rule, and skirt it time and time and time again, and quickly spread the images on Wikipedia all over the world, while the rest of us are much more careful? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: Not at all... however, Kaiketsu is a profilic uploader, and scanning though his upload log I didn't see a redlink going back to before April (well over a thousand uploads). The recent deletion notices that I looked at were for files uploaded before the 'unreviewed licenses' category was created (over a year before in some cases) and since they were not promptly reviewed there is no way to know if the licenses were originally 'acceptable', and later changed. I did not say I 'oppose' any action an admin chooses to take, but I don't see the need for anything more than just making sure he's aware of the issue. Reventtalk 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or making sure he is aware of the issue and isn't obviously ignoring/skirting it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: This board is not (by far) the best place to start an conversation with an editor... by coming here, you are asking for admin action. I don't see any grounds for that, and no other admin appears to either. The deleted uploads are all very old, and most likely the result of changed licenses at the source... I myself 'populated' the unreviewed licenses category with thousands of files, and if anything it was a failure of Commons itself to check such licenses promptly. The deleted files were probably correctly licensed when uploaded, and simply not verifiable. Reventtalk 03:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sanctioning a user for uploading files from mynewsdesk which may be deleted later for reasons, is like sanctioning users who upload from Flickr which may be deleted for Flickrwashing. It is not always apparent it is a problem, and when it is clearly visable, the experienced users don't upload those images. I~don't think anything here warrants any immediate admin actions. Josve05a (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: This board is not (by far) the best place to start an conversation with an editor... by coming here, you are asking for admin action. I don't see any grounds for that, and no other admin appears to either. The deleted uploads are all very old, and most likely the result of changed licenses at the source... I myself 'populated' the unreviewed licenses category with thousands of files, and if anything it was a failure of Commons itself to check such licenses promptly. The deleted files were probably correctly licensed when uploaded, and simply not verifiable. Reventtalk 03:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or making sure he is aware of the issue and isn't obviously ignoring/skirting it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing: Not at all... however, Kaiketsu is a profilic uploader, and scanning though his upload log I didn't see a redlink going back to before April (well over a thousand uploads). The recent deletion notices that I looked at were for files uploaded before the 'unreviewed licenses' category was created (over a year before in some cases) and since they were not promptly reviewed there is no way to know if the licenses were originally 'acceptable', and later changed. I did not say I 'oppose' any action an admin chooses to take, but I don't see the need for anything more than just making sure he's aware of the issue. Reventtalk 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- So I can go ahead and upload any amount of images, that subsequently are deleted as non-free, without repercussions, because they are from some particular news agency which I knew is controversial? I don't get it. The deleted images are by one person, uploaded by another person, without OTRS and with no other motivation than the mention of a disputed news agency. Is this an effective way to skirt Commons most fundamental rule, and skirt it time and time and time again, and quickly spread the images on Wikipedia all over the world, while the rest of us are much more careful? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both! I've done some checking on my own, and though quite surprised at how MyNewsDesk works (they are a bit surprised themselves), I find little more to add here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Spam by User:PeterKeijsers
Please ban this person who keeps adding spam on images. I am reverting him, but i think he will continue (Tomorrow or later). Wikimedia Projects is not 1 big ad. Greets. --Shadowowl (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Shadowowl: Please read COM:Watermarks, carefully, before removing a copyright owner's watermark from their own images, and remember that Commons is not Wikipedia. (this is not a 'warning' in any way other than pointing out the potential legal issue in a friendly manner. I am not your lawyer) Reventtalk 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Solving this
- Preliminary information
- PeterKeijsers has uploaded many images to Wikimedia Commons, under both the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses.
- PeterKeijsers has since overwritten many of those images with versions that include the watermark "Peter Keijsers Art & More".
- Said overwrites have been reverted by multiple editors. Threats have ensued, in both directions.
- PeterKeijsers was recently blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for legal threats and intimidation. He has since been unblocked.
- PeterKeijsers has apparently (though I have not seen this) filed a DMCA takedown notice with the WMF.
- Statements of fact
- Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable.
- Wikimedia Commons allows, but discourages, non-promotional watermarks.
- Watermarks that merely declare copyright or ownership are not considered inherently promotional.
- The removal of 'Copyright Management Information' from a work may be unlawful under section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
- The removal of 'Copyright Management Information' from a work under a CC license that allows for the creation of derivative works, when the information is kept, may be permissible under the license.
- Wikimedia Commons, as a community, does not endorse or prohibit such removal: contributors do so at their own risk, and can only be advised to seek legal advice before doing so.
- Resolution
- No editor, including PeterKeijsers, may engage in upload warring in regards to these images. This is defined as an editor reverting the state of the file to a state that the editor previously placed the same file in after it was changed by someone else. This does not apply to reverting obviously unrelated vandalism (penii, ceiling fans, selfie shoes, etc.) for obvious reasons.
- Any previously uninvolved editor may revert the state of a file to a version that was uploaded to Commons under an acceptable license. Editors are asked to seek consensus on discussion pages if a file has previously been reverted multiple times, but the opposition to a single change by reverting once is itself an expression of consensus.
- PeterKeijsers may ask the community to keep only the preferred versions of his files, or (if technically incapable) ask any other editor to start such a discussion.
- PeterKeijsers may ask the community to delete any of his uploads, or (if technically incapable) ask any other editor to start such a discussion.
- Though this is beyond the scope of Commons, any editor may oppose a DCMA notice filed with the WMF: this is neither encouraged or discouraged, we cannot offer legal advice.
- Any editor previously warned or clearly made aware of this discussion who engages in upload or edit warring may be temporarily blocked as needed, by any admin, to prevent disruptive behavior.
- If PeterKeijsers makes any legal threat, on Commons, against another editor he shall be immediately indefinitely blocked from editing. He may, if he feels that it is advisable, seek legal recourse outside of Commons.
Please endorse or oppose this, to show a consensus, and ping any involved editors. Reventtalk 09:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@PeterKeijsers: @Shadowowl: @Queeste: @Natuur12: @Achim55: @Alice2Alice: @Gouwenaar: @Robotje:
- Endorsements
- If this means that all images should be reverted to their original state, then
- @PeterKeijsers: Your watermarks are not 'prohibited' by Commons rules, they are just 'discouraged'. If you only personally uploaded (and thus licensed) a version of the file with the watermark included on Commons, and then objected to it being removed by a someone else (by reverting them), then it can be reverted to the version that you licensed and the other editor instructed to upload a 'derivative version' under a separate filename, with attribution, if they wish. You may not, however, upload war with other editors to do so... revert once, then discuss, then appeal to the wider community. You can also ask the community to delete the derivative version, but such a deletion is probably unlikely... a deletion of your watermarked version might be the result.
- The reverts on that file were by different editors, and before I wrote the above. I've reverted the file to (your) watermarked version, and asked that any derivative be uploaded separately with attribution. I would simply do a history split, but due to a bug that currently risks the file being irreversibly deleted.
- If there are other cases where you have only licensed a watermarked version, objected to the file being overwritten with an 'unwatermarked' derivative, and then been reverted, other editors may (without upload warring) restore your version and ask that the derivative be uploaded separately... this is simply an application of COM:OVERWRITE. You can ask me (or an admin who is aware of this discussion) to do so if your initial 'objection' was reverted... please don't post a list here, though. Reventtalk 20:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was all I asked for. My endorsement stands. PeterKeijsers (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose Because ONE egomaniac starts to cry and then starts to behave like a little child who's toys have been taken away we don't allow certain files to be modified? Whooopie, why not throw the CC licenses out of the window? Or open a 1st and a 2nd class Commons. A courtesy deletion is definitely out of question. He wants to sue Commons and the WMF? Go ahead. I'll will throw the ban towel into the ring as soon as I see a revert because of removed watermarks. Same for mass deletion request because of being p*ssed. Kindergarten is thataway -> www.facebook.com --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: The only way in which any if this says that 'certain files can't be modified' is that you can't upload war about it at a particular filename. If the author only 'specifically' licensed a watermarked version, and objects to it being overwritten with a cleaned version, upload it separately as a clearly marked derivative work The legal situation of removing such watermarks is not clearcut, no matter how much we would like it to be... as Legal has made clear (and as I tried to indicate) editors are assuming an uncertain degree of legal risk when they do this. In most cases, editors who do this are not marking the files as {{Watermark removed}} anyhow, which is also a problem. Reventtalk 19:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a company, according to PeterKeijsers so your point of view is not based on fact. Carol (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @User: Carol Fenijn It IS a company. PeterKeijsers says that its not a company, but thats his POV and not a NPOV. Peter Keijsers Art & More is clearly promotional. --Shadowowl (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @User: Carol Fenijn As I already pointed out there is a commercial interest in the watermark as used by PeterKeijsers, see this link [22] where he sells books, art, and pictures. PeterKeijsers may deny it being a "company", that is quibbling about the definition of what is a company. If PeterKeijsers denies a commercial interest it would be contrary to the link given.
- @VanBuren I see your point. Even though he may not have a company in the legal sense of the word, the link does show the commercial interest indeed. Thanks for clarifying that. @Shadowowl in this light I agree it can be seen as a promotional activity even though it may not be a company in the legal sense of the word. Carol (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @VanBuren I think Revent wants fullcolor watermarks diagonally on the images. New industry here : Watermark Spamming. --Shadowowl (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- No he doesn't. Please stop inflaming this situation any more than you already did. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @VanBuren: Watermarks that are the name of the copyright owner (or a form of their name that they wish to be attributed by) may at some point be ruled by a US court to be 'copyright management information'... if so, the removal would quite possibly be unlawful even if the license allows it, and at least one German court has ruled that cropping out a copyright notice was a violation of the CC-license requirement to keep all copyright notices intact'. An 'inherently promotion' watermark would be one that clearly goes beyond being simply copyright information, like the URL of a photo library. Reventtalk 19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: I do not see you addressing my point that the "name" used by PeterKeijsers in the watermark is not just a name of a person (therefore a copyright owner if the maker of the photograph) but a combination of words that serves a commercial purpose as I show in the link given. Therefore your "Statement of fact #3" is does not reflect the fact correctly. Consequently the resolutions are based on the wrong fact, and therefore, in my opinion, not valid. --VanBuren (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC) (expanded reply, VanBuren (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC))
- @VanBuren I think Revent wants fullcolor watermarks diagonally on the images. New industry here : Watermark Spamming. --Shadowowl (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @MSJapan: I specifically said that if the originally uploaded image was not watermarked then it could be reverted to that version by anyone that had not previously edit-warred about that file. Reventtalk 05:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify. PK uploaded many images without watermarks, and then later added them. Those can be reverted (and, I believe, all have been). He later uploaded images with watermarks on the original version, other people removed them, and he reverted to his watermarked versions. War ensued. If he objects to the removal, you can't war with him, but you can upload a 'cleaned' version as a new file if you want, as long as you comply with the license, and (if you want) DR the watermarked one. Reventtalk 05:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: : Right, and my sticking point is "can" vs. "must". I think it's pretty clear what is going on with the watermarks, and allowing them pursuant to someone else not liking them and changing them is a problem. I think they need to go, period, with no leeway as to "if someone wants to..." COM:PRP says that "nobody will mind or find out" is not an excuse for uploading potentially copyrighted material, and I fail to see why we should employ any less of a level of diligence here. Additionally, Peter will get his way if the community is lazy, because the people who see a problem are specifically prevented from dealing with the problem per the resolution. MSJapan (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @MSJapan: If you want to go to the wider community and ask for a new CSD for his watermarks, or DR any file that has one, be my guest. Nothing about this says you can't, and I'll be perfectly happy to hit the button if the community approves it. But nobody is allowed to try to enforce such a 'rule' by edit warring, and to be honest several of the editors involved here appear to have been using sockpuppets to do so, or at least to have 'migrated' here from another wiki for no other purpose than to edit war.
