Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism

Shortcut: [[:]]

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~14
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-10: ~47

Other:

• Duplicates: ~223
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~1
• Other speedy deletions: ~7
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~12

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~18
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~4
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

This page is for any user to report vandalism they are witnessing here on Commons. Please feel free to report the ongoing vandalism. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp. In cases which are not blatant vandalism, consider contacting the user in question on their talk page to resolve the issue.

Admins: once you've dealt with a report, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Needs attention

This one - used to vandalise an en wp page - may be worth blocking, not likely to be a useful user under the circumstances. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

417 TinEye hits, no comment. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this account

• Keep an eye on this account Fafafaf]. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Late, but indef blocked as obviously vandal-only account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of daylight-saving-time map

Could someone please keep an eye on File:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png? In honor of the daylight saving switchover currently going on in North America, someone evidently vandalized the map. Would it be appropriate to protect it for a day or two? Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. I don't think it's necessary to take any action at the moment, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to "game" image deletion discussion

I believe these edits by User:Mustafa54 are at least close to vandalism. I've reverted them; if anyone feels further followup is worthwhile, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Formally you are right, in regard to the removal of the rfd-discussion. However, it seems to be a totally new user and he may no yet understand our procedures. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No vandalism, just an attempt to re-nominate the image for deletion. Hm, actually it seems our "Nominate for deletion" script does that. Off to fix it... Lupo 08:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it wasn't the script, but I still contend it wasn't malicious intent but just ignorance about our procedures here. Lupo 08:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

adding shoped missiles

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toopkooneh_Ghadeem.jpg someone is adding missiles to Muslim related pictures

User blocked, as per Wikipedia this is also a vandalism only account on Commons. However, the missle was really hard to find in the image, so good eyes. --Martin H. (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Abigor and mass deletion

User:Abigor has yesterday morning deleted 572 photos uploded by me!!!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_User:Quahadi

it seems that he did not watch at all what was he deleteing.Among them there were entire Categories: Gabela,Ljubinje landcapes cementery Korčula cementery ,[1]... It is not possible that ALL of them were useless !!!

Please could somebody review this? It seems that he took mission to delete all my images!

--Anto (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see that mass deletion in the deletion log. Out of all the categories you linked, only Category:Korčula has items in it, and you neither created it nor is it deleted. The deleted categories have no content in them, so why undelete? If you can provide cases where the categories deleted were not empty, then maybe we could look at undeleting those. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see that he accidentally deleted Category:Churches in Ljubuški. Somebody else recreated it, but I restored it anyways, to keep the edit history preserved. In any case, Abigor's actions aren't vandalism. Let us know if you see anything else that needs to be undeleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for letting me know about this topic, its always nice to get a opportunity to give my opinion instead of finding it out on my own.

I did not take mission to delete your files, also I never had any involvement with you before and I do not know this user from other wiki's, my deletions are based on a neutral point of view on a deletion request that clearly had a consensus to delete, and I can totally understand that you don't like that your files are deleted but if I didn't do it a other admin would have closed it.

Yes I deleted the categories also, because there is no need to keep empty cats and somebody will step by and mark them for deletion so I just deleted them so nobody else would have to mark them for deletion.

The 572 files where all form low quality, a quality so nobody could use them, and some didn't even had a clear shot on what the subject was, there where like 100 blurry pictures from parts of road that are like all the same. And yes maybe there are some that could be used if somebody really wanted to, but I checked all the files, I saw every thumb and maybe there was 1 or 2 lets say 10 pictures that could be used there would be still a great part Out of scope. Huib talk 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to COM:UNDEL ---- a much more proper venue ---- so we should close this one up IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov v. TenOfAllTrades

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

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-4.jpg

A senior citizen in trying to slow down his process of aging by physical fitness exercises

Exercise programs such as Tai Chi are promoted by gerontologists to improve health in old age.

Case 1. At 08:01, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Gerontology.

At 14:59, 5 November 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image with the inscription “rv banned editor”.

In less than an hour, at 15:46, 5 November 2009, User:Zach425 substituted the removed image with the one to the right from Category: Tai Chi Chuan.

As the matter of fact, the Wikipedia List of banned users [2] does not contain User:Shustov in it.

Due to foregoing, it looks like TenOfAllTrades created its private blacklist which, apparently, has been implemented in Wikipedia rather successfully (see the cases to follow).

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS.jpg

Snapshot of a 65-year old elderly person practicing some special fitness technique

Physical fitness is an attribute required for service in virtually all military forces.

Case 2. At 20:06, 18 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Physical fitness.