- Since every one of his uploads, watermarked or not, is both copyrighted and freely licensed, the PRP really has nothing at all to do with it. Reventtalk 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: : Right, and my sticking point is "can" vs. "must". I think it's pretty clear what is going on with the watermarks, and allowing them pursuant to someone else not liking them and changing them is a problem. I think they need to go, period, with no leeway as to "if someone wants to..." COM:PRP says that "nobody will mind or find out" is not an excuse for uploading potentially copyrighted material, and I fail to see why we should employ any less of a level of diligence here. Additionally, Peter will get his way if the community is lazy, because the people who see a problem are specifically prevented from dealing with the problem per the resolution. MSJapan (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment
- I'm neutral regarding this topic and sorry if I leave a little of the story line however it reminds me of something I've thought. Sometime files are overwritted with very different versions and sometimes the new version can have an added educational value and so to be relevant for the project. From my point of view, in a case of "own work", when the photographer himself overwrite one of his upload with a new/different version, then we can assume he agree to a publication under the same license. The issue, after a conflict or when the event comes into the light of the communauty, is that we revert on the former version, and the newest is not necessarily uploaded in a second file. We should have, administrators, a one click button to separate the newest version in a new file under a similar license of the first file. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: I agree, but https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141704 makes splits risky, since you have to undelete repeatedly. Reventtalk 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of replying in multiple places above, or trying to argue, I'll just put this down here.
- The claim is made that using the name "Peter Keijsers Art & More' is intended to serve a promotional purpose, and this is probably correct. The creator of a work, however, is able to specify the name by which they wish to be attributed, and they are in no way obligated to use their 'real name'. We use aliases on Commons constantly, a name becomes 'legal' purely by publicly using it, and the CC licenses specifically allow an author to require that they either be attributed by a pseudonym or to designate an 'attribution party' who will be attributed. The watermarking of an image with a 'name' is a standard way of designating such a means of attribution.
- I described the watermarks as not inherently promotional, specifically in reference to the language used in COM:Watermarks, which describes unacceptable promotional watermarks as those that "go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website". The watermark he is using serves a legitimate purpose outside of pure advertising, as I just described. I am not 'endorsing' the watermarks he is using, at all, but they are not the kind of 'advertising spam' (including websites, phone numbers, or email addresses) that should be speedily deleted. If the community wants to sanction the removal of images with these watermarks it of course can, but the point of this 'solution' is not to do that....that is not something that an admin should unilaterally do.
- The sole point of this is to prevent disruptive upload and edit warring, and to clearly indicate that editors attempting to impose a solution through edit warring, upload warring, or legal threats will be prevented from doing so. If it serves that purpose, then people can actually 'discuss' what to do with the images. I think it is fairly clear at the point that most of the editors who commented above understood that. Reventtalk 09:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- We don't have to decide whether the watermarks are OK or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that ONE user is getting the special treatment for no apparent reason. Removing a watermark is not a derivative work and the original file can be overwritten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- It was no way my intention to give anyone special treatment, and I don't think it does other than what is inherent in allowing the 'original uploader' of a particular file to object to it being modified from the uploaded version (and that people should then upload the other version separately).... and that 'special treatment' applies to every uploader. There is an interaction of the DMCA and the terms of CC licenses, here, that is why I wrote this as I did. If a watermark is 'copyright management information' under the DMCA (and the argument could be made, here, even if we want to 'guess' that a court would reject it) then the only way the removal is legal is by arguing that the license allows for the creation of derivatives. That does not imply that the 'derivative' created by removing the watermark has any copyrightable originality... in fact, it would rather be the point to avoid any. Reventtalk 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We don't have to decide whether the watermarks are OK or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that ONE user is getting the special treatment for no apparent reason. Removing a watermark is not a derivative work and the original file can be overwritten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The user seems to have bulk-uploaded a ton of pictures of George Patton taken from Russian blogs over the last few weeks. He's asserting PD, but those are clearly not the original sources of the photos. A look at the user's talk shows some problems in the past, as do some spot checks on images, like File:Velez-Weissmuller.jpg, which is claimed PD but comes off a site with a copyright notice on it, and File:General_Patton.jpg which I nommed for lack of source, and when the "updated license" was sourced, it pointed right at a copyrighted page. There's upwards of 50 images, and with a spotty history, I'd rather report the user than set up deletions requests for everything, and possibly forestall the problem getting any bigger. MSJapan (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is concerning. Wikimedia Common respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects its users to do the same. I have pinged INeverCry for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- If these were blatant copyvios, they could be quickly nuked, and the uploader warned. It looks like deletion requests will be necessary for these questionable uploads. I would ask Mayyskiyysergeyy to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. Someone can ping me again if similar uploads continue, and I might have to implement a block. INeverCry 18:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- * Не вижу ничего удивительного, что герою Второй мировой войны посвящено множество фотографий.
- * Ошибки в любой работе неизбежны, будем их устранять по мере выявления; злого умысла у меня не имелось и не имеется, но сказывается малый опыт работы с Викискладом.
- * Фотографии для загрузки отбирались по качеству изображения (посредством Google-опции «Поиск по картинке»), а не по местонахождению сайта.
- * Фото File:General_Patton.jpg имеет точную привязку по месту и дате фотосъёмки (http://www.lasegundaguerra.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=13068), а номер в правом нижнем углу однозначно указывает на применимость к этому фото лицензии {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}.
- * Любое фото, на котором изображён генерал Паттон, старше 70 лет, поэтому все фото с неустановленным авторством автоматически попадают под действие лицензии {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- If these were blatant copyvios, they could be quickly nuked, and the uploader warned. It looks like deletion requests will be necessary for these questionable uploads. I would ask Mayyskiyysergeyy to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. Someone can ping me again if similar uploads continue, and I might have to implement a block. INeverCry 18:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Mayyskiyysergeyy: File:General_Patton.jpg appears to be from the LIFE magazine photo collection, and not a US Government work. It could possibly have been provided to the magazine by the military, but actual evidence is needed. Reventtalk 22:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Image File:General_Patton.jpg was taken by a US Signal Corps photographer (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205125361). --Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest separate DRs for each problem image, unless you have multiple files with the same issue that can be addressed together. You definitely want to avoid a big Mass DR, as they tend to get bogged down and remain unclosed for weeks and months. In general, whenever you have a concern about a file's copyright or scope status, a DR is never really a bad idea. If you're right, a copyvio or out of scope file gets deleted; if you're wrong the file gets kept and its status as being appropriate to be hosted on Commons is confirmed. It's a win-win. Talking to the uploader is an option too, but that can be tough if there's a language barrier, or if the editor is inactive, etc. INeverCry 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I think one or more of these files had been taken to DR. Wikicology (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't able to track this as closely as I'd have liked. I don't want to dump everything on one person, so I'll see if there are issues with what remains, but hopefully Wikicology reviewed some of them. MSJapan (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: This is still a problem. The user is just pillaging Russian blogs for images, and then claiming they're PD because the blogs give no attribution. He's put up another ten images, and several are from "non-commercial use only, we don't know who the copyright belongs to"-type sites. He's also lying about where exactly he's getting the material - File:General_Omar_Bradley_and_General_George_C._Marshall.jpg as uploaded isn't even the same color tone as the source cited in the license, and File:Lt. General Lesley J. McNair.jpg is larger in the upload than in the source page. File:Lieutenant_general_Lesley_J._McNair.jpg isn't even the same picture as in the source. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this here and for the DR. It seems INeverCry previously warned this user to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. They just choose to ignore this warning, a behavior I'll considered disruptive. I think a short term block would be in order until the issues have been dealt with. Wikicology (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a day or so since his last upload. I've given him a final copyvio warning. I'll keep his page on my watch-list. I hope a block can be avoided. INeverCry 05:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: , I am not sure this user can take advice from anyone. See this upload today again after warning. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a day or so since his last upload. I've given him a final copyvio warning. I'll keep his page on my watch-list. I hope a block can be avoided. INeverCry 05:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this here and for the DR. It seems INeverCry previously warned this user to refrain from uploading anything like these until the issues have been dealt with. They just choose to ignore this warning, a behavior I'll considered disruptive. I think a short term block would be in order until the issues have been dealt with. Wikicology (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: This is still a problem. The user is just pillaging Russian blogs for images, and then claiming they're PD because the blogs give no attribution. He's put up another ten images, and several are from "non-commercial use only, we don't know who the copyright belongs to"-type sites. He's also lying about where exactly he's getting the material - File:General_Omar_Bradley_and_General_George_C._Marshall.jpg as uploaded isn't even the same color tone as the source cited in the license, and File:Lt. General Lesley J. McNair.jpg is larger in the upload than in the source page. File:Lieutenant_general_Lesley_J._McNair.jpg isn't even the same picture as in the source. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't able to track this as closely as I'd have liked. I don't want to dump everything on one person, so I'll see if there are issues with what remains, but hopefully Wikicology reviewed some of them. MSJapan (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I think one or more of these files had been taken to DR. Wikicology (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's enough. Yesterday commented OK on warning, today another upload. His own works bollocks just earned him a 4 week Commons vacation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence that the deleted image being the reason for this block is a real copyright violation. It seems to be neither published nor professional and the uploader was 16 when the photo was made (so he can be the author). While it can be deleted basing on COM:PRP (but I would rather request explanation via "no permission"), I think that user blocks should be based on more evident cases. Just my 2c. Ankry (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm working my way through these images, and many of the URLs are fake - the pictures are there, but the links are to, in one case, gallery pages on Wordpress where the image is not in the resolution we have here. I have tried to find the "originals" in the correct archives, but I've also found a minor quibble where Navy PDs have all been uploaded as Army, and some images I've only been able to source to Getty as present as Time-Life photos still under copyright. Some of the actual PD images eventually come from ww2db.com (such as this one, and the site's ToU says Most photographs seen on WW2DB are in the public domain and those may be used by anyone without restriction. Whenever possible, each photo page lists the name of the source of the photograph beneath the caption of each photo along with the copyright status. If a photograph's copyright status is not listed, please contact us and/or consult an intellectual property attorney. So PRP may apply in certain cases where the license is not made clear. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Additional - I have found four colorized images of Erwin Rommel uploaded by the user which were clearly taken from DeviantArt. Those licenses are incompatible with Commons, and one had a false URL. I also found a colorized image of Patton that was called PD, while the source it came from indicated it was colorized by a contemporary artist. I also found a photo categorized as the battleship Tirpitz when it was the Bismarck (similar ships, but shows lack of care), and several photos of Hans Langendorff that were claimed to be PD by copyright lapse (life plus 70), with no author given, and the person whose collection the photos came from died in 1974, so life plus 70 hasn't happened yet. I think the extent of the violations at this point clearly indicates that the user is not interested in uploading within Commons guidelines, and should be indef-blocked. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The user EurovisionNim has been warned and blocked (for example User talk:EurovisionNim/Archive_2#Blocked for violation COM:OVERWRITE again and again. I warned him yesterday (he archived the warning a few minutes after reply), and he did it today again. Please block. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter, I am sorry for the mistake i have made in the past. Can you please forgive me --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like the fact that you say "sorry" again and again and then a few days or weeks later you are doing the exactly same again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter, COM:OVERWRITE is just a guideline. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We had a number of AN/U cases which are confirming that such actions are controversial and not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, you use the word violation. It is hard to relate that to a guideline. A guideline is not a rule, not a Wikimedia Law. As far as I can see - but I did not inspect all his work - he did not do anything that justifies the word violation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We had a number of AN/U cases which are confirming that such actions are controversial and not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter, COM:OVERWRITE is just a guideline. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like the fact that you say "sorry" again and again and then a few days or weeks later you are doing the exactly same again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Steinsplitter, I am sorry for the mistake i have made in the past. Can you please forgive me --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
| Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59 |
|---|
:Ah! Worrisome. What do you think this database will look like in a 100 years from now? I can tell you, I guarantee you that most files will have been overwritten. Because Wikimedia was designed to provide content, not to preserve it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
|
- Good block - You can't say sorry and then do it again ..... Clearly they cannot be trusted and their sorrys mean nothing so unless they stop with the overwriting then they're going to end up banned like Jan, Jan Arkesteijn DROP THE STICK, You were banned by the community for a very good reason and unless you want to be banned from this site for indef I really would suggest you drop it, You're on very thin ice here as it is!. –Davey2010Talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
L'artauprésent
See also: Commons:Bistro#Catégories and Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Details by GERMANY 15th-c.. I'm asking for some assistance because I'm involved and don't know how to deal with that. User:L'artauprésent made good uploads and I'm AGF but obviously she didn't understand our category system nor naming scheme. In addition she speaks English poorly I think (some cat names look google-translated). She created and moved a lot of categories (by now about 170) like
- Category:WILLETTE Adolphe on his own work
- Category:WILLETTE Adolphe by himself
- Category:Artists about Artists
- Category:Details by 15th-c. unidentified artists from GERMANY
to give some examples. I asked her to stop categorising but she goes on, even reverting my reverts. So on one hand she wants to do something positive to our project (and she does partially), on the other hand she produces a bunch of work of category renaming and deleting for us. --Achim (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- What I see here is a user (L'artauprésent) who is unintentionally and unknowingly disruptive while trying to help. No doubt, a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess but can we help them to understand how to do this correctly? Wikicology (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this user is a native French speaker. @Christian Ferrer: @Yann: Is there any way one of you could talk to this guy and see what can be done here? 170 categories isn't a small matter. INeverCry 01:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Some answers:
No “L’artauprésent” and “J’aimelart” are actually 2 different users, I mean physically different; but true, we are quite close, and I speak often with her, and help her sometimes about these Wikimedia matters, as well as I can, because the use of Wikimedia is really not easy for people who have not some IT knowledges (compare with the other well known sites for pictures, the interface is far from being easy); but that is not the question (to my opinion, if there is only 1 point which should be improved on Wikimedia, it’s the user interface).
Other point: true, we are both native french speakers, and still true, our English is very poor (although we don’t use Google translation). So, it would be much more easy if she or we could speak with a french speaking administrator. And by the way I apologize here for my poor English in this message, I hope it will be nevertheless understandable.
Now I will try to explain what I have undestood of her project under Wikimedia (so, it’s just «my» understanding), this could help: she works along 2 axes:
Axis 1) “L’artauprésent»” own thousands pictures of details of thousands of artworks; she thinks (and I agree) that these details are meaningful, and each of them can be seen as a painting inside the painting (or drawing or else), each of them has its own beauty which often is not visible if you just see the whole painting.
Axis 2) “L’artauprésent” has worked a lot, not on the history of Art but on the writings (letters, or books or else) of many artists; and she thinks (and again I agree) that it would be interesting to bring closer the words of the artists to the artworks either by other artists, either by themselves when they speak about their own artworks. So, this implies really many many pictures, and they need to be categorized, and of course there will be a lot of categories (if she remains welcome, of course).
For the axis 1, there will be 1 category for each artwork, including a sub-category with all the details of the artwork; why not directly the details under the category of the artwork? Because this mother-category could contains different pictures of the whole artwork, as some artworks need several pictures (for example from different points of view for a sculpture, or recto/verso for some works on paper, or different kinds of lighting, or other), and also different users could wish to include their own picture of the artwork; moreover the “details approach” is very specific, and it would not be friendly for many people if the whole artwork is just lost among dozens of details. Generally the category dedicated to the artwork is simply linked to the already existing scheme of categories (ex: “paintings by xxxx”, “xxxx”...). The case of artworks by unidentified artists is a little bit more complicated; if useful, to be discussed later.
For the axis 2, the question is much more complicated; as I have spoken with her, I know that she has thought a lot to the question, and what she proposes seems to be coherent to my eye. For example, at first sight you could think that “WILLETTE Adolphe by himself” and “WILLETTE Adolphe on his own works” is the same thing; but it’s not. In fact in the case of Willette, it could be almost the same, but in the general case it’s not, and it’s probably better to have the same pattern for all the cases; indeed the category “xxxx by himself” contains mainly 2 sub-categories: first the category including the words by the artist on his own works (with the photos of these artworks, and of some details when it’s relevant), and then the category including self-portraits and portraits of his family (with or without words, but we could admit that a self-portrait is a way of speaking of himself).
Her work is still in progress (and she will stop if you want she does), so some categories are still unfinished, but please let us take as an example (and model of architecture) the case of the painter Emile BERNARD; there are 3 cases:
- - The other artists writing about (or painting) Emile Bernard
- - Emile Bernard writing about (or painting, or “imitating”) other artists
- - Emile Bernard writing about himself (or self-portraiting...)
Each of these cases is a category, which includes the relevant sub-categories; for example the category “artists about BERNARD” includes (among several others) the sub-category “DENIS about BERNARD”, which includes the sub-sub-category, “DENIS on BERNARD artworks”, including words by Maurice Denis, and pictures by Bernard linked to these words; if Denis has portrayed Bernard or his family (I don’t know), there will be a second sub-sub-category like “DENIS portrays BERNARD”.
Notice, as I said, that her work is still in progress; so, for example the sub-category “GAUGUIN on BERNARD artworks” already contains photos, but no words by Gauguin, and of course this category will be fully relevant when it will include these words; I know she already has the sentences, but it takes time...
All of these categories are included at the top under the “Big-mother-category” “artists about artists”, and of course this category is fully relevant as it contains everything artists have written about other artists or themselves (with relevant pictures of course).
So I understand there could be an issue: there are thousands of artists, and surely many “crossed-categories” (artist xxx about artist yyy, and so on). Also, about naming, she tries to follow the pattern Wikimedia, but she also has made some choices which seemed to her relevant or justified and which could be discussed later. She has some principles, like avoiding too long names for categories, because for most of people some names could become simply unreadable if too long (we are on the Net, not in a book, and the targeted people is very large and many people just stop to read the name after 3 or 4 words and click on the link [or not!]... I do like that myself).
Please notice that “L’artauprésent” is sincere, and acts with good intentions; she is willing to stop immediately her work with Wikimedia and uploads if you just think it’s not the right place to develop her project (finally as a kind of sub-project of the site). This should be decided quite quickly, because it’s a lot of work for her to manage that... Also, you know she is new on the site, and there are many things she still does not understand (and me too by the way!). So any help from your side will be more than welcome, but it would be preferable in French, as it’s difficult for us to well understand English... Thanks for everything and sorry first for the length of this message (but the matter is quite complex) and for any previous troubles! (J'aimelart (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC))
- J'aimelart, thank you very much for your quick answering comprehensively. I think we will move the case to a good and satisfying end. Of course L’artauprésent's uploads and efforts are more than welcome here. Uploading valuable files is one thing, categorising them in an appropriate manner (avoiding overcategorisation) another one, and creating well-named categories and linking them correctly to an existing tree a third one. Some hours ago I did rename some categories so I think our vehicle will run better now. But one should always imagine that a user looks at a category first time. If he for example reads WILLETTE Adolphe by himself he will think "self-portraits of Willette". Therefore in some cases we should try to find better category names showing what is expected to be inside. Finally let me say that Commons primarily is a media repository, though texts are not forbidden here one should consider that Wikipedia or Wikisource often are better suitable projects for texts. Best, --Achim (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) - And: your English isn't poor...
- Hello!
- I have talked with “L’artauprésent” yesterday evening and today (you know we are quite close). I report here what she has decided, because she is even worse than me in English (and in fact my English is not good, Achim, take into account it took me almost 1 hour to write my previous message).
- “L’artauprésent” has decided to stop completely her activities on Wikimedia. There are several reasons for that, but here are the 2 which seem to me the most significant and indisputable:
- - She thinks now that her 2 projects: “artists about artists” (in other words: giving life to the pictures of artworks by the words of artists themselves) and “Details by artist” (in other words: showing artworks inside the artworks which could be not visible at first sight) have definitively not their place on Wikimedia (and, by the way, nor any other Wiki project, obviously). I fully agree with her for the first one, and partially for the second one.
- - She doesn’t feel at ease with this community and the way it works. Nothing to add, a feeling can’t be discussed.
- Notice that I did not advise her to decide that; but the fact is I know her, I know who she is, and probably she has done the good choice. So she is trying to find other ways to express herself and share her photos and knowledge. She has insisted to apologize for all the troubles she has caused.
- So please consider this topic is now closed. Of course you may do everything you wish with everything she has done, moving, renaming, recategorizing, deleting files or categories (that could be relevant as some were still in progress and thus are not fully meaningful at this step), it’s up to you to decide what is the best for the site.
- Probably it’s a “good and satisfying end”; no need to block her shortly or definitively, according the kind and clever proposal by Kelly, and, as she says, “there will be cleanup of any problem caused”, so everything is for the best.
- Now, below this line, I speak for myself, still about the previous case although it is closed.
- In the previous discussion I have noticed some very funny points; let me quote here 2 of them:
- Achim you wrote: “Finally let me say that Commons primarily is a media repository, though texts are not forbidden...”; that sounds like a good joke! Why? Because open any page “File”: the amount of text is more than 75% of the page from top to bottom (thus less than 25% for the picture)! That’s a matter of fact, I have taken a ruler for measurements! So it appears that the site is not able to apply to itself the rules it asks to apply! Yet it should be very easy to reduce this part of text-system, to reduce most of the fields (description, licensing, history, metadata...) to some links at the bottom of the page, or in thumbnail or other... If you compare with all the other websites which are media repositories, Wikimedia seems to be the most verbose from far. So I don’t think it would not have been an issue to add some relevant lines of texts under the pictures...
- Other example, I quote Wikicology: “a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess”. This general sentence is surely true, but in this specific context, it sounds also like a good joke. Indeed, from one side I can guarantee that all the categories created by “L’artauprésent” were relevant and meaningful (notice that I say “were” and not “are”, because topic is closed now). That means they followed a logic and were all justified on the basis of this logic. So may be it’s not in the logic of Wikimedia, what is obviously an issue, this caused troubles and some disorder, sure and that’s unfortunate, but it’s not really a mess because there was nevertheless a relevant organization. But, from another side, when helping “L’artauprésent” to define her organization of categories, I have deeply visited the site, particularly the categories dedicated to art matters, and let me say one thing: no need to go deeply to see that Wikimedia IS an ocean of mess, in which can be found here and there some islands of order or organization: the number is unbelievable (hundreds obviously, thousands very probably) of unjustified categories, without any meaning, empty or empty-like, with cranky names, duplicated matters with different names but not the same pictures, in different languages, links to irrelevant categories, files in wrong places, and so on! And I have also found other factors of mess which are not relevant to speak about here. So, in this reality, was it relevant to focus on the 170 organized categories created by “L’artauprésent”? It was up to you to decide...