At 13:59, 4 January 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it with the summary “remove excess decorative image” but retained another image from Categories: 2000s swimwear | People of the United States Marine Corps | Sportspeople from the United States | Triathlon | Young men | Men of the United States | Male toplessness | Running shown to the right.

As the only image option for the article on physical fitness, it rather glorifies the United States Marine Corps special military training in general and Lance Corporal Anthony M. Madonia toplessness in particular than illustrates anything else.

Case 3. At 17:53, 19 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image above from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Vestibular system. At 03:32, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “superfluous decorative image (?!)

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-1.jpg

An old man practicing weight training for physical fitness at gym

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS.jpg

An elderly practicing some longevity fitness technique

Case 4. At 00:49, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the image on the left of an old man practicing weight training from Categories: Weight training | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Weight training.

At 03:34, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it as “superfluous, promotional image”.

The “promotional” of what, by the way? Does it promote any services or goods? Does it contains any names of people or businesses?

Case 5. At 20:37, 28 May 2009, User:69.108.101.89 added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Longevity.

At 22:00, 28 May 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image without explanation.

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-2.jpg

At gym: a senior citizen's jumping for physical fitness exercise

Case 6. At 01:56, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Jumping.

At 00:51, 4 September 2009, User:Mokele performed “Replacing image with much better one, illustrating frog joint addition and bone elongation”. Apropos, the “much better” in the sense of what? The taste?

File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-3.jpg

A senior practicing equipoise

Case 7. At 22:46, 27 December 2008, User:Shustov added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Asana | Fitness training for seniors to the article Equipoise .

At 03:28, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “decorative, promotional image” (?!).

At 18:38, 24 October 2009, User:79.67.66.242 undid the previous edit.

At 18:55, 24 October 2009, User:DMacks removed the image again.

At 16:45, 29 October 2009, User:69.108.112.170 restored that image.

At 16:57, 29 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades reverted edits by User:69.108.112.170.

At 01:48, 3 November 2009, User:ExplosiveArsenal reverted edits by TenOfAllTrades.

At 01:49, 3 November 2009, User:Glane23 (apparently, a sock-puppet of TenOfAllTrades) reverted edits by User:ExplosiveArsenal.

Will anybody help me to cleanup those wiki-termites infested articles, please? Thanks, Shustov (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Response

Well, that's remarkable. This is now the third place that Shustov has cross-posted the identical message (first post, second post) and the first repost he's made after I asked him to withdraw or delete these unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks shotgunned at an assortment of editors. For anyone who really wants the nitty-gritty, I've provided a point-by-point response to his absurd claims at User:TenOfAllTrades/rebuttal. My comments are interspersed in italic.

The short version is this — Shustov was banned from the English Wikipedia for an ongoing pattern of self-promotion, plagiarism, and personal attacks. (He is also banned from the German Wikipedia, though my German isn't sufficiently good to interpret his block log there.) Unfortunately, it appears that he is now migrating those same conduct problems to Commons. Relevant to this spurious vandalism report is his ongoing attempt to spread the word about his personal fitness program, "Upstream Fitness" across Wikipedia projects.

Sometime in 2002 (or earlier, that's just the oldest available Internet Archive entry), Shustov posted an advert for his fitness program in his personal, off-wiki webspace. Here's the site: [3]. It starts off: "Ultimate Fitness: Age breaking technique — you can get it even at 65 or later. UPSTREAM is a brand new and extremely effective system of physical FITNESS. It can make miracles...." As far as I can tell, no other group, individual, corporation, or personal trainer has ever picked up his training program — at least none have ever left a trace of doing so on the web.

This spring and summer, Shustov uploaded a dozen or so images to Commons, placing them in a category of his own creation, the now-deleted Category:Upstream fitness. All of the image files start with the words "UPSTREAM FITNESS", and all seem to feature the same man (almost certainly Shustov) engaged in his exercise program. Commons admins can verify that the category description included a link back to Shustov's 'Upstream Fitness' web page. At about the same time, he began a process of 'spreading the word' across multiple Wikipedias (including the edits noted above in the collapse box, in which he is ignoring his block on enwiki). It doesn't seem to matter if he knows the local language or not; he's perfectly content to add inappropriate English captions to other-language Wikipedias: one glaring example. As well, he sprayed dozens of inappropriate references into Wikipedia articles, advertising media in his Upstream Fitness category on Commons: pt, en, fr, sk, ru, ro, among many others. During a two-week trial unblock on enwiki (in which I offered him a final chance at redemption), he created the self-promotional article w:Upstream fitness in direct violation of his unblock terms — which was speedied almost instantaneously by another admin as obvious advertising.