- All the best,(J'aimelart (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC))
- J'aimelart, it's a pity and I regret that decision. I already have said that she's welcome here. In this case I made a lot of category renaming and categorisation changes (as well as Llann Wé² did) not for to say "you were wrong" but "look here, this way round does it work, please do so". --Achim (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all. Guessing they (she-he?) tried to do their best I wrote an answer in French on the French Bistro where they asked for some help. I've renamed some cat's they've created because of the name's order and uppercases use, wishing they'll read and catch the examples given (as @Achim55: did)... But I gave up because a bug shut down my PC and there was too many cat's concerned. Don't be too severe. Have a nice week. --LW² \m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- J'aimelart, it's a pity and I regret that decision. I already have said that she's welcome here. In this case I made a lot of category renaming and categorisation changes (as well as Llann Wé² did) not for to say "you were wrong" but "look here, this way round does it work, please do so". --Achim (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Panoramio upload bot does not honor disambiguation cats
Panoramio upload bot keeps adding photos to disambiguation categories like Category:Kreuzberg. I notified User:Shizhao twice about this problem, but got no response. While this categorization problem is not huge, it causes unnecessary work for other users and should be prevented at the bot level. What I find quite concerning is that a controversial bot like this is seemingly running unsupervised, and its maintainer is not responding to queries on its talk page. Any suggestions? --Sebari (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see that you left a note for them here on August 2, 2016 and here on August 8, 2016. This user is actively editing. It is not clear why they aren't responding to query. I don't want to believe they ignored you. Wikicology (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No way Shizhao ignores the problem. Maybe work already started or busy with other stuff. Give it some time.
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I thought as much. Wikicology (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- No way Shizhao ignores the problem. Maybe work already started or busy with other stuff. Give it some time.
Improper user name. In Italian it means Fuck off --Sailko (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Could an admin end this war?
IMO the IP is right because a sandwich with cheese, a piece of kabanos and a cup of tea isn't an example of pure Polish cuisine. :-D --jdx Re: 14:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Protected fully for 1 week. --Achim (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- My internet crashed, so i wasn't able to mark this as
- And i have to admin that i misread Jdx's comment (...the IP isn't right...) - sorry. Reduced the block to one day for edit-warring. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I discovered this file in Category:Meals and I was the one who actually put it into Category:Meals in Poland which I now found out, happens to be a redirect to Category:Cuisine of Poland. How about placing it into Category:Picnics in Poland? Or otherwise undo the redirect of Meals in Poland? - Takeaway (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- My internet crashed, so i wasn't able to mark this as
Copyright violations from Prashantpking
User:Prashantpking has uploaded a bunch of TV station logos claiming them as own work which is obviously not true. This is after being blocked for copyright violations in July. In fact, this editor's contributions have all been copyright violations. --Whpq (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) User:GaryFG8125
Hi. GaryFG8125 edits en.wikipedia in the area of Irish politics and politicians. An incident report for him has been opened at WP AN/I, which concerns his recent uploads to WP Commons - basically all of his recent uploads appear to be copyright violations. Examples include:
- This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Leo Varadkar article here, has been taken from the Irish Independent.
- This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Alan Dukes article here, has been taken from RTÉ News.
- This image uploaded to Commons, used on the Government of the 32nd Dáil article here and replacing an image that had been verified as suitably licensed, has been taken from The Herald.
There are many more similar incidents from this user.
Can something be done, please? Bastun (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- That was quick! Thanks! Bastun (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) User:Shinzo17
Could we a have a couple of eyes on User:Shinzo17, please. His upload from Flickr of File:Arvind Kejriwal Taking Charges As Delhi's First AAP CM.jpg looks like it's been grabbed from somewhere else. At the same he tags for speedy deletion multiple images of the same Indian politician taken by User:ThinkingYouth, photos we have had for three years. On enwiki Shinzo17 has removed one of these photos from w:Chief Minister of Delhi, inserting his derivative Sam Sailor Talk! 12:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sam Sailor, The original image was published here on December 28, 2013. I doubt Shinzo17 is the copyright holder of this work. The copyright holder of the image is probably AFP. Wikicology (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is clear Flickr washing; the Flickr account was created, and the images uploaded, on 24. August 2016, the same date as the upload to the Commons. A higher resolution, more complete version was here in February 2015 and, of course, is on numerous other sites as well. I've deleted the copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikicology what do you mean by AFP?Shinzo17 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- This user appears to be an example of someone who is clearly not here to build a repository of media. Their edits here, 1, 2, 3 are troubling. Also Taivo reverted their disruptive edit here, here, and here. Considering all these and their disruptive behavior at en:wiki, I think an indef block would be in order. Wikicology (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've just started in, but so far every file uploaded by TY that Shinzo17 tagged as a speedy actually has been a copyvio. COM:AGF, please. Эlcobbola talk 15:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that most file uploaded by TY that Shinzo17 tagged are likely to be copyvios considering the use of different camera models but they weren't nominated for speedy in the spirit of AGF. They linked the sources to website that actually took the file from here. For example, this file was uploaded by TY on October 2012, Shinzo17 tagged it for speedy deletion, pointing to this website as the source, also this mage was tagged by the user, pointing to this source. They continued like that for all TY's images they tagged for deletion. The fact that TY's images are likely to be copyvios does not address Shinzo17's problematic behavior here and en:wiki but I'll AGF. Wikicology (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
cc @INeverCry and SpacemanSpiff: This Shinzo17 smells like an old friend of ours. Indopug (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- And flickrwashing is indeed part of his MO. Indopug (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) User:Panoramio upload bot does not honor disambiguation cats
Panoramio upload bot keeps adding photos to disambiguation categories like Category:Kreuzberg. I notified User:Shizhao twice about this problem, but got no response. While this categorization problem is not huge, it causes unnecessary work for other users and should be prevented at the bot level. What I find quite concerning is that a controversial bot like this is seemingly running unsupervised, and its maintainer is not responding to queries on its talk page. Any suggestions? --Sebari (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see that you left a note for them here on August 2, 2016 and here on August 8, 2016. This user is actively editing. It is not clear why they aren't responding to query. I don't want to believe they ignored you. Wikicology (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No way Shizhao ignores the problem. Maybe work already started or busy with other stuff. Give it some time.
- I thought as much. Wikicology (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- No way Shizhao ignores the problem. Maybe work already started or busy with other stuff. Give it some time.
- Restoring this section as it has not been resolved. Today, again, photos were uploaded to said categories. This is really annoying. --Sebari (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm surprised Shizhao has not comment here since this was reported last week. I think they need to tell us how they are fixing or intend to fix the bot. Srittau, I am not sure the user is aware of this thread. Do you notify this user? Wikicology (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- sorry, it fxied...--shizhao (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Shizhao: Thank you! --Sebari (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sebari (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Exoduslexis
Hi,
I think that Exoduslexis is not here to contribute. He uploads images found around the Internet regardless copyrights. Is the following image summarizes his thinking?
Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Could an administrator please review User:XPanettaa's request for unblock? I have unblocked once, so I don't feel like I'm in a place to review the request.
Some background: this user has uploaded copyright violations and even sockpuppeted in the past. I decided to give a second chance. However, soon after unblock s/he uploaded some fairly simple logos. User:Steinsplitter blocked because the Netherlands has a low threshold of originality, and this is a repeat offender. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding my Dutch comments. In short I explained what Dutch case law says about the threshold of originality and the fact that just because someone only uses basic geometrical shapes it doesn't mean the work isn't eligible for copyright since arranging those shapes can most certainly generate a copyright. (Regarding the rest of the text, I mostly explained that the Netherlands is a civil law country and some other basic stuff like which sources of law we have and how precepts “created” by judges work.) XPanettaa ignores my argument, doesn't cite any case law and simply keeps repeating that the logo's concist of " simple geometric shapes". This user claimes to be a native speaker of the Dutch and English language but no matter what langauge I use, my argument is dodged. Just as a brief summary of what we discussed in Dutch. Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Natuur12, apart from that the user know very well that the TO in NL is low, i have the feeling that he is trying to play the system. @Magog the Ogre: can you please elaborate what you mean with "and this is a repeat offender."?
- Last but not least: The user has sent me a e-mail, i answered and explained him the issue with logos under nl jurisdiction (i also cited a court ruling and legal opinion from a nl attorney), but got no reply. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging users who blocked XPanettaa in the past: @Taivo: @Yann: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just a word: The latest logos look quite simple. However for the previous blocks in January and February 2016, I think that XPanettaa wrote elaborate arguments, but still seems to refuse to acknowledge previous issues. I feel dubious when he said "I don't know how to do that". And as Эlcobbola said, the issue of socking/block evasion should be addressed before unblocking as well. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I read his talk page history and it is uncomfortable for me to unblock him. I suggest not to do that. Socking has not been explained. He has not confessed himself guilty. He has not archived his talk page, but has deleted its content. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Yann: please don't close DR's early. Plus you are ignoring almost a decade of Dutch case law. Natuur12 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I read his talk page history and it is uncomfortable for me to unblock him. I suggest not to do that. Socking has not been explained. He has not confessed himself guilty. He has not archived his talk page, but has deleted its content. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just a word: The latest logos look quite simple. However for the previous blocks in January and February 2016, I think that XPanettaa wrote elaborate arguments, but still seems to refuse to acknowledge previous issues. I feel dubious when he said "I don't know how to do that". And as Эlcobbola said, the issue of socking/block evasion should be addressed before unblocking as well. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary reverts by User:Jdx
User:Jdx is edit warring in Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Logo Google Earth.svg. Although having been told to stop his arbitrary reverts he continues his disruptive editing[23][24]. Request for administrative address to tell him to refrain from arbitrary reverts. --87.123.58.137 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- The reverts by Jdx are totally justified. Please stop disturbing this DR with your behaviour. Jcb (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's very nice of you that you started this topic because I was going do do it. Anyway, 87.123.58.137 is a cheat who wants badly File:New Logo Google Earth.svg to be deleted. He voted "delete" and signed his vote with his IP and several minutes later he voted "delete" once again, but this time he signed the vote with non-existent user name. Also please note that his IP and IP of DR creator belong to the same /16 subnet, one is located in Essen and the other one in Wuppertal (distance less than 40 km), so it is very likely that the same person created DR and then casted two fake votes. --jdx Re: 20:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your guess is wrong. Instead of arbitrarily starting an edit war you should just have told me. If you are more happy with it, I'll mere the different texts into one. However, how can Anna and me, who are in fact sitting in the same office (no, it is not 40 km long) both vote, without you calling us a "cheat"? --87.123.58.137 20:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- So let's blame somebody else? Did you get inspired by en:Wikipedia:My little brother did it? Jcb (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can only tell you how it is. I don't have to justify anything to you and it is irrelevant for me, if you believe me or not. So if I created a few fake accounts, then I would have been allowed to add even more votes even without my co-worker? Ok, I'll know for the future. --87.123.58.137 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- 87.123.58.0/24 blocked for 1 week for disruption. We don't have time to play these games. INeverCry 21:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and I don't believe a word the co-worker story. At first not many offices in Germany do have a dynamic DSL IP. Second, if you would have been in an office at 11:00 and still have been in the same office past 23:00, you would clearly violate the de:Arbeitszeitgesetz. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can only tell you how it is. I don't have to justify anything to you and it is irrelevant for me, if you believe me or not. So if I created a few fake accounts, then I would have been allowed to add even more votes even without my co-worker? Ok, I'll know for the future. --87.123.58.137 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- So let's blame somebody else? Did you get inspired by en:Wikipedia:My little brother did it? Jcb (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Your guess is wrong. Instead of arbitrarily starting an edit war you should just have told me. If you are more happy with it, I'll mere the different texts into one. However, how can Anna and me, who are in fact sitting in the same office (no, it is not 40 km long) both vote, without you calling us a "cheat"? --87.123.58.137 20:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a fair block to me. My colleague did it. Lolz Wikicology (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Stas1995
I was unaware of @Stas1995: , until I saw Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unused personal files. This DR, for over a hundred files, was created by Stas adding files to a personal cleanup category, and a (later clarification: creating a DR page with no list of files) DR page, and then using VFC to 'edit' the individual file pages for the category members to add the deletion template, instead of using the 'nominate for deletion' mode. By doing it this way, not only were the files not listed on the page (thus making it clear what files were nominated, and preventing others from being added later) but none of the uploaders were notified.
I warned him that if he ever nominates a file for deletion again without notifying the uploader I will block him for disruption.
Given the history in his block log and talk page, and given that he has been here previously over deletion nominations, I think the community might want to consider further sanctions. Reventtalk 20:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I will not nominate any files for deletion (with notifying or without) in future. Thank you. /St1995 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pokéfan95: I specifically clarified to Stas on his talk page that I was only, personally, warning him to not nominate files for deletion without notifying the uploaders... he was using a 'novel' method to do so, and it was very clearly unacceptable for a couple of reasons (and required more effort than doing it the normal way). Any decision to not nominate 'any' files for deletion his purely his, as far as I am concerned... I only care that he does so in a way that is not disruptive. Reventtalk 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Pokéfan95 that additional sanction may not be required considering Stas1995's comments above. I assume good faith that this problematic behavior won't repeat itself. I decided to bring the previous thread here for transparency sake since it was mentioned by Revent. This is because some users will based their judgement on these reports (past and present) without deeming it to review the previous thread. Wikicology (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Beqabai
Beqabai is making very disruptive edits to a number of files. First, he reverted File:South Ossetia physical map.svg to a previous version uploaded by a different user which changes the border of the region and removes the internal divisions. I just recently reverted that file with saying that Commons is not Wikipedia and that there is no NPOV policy so adding disputed borders to maps is not necessary, it is much better to upload a new version. He later continued the edit war on File:Continents vide couleurs.png by changing the more visually appealing and better quality update of the map first uploaded by User:Spesh531. He also made a new map of Georgia in Europe calling it File:Europe Georgia.svg, identical to File:Europe-Georgia.svg except without the disputed territories which were there for different Wikis to follow NPOV. He then globally replaced the old file with his new one which entirely goes against the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Two of these issues parallel with disruptive edits made by User:Damianmx who was blocked not too long ago. I suspect this may possibly be a sockpuppet of his. --Turnless (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I flagged two of their files for deletions as copyvios but I have not review their edits that led to this report. However, I like to remind the OP that allegation of sock-puppetry is a serious one. If you believe someone is using sock puppets, you should create a report at COM:SPI. That being said, I don't think there is a link between the two accounts (a CU may prove me wrong). User:Damianmx created account here on 7 December 2015 and was blocked on 3 August 2016. User:Beqabai created account here on 26 July 2015. After their first two uploads, They were off for six month. They returned on 18 January 2016. They were off again in February but returned in march and they have been editing without a long break since then. They uploaded this image on 3 August 2016 , the day User:Damianmx was blocked. In fact, there is no interaction between them on that day. BTW.... before posting a grievance about a user here, I thinks it's necessary to consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page or the files talk. Wikicology (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes maybe you are right about them not being connected. They were just both involved in edit warring on the same files. I didn't start a discussion with them because of the speculation that the user may be a sockpuppet. I'll revert the edits explaining why and see if the user cooperates. --Turnless (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted the disruptive edits, globally replaced the old file back, marked the new one for speedy deletion to prevent from further POV pushing and left a message on the user's talk page. I hope they do cooperate now and don't continue with their disruptive editing. --Turnless (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Иван Сафранов
Иван Сафранов (talk · contribs) quacks like a block-evading sock of User:Alex9777777, the self-promoting wikiproject spammer Alex Pechkurov. The same day that a "Печкуров Алексей" category and its contents were deleted by two separate discussions, a new user created Category:Aleksej Pechkurov (the Anglicised version of the Russian name) and added some more personal photos to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfair block by A.Savin
I'm taking this here without talking to Savin because I've found from past experience that he's not open to discussion, and that things get confrontational with him very quickly. Today he implemented a 6-month block on Livioandronico2013 for simple incivility at FPC. The issue that led to this unfair block (Livio's previous 2 blocks have been 3 days and 1 week, so a jump to 6 months is ridiculous) can be seen at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpg. Livio has been abrasive on other occasions in reaction to criticism in FPC nominations, but nothing that would amount to blockable personal attacks. It's mostly incivility.
Code and The Photographer criticized Livio's nomination, and then when he didn't respond they commented in a way that I found to be baiting and disrespectful. Livio then responded by heckling them, and I defended livio and then joked around with Livio about it. Not my best choice obviously, but I didn't realize the situation was going to be blown out of proportion as it has been. Livio made no direct personal attacks, nor did I. What occurred was minor incivility at worst. A warning or a discussion at Livio's talk wasn't even attempted before Savin just blocked him for 6 months after being pinged by Code and The Photographer. Livio could also have been taken here. Noneo personally disrespect you of these steps were taken. Livio can be abrasive when people oppose or criticize his FP nominations, and I agree that that should be toned down or stopped if possible, but Livio has made significant contributions here at Commons too, including almost 100 featured pictures and over 1300 quality images.
I'm not excusing his behavior or my own (I should've worked to resolve the situation rather than joking about it), but a sudden undiscussed 6-month block isn't the answer here. I would also submit that the behavior of Code and The Photographer here hasn't been faultless either. I'm asking fellow admins and others in the community to consider a shorter block, or other possible solutions, because I fear that this 6-month block will chase away a good contributor. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Haven't looked into everything yet but it would surely help if Livioandronico2013 would put some babel boxes on his userpage. Currently I am not sure if he is actually being rude or if some kind of translation software is doing a terrible job. Natuur12 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Livio is a native Italian speaker from Rome. His English might amount to en-2 at best. INeverCry 20:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
1) It is not just about this nomination, but plenty of recent FPC nominations by Livioandronico. It is just mostly the same patterns of behaviour. The only reason why Livioandronico is on Commons whatsoever is, to have as many of his photos as possible promoted. Supporters are friends and opposers are automatically enemies. How long to tolerate such behaviour? Perhaps Code and/or Diliff can confirm that there were multiple issues. In short: Livioandronico is productive contributor, but at the same time a permanent pain in the ass on FPC project. Someday such users produce more damage than value in the end! Remember that Russavia was also a productive contributor, and surely remember how they ended up?
2) It is a temporary block of 6 months as maximum. It is not indef. There is a chance for Livioandronico to mellow up during that time, isn't it?
3) I've found from past experience that he [A.Savin]'s not open to discussion, and that things get confrontational with him very quickly. I'm feeling slandered, INeverCry... --A.Savin 20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- How do you jump from his last block, which was 1 week, to a 6 month block for incivility (not Intimidation/harassment: repeated trolling as you say in you block rationale)? No discussion, no AN/U; Code and The Photographer call you over to FPC with a ping and you arbitrarily block Livio for a 6-month period, a block length which is usually reserved for serious ongoing problems where discussion has failed and blatant personal attacks have been made, etc. As for your mention of slander, I spoke the truth, as I'm sure many admins and editors here are familiar with: you're not easy to talk to or discuss things with. You're often confrontational. But let's not deflect: this discussion is about Livio and your block of him. Going from a 3 day block and a 1 week block prior, to a 6-month block is heavy-handed and unfair. 6 months to think about it? A month at most would've been reasonable. Code did some baiting in this particular incident, as did The Photographer. INeverCry 21:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, 1 month is nothing, as it is here a long-term problem over years. There were numerous problems and complaints about Livioandronico's behaviour, both last year and recently. As for me, I don't even believe six months are enough, but who knows. But some people never change, never learn from anything. --A.Savin 22:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's had a 3-day block and a 1-week block prior to this... A month or two-week block with the ultimatum that if the comments don't stop the block will be extended is at least worth trying. Are you saying Livio doesn't deserve a chance, and we should just get rid of him? You should at least be open to giving him the chance to change his behavior. You're a regular at FPC too Savin, so I question how you can be uninvolved while blocking Livio in this situation. This should've gone here to AN/U to be looked at by an uninvolved admin or admins. Code and The Photographer pinging you, and you immediately implementing a long block is questionable at best. Going from 1 week to six months in blocking with no discussion at all based only on your opinion isn't fair. But we need the opinions of some uninvolved admins and editors. INeverCry 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- First, my username is not Savin (because it's unfortunately taken by s/o else, and it already was at the time I came to Wiki/Commons) and neither is my first name. Call a user by theit username or (if available) first name, as anything else is disrespectful. Second, I just don't want Commons to have circumstances like in German wikipedia, with "Premiumautoren" freed from Etiquette and other guidelines regarding behaviour. And yes, I know FPC a bit (having been participating much longer than you, afaik), so still I cannot be unconcerned if there is a user who seems to be struggling against the rest of the world, just in order to have as many of his own photos promoted as just possible. To have just as many own pictures as possible as FP is surely not what FPC is for, and much less if it is being enforced in an aggressive way, with poisonous comments, revenge voting and similar incivility. --A.Savin 23:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have to see diffs for any revenge votes. That's a completely new charge you're making against Livio. As for your name, I meant no disrespect. Using a person's last name is very common here in the US in a formal setting like this. I'll call you A.Savin from now on. As for Livio's participation at FPC, he regularly puts in support and oppose votes on other nominations with no problems at all. Your's and Code's characterization of him being in it just to collect as many FP stars as he can for himself is an assumption and a subjective opinion. You're not saying he fooled the people at FPC 96 times, and is doing it for the 97th right now are you? I'm sure people like Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and others support Livio's nominations for their merit, as I do, and oppose when the image doesn't have that merit. In his last 5 nominations, I've opposed 2 or 3.
I agree with you that sarcastic or rude comments at FPC is a legitimate issue in relation to Livio, I just don't think slapping him with a 6-month block with no attempt at discussion or at setting a restriction/guideline about the unwanted behavior is the answer. Why not give him a shorter block with the condition that the unwanted behavior has to end or long blocks will result? A block isn't meant to punish him for the last year or two, it's meant to prevent poor behavior. A 6-month block with no chance of being shortened or discussed is contrary to blocking policy. I would also point out that in this incident, Code and The Photographer pressured Livio for a response after he didn't respond to their suggestions about his image. That's usually called baiting. I don't see anybody else being basically forced to respond to a suggestion or oppose at FPC. Livio wanted to ignore Code and The Photographer, but they needled him. Livio hasn't been treated fairly here at all. INeverCry 01:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- with no chance of being shortened or discussed -> who said that, please? My opinion: Of course he may apply for {{Unblock}} and of course an admin may decide other way based on that, as in any other case. --A.Savin 09:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since you pinged me, I would refer you here for my feelings about this subject. I should say that I totally disagree with Oxyman's take on Wikivoyage and don't see myself as having a "fiefdom" at all; instead, by finally blocking voy:User:W. Frank (a user whom I liked in a lot of ways and had a cordial and cooperative working relationship with, I might add), we Wikivoyage admins traded some excellent wikignoming (some of which has since been replaced by other users who aren't otherwise irritating) for something nearly priceless: Some peace and quiet that enabled the website to be constructive and fun again.