A little over a month ago, I nominated the Commons category for deletion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness. I couldn't see any other way to get Shustov to stop plugging himself all over Wikipedia. After a month without opposition or further comment, a (perhaps-too-generous) Commons admin instead renamed the category to Category:Fitness training for seniors.

And now, here we are. I'm being accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry, because Shustov is confusing editorial judgement and ban enforcement with a vendetta. Can I ask a Commons admin to step in here to deal with him? He just doesn't seem to 'get' what Wikipedia is about, and he keeps moving further and further at cross-purposes. He has had many chances, and it may be time to pull the plug. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov; Most of your allegations of misconduct are old and did not occur here. Please understand that we can do nothing about conduct that occurred on English Wikipedia. Has TenOfAllTrades violated Commons guidelines or policies recently here on Commons? Unsubstantiated allegations of sock-puppetry on other projects are unhelpful. On Commons, COM:CHECK may be used, but do not make requests without good reason and do not allege sock-puppetry anywhere without evidence. Do not be uncivil and imply that other editors are termites; you are hereby admonished to desist.

TenOfAllTrades; The result of Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness was inconclusive, but I think most editors would agree its rename to Category:Fitness training for seniors. It seems useful and the images seem to be in COM:SCOPE. The filenames raise some concern, but they may and probably should be renamed. Further, I understand that Shustov has misbehaved on other projects, but what has s/he done here on Commons that requires a block, indefinite or otherwise?

Please be brief. Diffs are appreciated. It suffices to link to images; please don't display them on this page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund: One case of wrongful removal of an image is a mistake, no big deal. However, a multiple removal of images (7 cases mentioned above plus at least 6 in non-English articles) from the Category of 12 (twelve) reminds a conspiracy. Especially, if you take into account that all 12 images were contributed by one User (it was me) and 13 removals were executed also by one User (it was User:TenOfAllTrades). Most of the seven reported cases of removal were rather recent, namely: 1 – January 2009, 1 – May 2009, 1 – September 2009, 3 – October 2009, 1 – November 2009. Despite the alleged misbehavior by User:TenOfAllTrades occurred on Wikipedia, it was Wikimedia Commons which was also abused. It really did happen once when I said "apparently, a sock-puppet of TenOfAllTrades" because the interval between two opposite editing actions was one (1) second only! On the other hand, I witnessed many times how User:TenOfAllTrades easily called some users sock-puppets of mine just because they disagreed with him and blocked them for good immediately; see, e.g., what happened to User:ExplosiveArsenal on 3 November 2009 after his editing of the article Equipoise. Actually, I would not insist on using the word "wiki-termite": I quite happy with your new title of the case. Shustov (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please understand that we can do nothing about conduct that occurred on English Wikipedia. Have TenOfAllTrades, or the other editors you mention, violated Commons guidelines or policies recently here on Commons? If not, we can't help you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a COM:SCOPE issue in play here. Shustov appears to be willing to make available his images freely, and in principle medium-resolution pictures of an old guy exercising could serve some sort of useful purpose; in that sense, there's no direct problem with Shustov's content on Wikimedia Commons.

More troubling is his conduct across Wikimedia projects. Since he was banned on enwiki, he has been using Commons as his base of operations for promoting his exercise program. Note that immediately after his 'Upstream fitness' category was renamed, he was back at adding 'Upstream fitness' to the category description ([4]) and edit warring with the admin who renamed the category ([5]). As noted above, he has been adding references to his program all across the Wikipedia project, though usually his activity on any one project is low enough that he doesn't draw blocks or bans. (He also often edits while logged out, which tends to further discourage monitoring.) While his conduct here (with the exception of the edit warring, personal attacks, and self-promotion) has been generally harmless, Commons does not exist in a vacuum. There is a certain responsibility on the part of admins here to deal with problems which may affect the entire Wikipedia project and not just this piece of it. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As an "old guy", myself, I'm not sure your making your case in the best possible way. While I agree that Commons has a responsibility to other projects, I'm not sure I understand how allowing Shustov to contribute to Commons harms them. Perhaps you can expand on that point a bit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you see a potential problem with all of the misleading backlinks he was placing to his Upstream fitness category on other Wikipedia projects? I gave you six diffs on six different Wikipedias; if you don't see a problem with those, then I'm not going to waste my time collecting the dozens more like them. How about the placement of his pictures on loosely-related non-English articles with English-language captions?