- I'd have to see diffs for any revenge votes. That's a completely new charge you're making against Livio. As for your name, I meant no disrespect. Using a person's last name is very common here in the US in a formal setting like this. I'll call you A.Savin from now on. As for Livio's participation at FPC, he regularly puts in support and oppose votes on other nominations with no problems at all. Your's and Code's characterization of him being in it just to collect as many FP stars as he can for himself is an assumption and a subjective opinion. You're not saying he fooled the people at FPC 96 times, and is doing it for the 97th right now are you? I'm sure people like Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and others support Livio's nominations for their merit, as I do, and oppose when the image doesn't have that merit. In his last 5 nominations, I've opposed 2 or 3.
- First, my username is not Savin (because it's unfortunately taken by s/o else, and it already was at the time I came to Wiki/Commons) and neither is my first name. Call a user by theit username or (if available) first name, as anything else is disrespectful. Second, I just don't want Commons to have circumstances like in German wikipedia, with "Premiumautoren" freed from Etiquette and other guidelines regarding behaviour. And yes, I know FPC a bit (having been participating much longer than you, afaik), so still I cannot be unconcerned if there is a user who seems to be struggling against the rest of the world, just in order to have as many of his own photos promoted as just possible. To have just as many own pictures as possible as FP is surely not what FPC is for, and much less if it is being enforced in an aggressive way, with poisonous comments, revenge voting and similar incivility. --A.Savin 23:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's had a 3-day block and a 1-week block prior to this... A month or two-week block with the ultimatum that if the comments don't stop the block will be extended is at least worth trying. Are you saying Livio doesn't deserve a chance, and we should just get rid of him? You should at least be open to giving him the chance to change his behavior. You're a regular at FPC too Savin, so I question how you can be uninvolved while blocking Livio in this situation. This should've gone here to AN/U to be looked at by an uninvolved admin or admins. Code and The Photographer pinging you, and you immediately implementing a long block is questionable at best. Going from 1 week to six months in blocking with no discussion at all based only on your opinion isn't fair. But we need the opinions of some uninvolved admins and editors. INeverCry 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, 1 month is nothing, as it is here a long-term problem over years. There were numerous problems and complaints about Livioandronico's behaviour, both last year and recently. As for me, I don't even believe six months are enough, but who knows. But some people never change, never learn from anything. --A.Savin 22:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- As for the case at hand: I think it's good to have recognized procedures on what incurs a block and for how long. We've tried to agree on these on Wikivoyage and have made some headway, although I don't mean to suggest things have been perfect. The purpose for gradually increasing the amount of time a user who makes a lot of constructive posts but is disruptive or overly nasty is blocked is not so much out of optimism that the user in question will change, but so that the admins' procedure can be agreed upon by all admins and shown to all other users to be legitimate, in that the user in question has been duly warned and given chances to change.
- The upshot is that if Livio has never been blocked for more than a week previously, it does make sense to me to block him for a month this time, but only if the admins are serious about enforcing standards of behavior and won't hesitate to block him again, for 3 months, if he continues to engage in similar behavior. My previous observation was that Livio was being allowed to get away with a type of orneriness that wouldn't be allowed to become chronic on Wikivoyage - in other words, I believe he would have already been blocked for a month, and then if he continued to behave similarly, for 3 months, 6 months, and then indefinitely. If the Commons admins as a group wouldn't be willing to suspend a user indefinitely if necessary, you should give up and not suspend him for a month, either. So consider this case carefully now.
- As for me, I will continue to vote pro or con on Livio's photos based on my appraisal of the work, not of his netiquette, but with all due respect to his productivity and quality, I would prefer for his nasty behavior not to be tolerated, and I don't agree that anyone else I've seen on FPC has exhibited anything close to his level of chronically ugly behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The revenge votes are definitely there... but true that this has stopped since. - Benh (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- What revenge votes? On FPC? I haven't noticed any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: As far as I can say he stopped that before you began participating on FPC. --Code (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- As for me, I will continue to vote pro or con on Livio's photos based on my appraisal of the work, not of his netiquette, but with all due respect to his productivity and quality, I would prefer for his nasty behavior not to be tolerated, and I don't agree that anyone else I've seen on FPC has exhibited anything close to his level of chronically ugly behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Code: You're right that my actions in this situation weren't what they should've been. I didn't take things seriously enough here, and I joked around about it. I misjudged what was taking place. I should've taken it more seriously and tried to get things calmed down. I apologize for this. I didn't mean to personally disrespect you or The Photographer. INeverCry 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: Dear friend, I receive your apology welcome and humility. --The Photographer (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Code: You're right that my actions in this situation weren't what they should've been. I didn't take things seriously enough here, and I joked around about it. I misjudged what was taking place. I should've taken it more seriously and tried to get things calmed down. I apologize for this. I didn't mean to personally disrespect you or The Photographer. INeverCry 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, since I've been pinged... I'm mostly per Code, who summarized it all. Would add that Never cries has a Livio bias (and his arguments when defending Livio on FPC are everything but photos related). And when someone has 96 FPs (over how many fails?), he is either right or the system is wrong. We'll never know but it really puzzles me that [25] is an FP and that [26] almost passed. I could find dozens of other similar cases. - Benh (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- My poor opinion: We have/had other examples of users who are always upset with negative votes. I've at least one other name in mind, and I'm not sure that I'm perfectly innocent of this charge... Of course, when you nominate a picture at FPC, you think it deserves the label ! But sometimes it does not go as you wish, and you have to accept, or politely discuss, the criticisms.
- In this case, I think:
- 1)A block is fair, because Livio was several times warned previously, with blocks.
- 2)A six months block is unfair, as it is way too long in my opinion, especially without any previous discussion.
- 3)Being a "technically good contributor" is definitely not a good reason for leniency IMO: uncivil behaviours are more dangerous for the wiki projects than excellent contributions are useful. Remember that wikimedia projects should normaly NOT work ! Nothing else similar exists in our world ! Wikimedia projects are ruled by ourselves, it is a pan-self-governed strange thing, only based on addition of personal behaviours, and everybody is personaly responsible of what will happen to the projects.
- My suggestion is :ban Livio for one month (one month is long, my friends !), but only for participation to FPC-QIC-VIC pages, as last warning before an indef global block. Then he could continue to upload good pictures as he usually do (to be cynical: we need his pictures for illustrating wikipedias !), without any way for him to troll the "awards running" pages during one month.--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have taken a short look into it and a block seems fair here. If six months is to long is a other question (we can discuss that, we don't have a policy regarding that.). And to be honest, i see no need to immediately file a AN/U case after a user has been blocked, the regular process is to use {{Unblock}}. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jebulon is right though. Livio should be allowed to upload and make other "non award related" edits. Pinging A.Savin (?) - Benh (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Possible alternative: 6 months "topic ban" for FPC/QIC, fine with me, though one has then to watch all his edits and I'm pretty sure that pushing his pictures to FPC/QIC is the only purpose for him to be active on Commons. So, in the end, the effect is the same. IMHO. --A.Savin 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- as for me, I don't really mind if a user is only after stars. I do when it's through a disruptive behaviour like here. So fine if Livio has more FP ; it only implies Wikipedia has more HQ content (provided the review is fair) for me and everyone else. It doesn't matter if Livio can upload pic, and work around the ban to send them to FPC/QI/VI. As long as I don't get insulted anymore when I comment on his picture. - Benh (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If Livio really just wants stars, then he could still be given the FPC topic ban, and he could ask other 'allies' to nominate his images on his behalf. As long as he has no direct involvement in FPC, then he cannot easily be disruptive of it. Diliff (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. Without having gone back to the long history of Livio at FPC, I think the suggestions made above from Jebulon, A.Savin Benh and Diliff are a good solution. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- as for me, I don't really mind if a user is only after stars. I do when it's through a disruptive behaviour like here. So fine if Livio has more FP ; it only implies Wikipedia has more HQ content (provided the review is fair) for me and everyone else. It doesn't matter if Livio can upload pic, and work around the ban to send them to FPC/QI/VI. As long as I don't get insulted anymore when I comment on his picture. - Benh (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Possible alternative: 6 months "topic ban" for FPC/QIC, fine with me, though one has then to watch all his edits and I'm pretty sure that pushing his pictures to FPC/QIC is the only purpose for him to be active on Commons. So, in the end, the effect is the same. IMHO. --A.Savin 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned here and alerted, I thought I should weigh in. I agree some sort of sanction was probably a good idea given Livio's too-frequent tendency to lose his temper in some FPCs. However, six months? As an enwiki admin myself, I will not question an admin's judgement in making a block without some good evidence, but given that the the last one was for merely a week I don't know that going from there to six months was necessary, especially given the length of time between them. Perhaps a month would have been better?
And I do agree that perhaps a ban from FPC would be better. Or, even allowing him to make nominations, as long as he stays out of any ensuing discussion (I have, as noted, !voted about evenly on his nominations. Some have needed work, some have been good enough ... I don't think he should be discouraged from trying photographically, as what he takes pictures of (mostly interiors of historic Italian churches) is the sort of thing we should be encouraging photographers to take their best pictures of. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
In line with the above arguments, It is clear that Livio's behaviors at FPC are destructive. To prevent further destruction and to protect the project, it is necessary to temporarily block and ban Livio from FPC for a duration of two and six months respectively. The previous six months block should be review and lifted shortened to two months and Livio be banned from FPC for a duration of six months which should take effect immediately after their unblock request is accepted by an uninvolved administrator. Wikicology (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two days already passed. So I see nothing wrong in lifting the block after consensus achieved here as at least a usual 3 days block will be served. Jee 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Three days is shorter than his last block, so I disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Blocks are preventative rather than punitive". Here we offer alternate solutions; so the add-in block is just punitive. BTW, the topic ban can be extended to QIC/VIC in future if affecting there too. Jee 04:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't envision blocks as punitive, but as giving the sanctioned user time to think about what triggered the block, the better (one hopes) not to repeat the same behavior. But if you have a system that you think works better than blocks of increasing length, you'll use it with or without my approval. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreement from Livio
I've spoken with Livio at his talk, and he's agreed not to interact with or talk about @Code: , @The Photographer: , @Benh: , and @A.Savin: here: [27] and here [28]; he's agreed to a 6 month ban from participation at FPC/VIC/QIC here [29] and here: [30]. I know that Livio has a temper and says some things that are inappropriate/insulting. He's directly promised now that this behavior will stop. I think it's important to try and get things resolved through discussion as much as possible. In this situation, with direct agreements to end the problem behavior and submit to a 6-month ban from FPC/VIV/QIC, I think it would be safe and fair to unblock him and give him a last chance. The block can be put back in place quickly and easily if he doesn't conform to his agreements. Does anybody object to me unblocking him? I'll monitor his participation here personally. @Elcobbola: You declined the unblock earlier, which was entirely justified. I've since convinced Livio to make the needed promises and agree to the 6-month ban. I'd like to see Livio uploading quality images again and I think a continued block wouldn't be preventative at this point with the agreements in place. Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled that there is no explicit acknowledgement of the issue, which is ultimately what we're really looking for: a genuine understanding that this is not appropriate conduct. Rather, this seems to have an undertone of sidestepping admission of fault and merely making concessions in order to return to editing. That said, being suboptimal does not mean unworkable; if those more familiar with the FPC/VIC/QIC believe this is an acceptable resolution, I wouldn't object to unblocking. Эlcobbola talk 02:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- If/when I'm able to unblock him, I'll make sure he knows he has to be calm and respectful in his interactions with other editors. I think the language barrier hurts him a bit, since he's really only en-1 or en-2. If he could converse in Italian, I'm sure things would've gone a bit smoother. I'll also make sure he knows that he'll be re-blocked upon any repetition of previous behavior. I'm not that worried though; I think I can make this work if I step up and help him. God knows I owe a few debts to the community for my own poor choices and behavior. INeverCry 02:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Code: After that comment he agreed not to interact with you or comment about you. Livio has agreed to leave you alone now, and he'll be held to that. He's also agreed to a 6 month ban from FPC/VIC/QIC. What more should he do? A user who was blocked for 6 months arbitrarily has agreed to stop the behavior. As for A.Savin, what do you agree with him about? That Livio should just go away and that an arbitrary 6 month block should stand?
I don't know you too well Code, but A.Savin has had plenty of uncivil moments of his own. He once opposed a user's RFA simply because that user was German and active at de.wiki. Do you agree with that?INeverCry 07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Code: After that comment he agreed not to interact with you or comment about you. Livio has agreed to leave you alone now, and he'll be held to that. He's also agreed to a 6 month ban from FPC/VIC/QIC. What more should he do? A user who was blocked for 6 months arbitrarily has agreed to stop the behavior. As for A.Savin, what do you agree with him about? That Livio should just go away and that an arbitrary 6 month block should stand?
- @INeverCry: I don't believe that Livio understood what the problem really was. I don't want him to stop interacting with me. I want him to interact politely. That's it. Calling me a coward after being blocked for intimidation/harrassment isn't what I'd call a good behavior. Anyways, do what you consider right and we'll see. --Code (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's quite an unilateral move... I don't think you should be the one unblocking him. But let's see how this turns out. I agree that his last comments don't give us high hopes (While I can accept that you can mistakenly use inappropriate words at oral, it' harder to accept on a written statement). And not interacting with someone doesn't mean not being able to say bad things about him. - Benh (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- He agreed not to interact with or talk about Code, The Photographer, or Benh. He can't say anything about any of you. It's in the first diff above and available at Livio's talk. As for the unblock, I did that from my understanding of COM:BP. I've told Livio he has to go by the agreement closely or he'll be re-blocked. I've made things very clear. INeverCry 08:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment from Colin
- I very much do not support an unblock at this stage. Per quoted text above, and other comments on his talk, there is no indication that "a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated". INC, you have not dealt with the underlying problem that led to a ban, and instead suggested an interaction ban. Commons has no policy for interaction bans (AFAIK), and is IMO a concept from Wikipedia that simply does not work on Commons. On Wikipedia you can work with editors on pop stars articles and I can work with editors on tree articles, for example, but on Commons the places where users interact are very very few. We have literally a handful of forums where users come together and are expected to work together. They are not expected to post their image/comment/request and then remain silent. So please, can we stop this interaction ban stuff as it is never a wise solution.
- Livio has just yesterday insulted Code with his "Not to mention the cowardly way of Code and The Photographer" comment. How is making personal attacks a reason to unblock? The idea this is resolved simply by listing people Livio is not allowed to insult is unacceptable. For a start, my name isn't on the list! Nor Diliff. And no doubt, I could dig further back and find others he has insulted. The problem is that the people you have mentioned are merely the ones who are not afraid to oppose his FPC nominations. Livio's photographs are often of amazing subjects, but technically and artistically his photographs are generally not of FP standard imo. FPC always has some uncritical reviewers who simply support any nice picture. The only way the forum actually works is due to the reviewers who are critical and who attempt to set a standard that actually does mean "among the finest on Commons". Compared to Code's work, and Diliff work and the work of several other photographers of similar subjects, Livio's images generally are not "among the finest" but are merely "nice" -- and of course much of the credit for that goes to the painters and architects who's work we photograph!
- Livio's behaviour at FPC has been to over-nominate his work (images are constantly nominated whether his best or not, images are withdrawn regularly in order to nominate another with a better chance, etc). Combine this with chasing away the negative reviewers and this is pathological in its result: lots of "meh" FPs.
- Most photographers at FPC have seen the quality of their work improve over their time participating there. This requires (a) that there is a high standard to aim for and (b) that the advice of more experienced photographers is heeded. I have learned a lot from other photographers and learned a lot from my failures at FPC. Livio's attitude is that he does not wish to learn or take advice (this is not just my opinion -- he has stated so many times). He has on several occasions lied about the processing he has applied to his images. Generally he over-processes and alters the images, so that the colour and contrast are quite unrealistic -- this might be fine for 500px but isn't compatible with our educational mission. Frankly, having him upload more of this "meh" work, without growing and improving as a photographer through friendly interaction with others, isn't a good idea. INC's idea of removing the block and having INC nominate the images, is terrible. It's as bad as if INC had simply uploaded and nominated images from a third-party's Flickr stream, where the third party is divorced from the review/feedback/advice. FPC often requires the photographer to make improvements to the image either during the nomination or to go away and re-nominate once it is improved (or a better shot taken). This would not be possible/easy if Livio was banned from interaction with the very people who's advice would improve his photography.
- So, in summary. Please admins, stop suggesting interaction bans: they aren't suitable for Commons. Livio should stay blocked until he has had time to reflect on the general behaviour and attitudes that got him into trouble, and appreciate the change in that behaviour and attitude that is necessary to participate here. Simply making a "do not speak to X, Y and Z" list is not the solution.
(ec) I see you have unblocked Livio. Please restore the block -- you do not have consensus for the unblock and are not the person who should unblock anyway. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC) @Elcobbola, Code, and Benh: Each of you have given rationale against unblock and nobody has supported INC. Elcobbola conceeded "if those more familiar with the FPC/VIC/QIC believe this is an acceptable resolution, I wouldn't object to unblocking" -- but nobody "more familiar with the FPC/VIC/QIC" believes this is an acceptable solution, let alone that this is a consensus. I think you have been too hasty to find some technical way to get past the block, than to actually deal with a problem user. You only need to look in the archives too see how long Livio has been a problem user. Do you really think asking him not to insult three people is a solution? -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Full ACK with everything Colin said above. --Code (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did what I thought was right and fair. I can't undo that action because I wouldn't be true to myself or to my religious beliefs if I did. I believe that Livio deserves kindness and forgiveness. A.Savin deserves the same, as does Code. Benh, and The Photographer, and I've been wrong to use angry or insulting words toward them. Apologizing is worth little though. I'll treat them with respect and dignity in any future interaction I have with them. Actions will speak louder than words. I'm still impulsive and reactive at times. I'm working on that. If I've misinterpreted COM:BP in Livio's case, than I guess another admin will block Livio again, which will be a sad thing for me. My intentions were to try to find a solution, but perhaps I've failed badly. If that's what's determined by others, than I'll learn from my mistake and not repeat it. It's nearly 2AM here, so I'm going to log off and go to bed. Good night every one. INeverCry 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are talking about an "unfair block by A.SAVIN", and now, I see that the block is removed. This unacceptable, but therefore, the discussion should be closed now, as useless in fact ! Please restore the block until the discussion is really finished by consensus, or by an unblock from the same admnin (A.SAVIN). I disagree with the current block as too long, but it is the basis of our debate, and now I don't understand nothing anymore: what are we talking about ?
- Interaction bans between users are not suitable: if it is necessary to forbid interactions with two, three, four, five (and more ?) other users, there is a global problem of behaviour. One can disagree, even strongly and rudely with one other user, and then an interraction could be good for a calm-down period. But not with more than one other user.
- I agree with a six months FPC/QIC/VIC ban, not with a six months global ban, but this should be discussed.
- I thank INC for his appeasing work, but I understand the insulted persons.--Jebulon (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
User:INeverCry I'm confused why you claim you can't restore A.Savin's block (which policy did not permit you to remove) because of religious reasons. One can forgive and one can show kindness, but forgiveness does not require one remove a block. Our blocking policy is not "punishment" and if you think it is (and therefore incompatible with your religion) then you should abstain from all blocking discussions (or resign your adminship). if you want to show kindness to Livio, then you could work with him to identify where he has gone wrong in his interactions with others and how he should have behaved. We all want a Livio who thanks reviewers and appreciates advice, who can disagree without insulting or making personal attacks. We would like a Livio who aspires to improve his photography through his participation on our forums rather than one who is happy to retain his faults and limitations and just collect gold stars by playing the system.
Blocking is designed to prevent "behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere". At this point, both you and Livio need to (per our policy) accept the block was appropriate (keeping length of block as a separate issue) and Livio needs to show that the general behaviour will not be repeated -- against anyone, not just three people. Given the insults made yesterday, I do not see how any progress has been made here, and you have become the problem rather than helping find a solution. I request another admin restore the block and INC recuse himself from further blocking discussions. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. What can I say about it all?
- First, I agree with Colin, especially his first comment here.
- Second, INeverCry is obviously biased towards Livio, so the fact that he is the one performing the unblock (which was not even clear consensus so far, afaik) is at least ... strange.
- Third, parts of this comment by INC ("If A.Savin wants to wheel-war...), again, shows lack of respect and AGF by INC regarding myself. Can anyone tell me why he is so aggressive, and why he considers it necessary to accuse me of some very old faults ("plenty of uncivil moments [sic!]" etc.)?
- Fourth, I was one of few users who opposed INC on his latest request for resysop. Maybe it is just the reason for his aggressive behaviour towards myself?
- Fifth, from now on, I can only hope
and praythat it is only a matter of time that INC again will loose his sysop flag and this time really and definitely for ever. INC is one of the users whom sysop rights do really very bad. An extremely inappropriate candidate for the sysop bit.