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit short; this guy has been poking at me on enwiki (despite his block) for months. 'Vandalism' and 'sockpuppet' aren't terms used lightly on enwiki; I presume that the same is true here. It feels like Shustov is being given a free pass on his history — I'm fine with assuming good faith, but I'm not willing to be stupid about it. When he does the same things on Commons as he was doing on enwiki, he ought to know where it's headed by now. In a previous ride on the merry-go-round, I was a "he-goat" in the "kitchen-garden", requiring Wikipedia's "animal control" (post, block-evading crosspost, crosspost, crosspost). Now on Commons, apparently I'm a "Wiki-termite", infesting articles. Plus, he's smearing a number of other editors (DMacks, Mokele, Zach425, and Glane23 are named) from enwiki, who probably have no idea that he's doing it and who have no opportunity to answer the charges. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled and saddened by the attacks upon you. However, in the past there has been little support on Commons for taking action based on the behavior of users on other projects. I don't particularly agree with that view, but I am constrained by it. The category has been renamed. I think that the files in the category may be renamed to be more meaningful and helpful in accordance with Commons:File naming. If that were done, the self-promotion issue would be gone, I think. I've warned Shustov against incivility and I explicitly warn against personal attacks, also, just in case that isn't clear. Plagiarism is taken seriously on Commons. Since Shustov understands this policy, a violation is likely to result in an indefinite block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund: do you really think TenOfAllTrades is an innocent victim? If you want to know the truth, look into my Wikipedia account Discussion records which were removed by TenOfAllTrades after he had been caught by me on lying there. The very last event preceding my indefinite block by TenOfAllTrades may be found in Looks like Hypocrisy. Shustov (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response, above. The event that you discuss on w:en:Talk:Earthquake_engineering occurred in July on English Wikipedia and we can't help you with that. Also, please confine your posts on this and related issues to this page. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wsiegmund — yes, since the category was renamed, an additional rename of the images to something more appropriate would probably alleviate my concerns about self-promotion. (At least, as long as Shustov doesn't go back to adding the term "Upstream fitness" to Wikipedia articles, and as long as he isn't adding external links to his exercise program anywhere — but those are bridges to be crossed should we come to them.) On a related note, I'd appreciate it if you – or another Commons admin – could do something about Shustov's ongoing 'calls to action' directed at me. The massive crossposting (here, here, just down below, and even in my userspace) is decidedly inappropriate and bordering on the disruptive. I don't particularly want to engage with Shustov's claims further, but if you have any questions about his statement immediately above I'd be glad to clear up any misconceptions. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I will archive other discussions and link to this one and delete the post in your userspace in response to your request. I have asked him to confine his posts on this topic to this page (see above). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here has been archived. Shustov has been warned against spamming his own images crosswiki.[6][7] His allegations of misbehavior of TenOfAllTrades describe the latter's attempts to remove Shustov's image spam (also see User:TenOfAllTrades/rebuttal). Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

File renaming and crosswiki image spamming

Walter Siegmund: I agree with all your responses. The response by TenOfAllTrades of 17:04, 25 November 2009 is also encouraging. If the renamed Category:Fitness training for seniors alleviates his concerns about my alleged self-promotion, why shouldn’t he revisit all mentioned above Wikipedia articles and reattach the previously removed images? Let us stop pointing fingers. Shustov (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. File names should be meaningful, helpful and correct (Commons:File naming). File names selected according to these guidelines make it more likely that the files will be used in Wikipedia articles. To change the name of a file, please use {{Rename}} (Commons:File renaming). As uploader, you don't even need to give a reason. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What will happen with the Wikipedia articles where those images are still alive after the names are changed? Shustov (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, all 12 existing files in Category:Fitness training for seniors have no conflict with Commons:File naming guidelines. Why should I rename them? Why, e.g., the file name File:Taoist Tai Chi class.jpg is better than File:UPSTREAM FITNESS-4.jpg? Shustov (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would look here Commons:File renaming since we are discussing a rename. But to your question. Yes! When a file is renamed the articles using the images will be changed also. So images will still be visible if they are renamed. --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MGA73. What about my next question, let's call it "Why should I"? Shustov (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Taoist Tai Chi class.jpg is more meaningful and helpful to the average editor than UPSTREAM FITNESS-4.jpg. You may welcome the opportunity to put an end to accusations of self-promotion by replacing "UPSTREAM FITNESS" with a more meaningful and helpful term of your own choosing, e.g., "One-arm handstand.jpg".[8] Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the names File:Fitness_master_class.jpg, File:Fitness_master_class-1.jpg, File:Fitness_master_class-2.jpg and so on? And how shall I use this link [9]? Shustov (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Shustov: Thanks for providing images and thus making them accesible for projects who may want to use them. Spamming your own images crosswiki is however not acceptable, adding images like you did here will be reverted (I already reverted that one) - let the editors who actually write at that project decide which image they would like to illustrate these articles (they will probably add a caption in the correct language as well). I strongly suggest you trace your steps throughout the wikimedia-projects (you may use this link) and remove such additions yourself, if somebody else have to clean up after your imagespamming you may risk real "global blacklisting".