--A.Savin 09:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree fully with Colin, who has made an accurate, fair and eloquent explanation of the situation and in particular the purpose of FPC feedback. I fully endorse Colin's request that INeverCry recuse himself from this discussion and believe it would be fair for INC and A.Savin to mutually respect each other's administrative actions and to not overturn each others blocks (I'm mentioning both parties out of fairness). There's the Administrators Noticeboards which can be used to highlight blocks of concern, and there are sufficient numbers of uninvolved administrators capable of removing blocks if an error has occurred or agreement is reached that the is resolved. It's not fair for users to be caught in what appears to be cross-fire between two users who don't appear to like each other very much at the moment. I also agree with A.Savin in this case, INeverCry does appear to have a favourable approach towards Livio and lacks sufficient independence in this case to take a reasoned, nuanced decision, if nothing else, I would ask that INeverCry recognises this is a good example of being too involved to be able to take any type of administrative action. Finally, I would like to thank INeverCry for trying to deal with the situation, he has put work into resolving the issue, and although it's not there yet and he certainly wasn't the right person to hit the unblock button, we shouldn't ignore the fact he has put effort into dealing with the situation. -- Nick (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nick: Well said, and I agree fully with you, and agree that Colin stated the case very well. INC should hot have unblocked Livio when where was clearly not a consensus here to do so, and clearly should not have been the one to assess that consensus given his comments on Livio's talk page. Unblocking him on the basis of a 'policy' in disregard to an ongoing discussion was clearly inappropriate, and honestly seems like an attempt to overrule the community. Livio does not appear to understand why he was blocked. Reventtalk 10:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
In the morning (here in my timezone) INC asked for opinion and me and Elcobbola didn't objected it even though not fully satisfied. Due to the timing as most people inactive, no further comments and INC proceeded with the unblock. He must have to wait for a day. But his question was clear ("Does anybody object to me unblocking him?"); so we can't blame for his unblock. But the wording he used is indeed against the team spirit of the admin team. I hope he understood and accepted that mistake. So we have two options 1. Restore the block and continue the discussion. I don't think any other admin will take the responsibility to handle Livio. 2. Accept INC's apology and move on. Hope INC and Livio will not repeat their mistakes. Jee 10:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the community consensus is that a block should remain in place, and this consensus should be respected by any admin restoring the block. INC hasn't apologised (AFAIKS), he's only admitted to making some mistakes, but still not accepted that he has to respect community consensus. If he did, then he'd not be refusing to re-apply the block. Jee, Elcobbloba did object, but offered to stand aside if there was consensus from those at FP. There isn't. There is a reason why our blocking policy requires more than just "hope the user will not repeat their mistake" but "a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated". The insult made yesterday does not indicate any "hope" is credible. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We should blame INC since he acted while being highly involved. That said, this can be fixed but INC should come up with a better excuse than religious believes. Don't get me wrong, I highly respect INC but unblocking against consensus while being involved is one of the most severe mistakes an admin can make. Forgivable, but still severe. Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Natuur12, I don't understand this edit. I assume you refer to this request by Nick that INC "deal with this situation yourself". INC has gone to bed. While I think he should have reverted his action, he's already refused and so making him revert the action sounds a bit too much like rubbing his nose in it. If you believe Livio should have remained blocked, then just apply the block again, rather than making a fuss about who re-applies the block. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: Nick also talks about cross fire and if I restore the block it would mean Livio could get caught in the cross fire which is unfair. While he misbehaved it is not his fault than INC overstepped his boundaries. On they other hand, agreeing with a unethical deal which involves ban evasion by proxy is something we can blame him for. And on a second thought, my comment was not very helpful so I scraped it. Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Natuur12, I don't understand this edit. I assume you refer to this request by Nick that INC "deal with this situation yourself". INC has gone to bed. While I think he should have reverted his action, he's already refused and so making him revert the action sounds a bit too much like rubbing his nose in it. If you believe Livio should have remained blocked, then just apply the block again, rather than making a fuss about who re-applies the block. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- We should blame INC since he acted while being highly involved. That said, this can be fixed but INC should come up with a better excuse than religious believes. Don't get me wrong, I highly respect INC but unblocking against consensus while being involved is one of the most severe mistakes an admin can make. Forgivable, but still severe. Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Colin, the blocking admin (A. Savin) already stated here, he was willing to unblock him if the topic ban is applied. He stated here too he was preparing for the unblock. Meanwhile Livio used his bad language again and he decided to abstain. But note that he didn't oppose an unblock. INC proceeded with a bad language again in his unblock note. :)
- So what is a solution? Restoring the block (6 months)? Asking INC to resign? Note that I didn't supported his last RfA considering his instability to handle things. He is very friendly and soft, very forgiving too. But he has quick aggressive response as happened here against A. Savin (once in Livio's talk and once here in reply to Code). So this turned out to be an INC case than Livio which is easier to handle just by imposing a topic ban. Jee 11:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it best to keep the discussion on Livio and whether he should currently be blocked, and on the immediate actions of A.Savin in blocking him and INC in unblocking him. Let's not get distracted with opinions on past behaviour or mistakes of these two admins or calls for admins to resign. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dont discuss the relevance of the block and/or of the unblock however I don't like and will never like the use of wording "wheel-war" (which come from Wikipedia), when I see this drift and the previous topic regarding me and the block of Tulkavin witch leaded to the de-adminship of an administrator, I really think the Blocking policy should be written much more precisely. For me the policy should be "Controversial blocks must be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. They can 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.". That's all and this will avoid complicated situation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be precise about what I think of "wheel-warring" : wheel-warring? I will do it again if I think it's necessary, wheel-warring? do not pull the dog's tail if you do not want he back on you!
- sorry for my digress and sorry again not to have been more constructive - I lend my moral support to Alexander and I have great respect for both Alexander and INeverCry who, both of them, are acting in Commons in good faith, discussion is always possible and this is never too late to discuss. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be precise about what I think of "wheel-warring" : wheel-warring? I will do it again if I think it's necessary, wheel-warring? do not pull the dog's tail if you do not want he back on you!
- I was pinged several times above, so, in case clarification is need or would be helpful: Colin's summation of my position is correct. Whether from a policy point of view or merely common sense, blocks generally should not be lifted when there is both clear agreement that editing has been disruptive and there is no indication from the blocked editor that they understand the issue. That said, from my not insignificant experience with the FA process at en.wiki, I understand that process “regulars” with long term exposure and more intimate familiarity with the issue are often best situated to determine whether a proposed solution—even if it does not include explicit acknowledgement of the issue—will be effective, thus my willingness to defer judgement or to bypass the letter of the law. However, that necessarily requires adequate time to sample such opinions, which unfortunately did not happen here. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Reblocked
- @A.Savin: , @Colin: , @Code: , @Natuur12: , @Elcobbola: , @Nick: , @Benh: , @The Photographer: After sleeping on it and thinking it over, I've re-blocked Livio so that this discussion can go on and community consensus can be reached. I thought I had solved the problem, but it's clear that I was wrong, and that removing A.Savin's block was a very bad idea. When I stopped to review things for a bit I saw that I've been to intense and impulsive in this situation, and that I've went about it the wrong way. I've struck a comment I made about A.Savin above that's unfair and inappropriate. I ask the community to consider any other confrontational comments I've made in this discussion struck as well. I believe in kindness and fairness, but I can see that I haven't lived up to that in my treatment of A.Savin, Code, Benh, and The Photographer. I think I do pretty good as an admin when I do my usual work, but I need to improve my handling of situations like this. I offer my sincere apologies to A.Savin and the others I mention who I've been unfair and even hostile too. I can and will do better. INeverCry 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks INeverCry. Sleeping on it seemed a wise thing to do. There are as many permutations of block/topic-ban/interaction-ban proposals above as there are usernames. I think Code got it right when he said "I don't believe that Livio understood what the problem really was. I don't want him to stop interacting with me. I want him to interact politely. That's it." With all respect to my friends who have proposed some of these bans, I think such interaction or topic bans are really just an indication that the community has failed and wants a quick solution to deal with the most glaring manifestations of the underlying problem. A sticking plaster. We can argue if the block should be two weeks, a month or six months, but ultimately the best solution is if Livio participates with all of us, offering and receiving advice, giving fair reviews of other's images, accepting criticism, aiming to take the best photos he can, and to keep improving. I suspect a little holiday from Commons might be beneficial, but perhaps also mentoring or taking advice from someone trusted, ideally who speaks the same language. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm learning that I'm not at my best late at night... An Italian-speaking admin who could talk to Livio would be very helpful here. We have a few that're active here. I have to admit that I am biased toward Livio because he's an impulsive person, as I am, and has problems with taking criticism, as I do. Let me ping our Italian admins and see if anybody has time to help out with Livio in this complicated situation - @Blackcat: , @Jaqen: , @Dantadd: . INeverCry 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks INeverCry. Sleeping on it seemed a wise thing to do. There are as many permutations of block/topic-ban/interaction-ban proposals above as there are usernames. I think Code got it right when he said "I don't believe that Livio understood what the problem really was. I don't want him to stop interacting with me. I want him to interact politely. That's it." With all respect to my friends who have proposed some of these bans, I think such interaction or topic bans are really just an indication that the community has failed and wants a quick solution to deal with the most glaring manifestations of the underlying problem. A sticking plaster. We can argue if the block should be two weeks, a month or six months, but ultimately the best solution is if Livio participates with all of us, offering and receiving advice, giving fair reviews of other's images, accepting criticism, aiming to take the best photos he can, and to keep improving. I suspect a little holiday from Commons might be beneficial, but perhaps also mentoring or taking advice from someone trusted, ideally who speaks the same language. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's the best excuse (sorry) I ever read in commons. I wish we could all learn the great courage he has shown in taking their error. Sometimes we make the mistake of overconfidence, that is, always expect the good faith of the people is a good practice, however, this should not be taken to extremes. Thanks INeverCry and welcome Colin.--The Photographer (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the wise decision you've taken. Colin's wise words above are similarly appreciated. I know listening to criticism of your own photographs isn't pleasant, but it is necessary if one wishes to develop as a photographer. Nick (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the unblock was a bit hasty and that you were not eligible to do it. It's nice that you came to reblock him yourself. That said, I still stick to the position of a topic ban only (I agree that interaction ban may not be a solution). I fail to see how having Livio uploading files is harmful to the project. Let us suppose he is only a stardigger, he is banned from awards topics, but allowed to upload. Then :
- He uploads his pictures, does nothing else and we earn the peace we've all been looking for
- he works around the ban and manage to have his pictures nominated somehow (Never cries could nom them). Without the disruptive behaviour, we should assess the candidates "fairly". Any sub standard work should be rejected
- And that's it. So what's wrong with a topic ban? Besides, 6 months is really long. Enough for someone to forget about the project, getting bored and doing something else. And it's not like Commons is overwhelmed with productive contributors and can afford to let them go. - Benh (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have several concerns about a topic ban. Livio will be frustrated at not being able to nominate as many images. INC will presumable want to nominate other people's work and is limited to two active noms. INC may find being a proxy and go-between for any criticism/response to be a joyless chore, he may get frustrated at the negative votes on Livio's images and decide it is a happier life to nominate other people's images instead. If Livio doesn't stand a chance of further FPs, he may leave anyway. Which unfairly puts some obligation on INC. Livio is made into a pariah rather than helped. Wrt the length of block, it isn't a minimum sentence. It's merely the time upon which the block is automatically lifted. Livio can appeal against the block at any time and give some rationale why the community should consider removing it. -- Colin (talk)
- Though we are both Italians from Rome, as far as I remember I never interacted with Livio nor I have followed the stories that led to this block. Only reading his history and the progression of his block I found a disproportion, whereas I somewhat understand the admin who issued it (I'm abrasive as well sometimes....). If the problem is Livio's behaviour in the RfD's and FPC's etc. etc., I suppose a fair measure might be reducing the block to 2 months and extending the topic ban to 6 months in order both to allow him to contribute with his uploads and keep him off from the possible sources of flames. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was shocked to read these developments. I read Italian pretty well, too. I suggest you all read the Italian-language exchange at the bottom of User talk:Livioandronico2013, if you think he has the slightest bit of acceptance that anything has been wrong with his behavior. And User:INeverCry, I appreciate the fact that you re-blocked Livio, but advising him to go through the motions, rather than to finally understand what the problem is and promise to work on it, is quite unhelpful and in my opinion, nothing an admin should be doing. I could say more, but it's all been pretty well covered above. No unblock should occur until there is a clear consensus behind it.
- As for my opinion of the proposed unblocking, I oppose it unless Livio acknowledges that there's something wrong with responding to criticism of his pictures by lashing out and saying he won't pay attention to X and Y's opinions. If he doesn't realize there's something wrong with defensive, hostile reactions to criticism, how do you expect him to rehabilitate himself, so that he could participate constructively at FPC at any point in the future? I think the alternative, if he is unwilling to move one iota toward accepting any responsibility for incurring this block, is for him to serve the full 6-month block and then come back, knowing that if the problematic behavior recurs, he'd be blocked for a year or indefinitely. My one hesitation on that is that his previous blocks have never been longer than a week, so 6 months seems too harsh to me, and I would have suggested 1 month if he hadn't been so completely unrepentant in his talk page remarks.
- So, tldr version: In spite of his unchanged attitude, I would propose a 2-month block from Commons, along with a consensus for 6 months at the first sign of a recurrence of the problems that led to the block. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)