This is not really a Commons-problem however, the images are within scope and properly licensed, so it is not likely that any administrative action will be taken at this project. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Finn Rindahl:

1. Do I, finally, need to take care of renaming files in Category:Fitness training for seniors or not?

2. The images provided by me were really placed into some Wikipedia articles on the topics where, I believed, my professional expertise was adequate to make a sound editorial judgment. However, it was not, as you said, "spamming" because those images promoted no products, service, theories, names of persons or businesses. Due to this, I should be treated as a regular editor without any discrimination for my contribution to Wikimedia Commons. Let the experts on any particular topic decide what image is good for them and what is not. Otherwise, it would look like a vandalism: just the matter we are discussing now. Shustov (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To the first, it would be most convenient, and the strongest demonstration of your goodwill, if you were to request the renaming yourself.

To the second, it may be best to review your past editorial judgements. (While you appear to be the sole personal promoter of your Upstream Fitness exercise program ([10]), my understanding is that your professional engineering expertise has little bearing on the images that you have been posting.) Three days ago you were edit warring to include a low-resolution image with dubious relevance and a Russian-language caption in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia: [11]. (Note the cyrillic caption in the latin-scripted article.) Your revert was almost immediately undone by a local editor at azwiki: [12]. The people expressing concerns about these sorts of edits are in no way related to me, and have almost certainly never heard of either one of us. Consider, just for a moment, that there may be something to their advice — there's no conspiracy or secret blacklist.

As an aside, can you please stop implying that I'm a vandal, or that any of my edits were vandalism? That's just out of bounds for civil conversation on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades:

1. I will rename all those files by myself.

2. I will revisit my past editorial experience. There were multiple imperfections on my part, I know. Strictly speaking, I wish we both were better.

3. You are right: my engineering and fitness (let’s avoid the term "upstream fitness", just in case) experiences are not closely related. However I know something of value in both areas. Nevertheless, I always open to other people opinions and always treat them friendly if those opinions are expressed in a nice, intelligent manner.

4. It is the right moment to stop calling names and pinning up labels. Let’s pardon each other: it’s the Turkey time! Shustov (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov (talk · contribs) has not only failed to do as Finn Rindahl asked above, on 2009-11-27 and 2009-11-28, he restored links to his images that had removed by TenOfAllTrades.[13] His requested rename of File:UPSTREAM FITNESS.jpg to File:Fitness_master_class.jpg is only partially responsive since it is not very meaningful or helpful.[14] His latest edit to this page (which I rolled back) is an oblique attack on TenOfAllTrades, which he was warned against.[15] His IP signature, if not a system glitch, is odd. As Finn Rindahl points out above, the main problem is not his behavior on Commons, but spamming his own images crosswiki. However, he is using his long post above under the heading "Shustov v. TenOfAllTrades" to attempt to justify the restoration of inks to his images on other projects. Consequently, that discussion has been archived. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Uwe kils

User:Uwe kils is an experienced editor here and on the English Wikipedia (where he is known as en:User:kils), but of late has been making strange edits, changing some of the nude pictures to say there is a $500,000 royalty for using them. Because when established editors go on vandalism sprees they a) already know our rules and b) they have either gone off the deep end or their account is hacked, I issued a level 4 warning right away. He responded by posting legal threats on his talk page and mine, and has continued the vandalism spree. Because the account is probably compromised, I think an immediate long term block is in order. -Nard the Bard 11:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There were related IP-edits that are no less strange and a strange comment on my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've send an email to the real Uwe Kils. --Túrelio (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for three days to prevent further vandalism/legal threats. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh lordy[16]. -Nard the Bard 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has also been blocked on :en. So far, I didn't get any reply to my personal email to him. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the account isn't hacked and he's got a legitimate gripe... It sounds legitimate except I don't see how it's possible to go from oceanography to random photos of genitalia, and I would certainly expect an editor with several featured photos to understand the licensing and image deletion process... -Nard the Bard 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this user is a professor, if I understood his userpage on :en right. Unlikely he would expose himself (meaning the recent edits) in such a manner. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)