Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Community Portal   Village Pump
(copyright & proposals)		   Help Desk
(Upload help)		   Administrators' Noticeboard
(vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)		   Graphics Lab  
Administrator's assistance
Vandalism
(edit | watch)		 User problems
(edit | watch)		 Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)		 Other
(edit | watch)
English: Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
Suomi: Raportoi ilmeisistä vandalismitapauksista. Muut estopyynnöt jätettäköön estojen ja suojauksen ilmoitustaululle.
Italiano: Segnala qui le utenze responsabili di vandalismi palesi. Richieste di blocco per qualsiasi altra ragione vanno effettuate nella sezione Politiche di blocco e protezione.
日本語: 明白な荒らし利用者の報告所。それ以外を理由とするブロック依頼はブロックと保護へ。
한국어: 문서 훼손을 저지른 사용자를 신고하는 곳입니다. 다른 이유로 인한 차단 요청은 차단 및 보호 요청 문서에 남겨주세요.
മലയാളം: ഉപയോക്താക്കളുടെ ഉറപ്പായ വാൻഡലിസത്തിനെക്കുറിച്ച് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. മറ്റ് കാരണങ്ങൾക്ക് ഉപയോക്താക്കളെ തടയാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ തടയലുകളും സംരക്ഷണങ്ങളും എന്ന താളിലാണ് അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്.
Svenska: Rapportera användare för tydliga tecken på vandalism. Begäran av blockering för någon annan anledning ska rapporteras på anslagstavlan för blockeringar och skydd.
Українська: Повідомляйте про користувачів, що явно займаються вандалізмом. Запити щодо блокування з будь-якої іншої причини повинні бути повідомлені на дошку для оголошень щодо блокування та захисту.
中文（简体）‎: 报告有明显破坏的用户。任何其他原因的封禁请求应该在封禁与保护通知栏报告。
English: Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
Suomi: Raportoi ylläpitäjän väliintulon vaativa käyttäjän ongelmallinen toiminta. Käytä käyttäjäongelmien ilmoitustaulua jollei ylläpitäjää tarvita.
Italiano: Segnala qui eventuali conflitti con altri utenti che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore. In caso un amministratore non sia necessario si consiglia di utilizzare la sezione Risoluzione dei conflitti.
한국어: 관리자의 개입이 필요한 분쟁을 해결하는 곳입니다. 관리자의 개입이 필요하지 않다면 분쟁 해결 게시판을 이용하시기 바랍니다.
മലയാളം: മറ്റൊരു ഉപയോക്താവുമായുള്ള തർക്കത്തിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർ ഇടപെടണമെങ്കിൽ ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കുക. കാര്യനിർവാഹകരുടെ സഹായം ആവശ്യമില്ലെങ്കിൽ തർക്കങ്ങളുടെ നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡിൽ ആണ് ഇക്കാര്യം അറിയിക്കേണ്ടത്.
Svenska: Rapportera tvister med användare som kräver hjälp av en administratör. Använd anslagstavlan för användarproblem om ingen administratörshjälp behövs.
Українська: Повідомляйте про суперечки з користувачами, котрі потребують допомоги адміністратора. Подальші кроки показані на сторінці щодо вирішення суперечок.
中文（简体）‎: 报告需要管理员协助的用户争端。更多步骤列于争端解决。
English: Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
Italiano: Utilizza questa sezione per segnalare problemi non riferibili al vandalismo. Qui vanno anche le richieste di protezione e sprotezione pagine.
한국어: 문서 훼손 관련 관리자 요청에 맞지 않는 차단 요청이나 문서의 보호/보호 해제 요청을 이곳에서 할 수 있습니다.
മലയാളം: വാൻഡലിസം നോട്ടീസ്ബോർഡിൽ അനുചിതമായ അപേക്ഷകൾ ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. ഒരു താളിന്റെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാനുള്ള/സംരക്ഷണം മാറ്റാനുള്ള അപേക്ഷകളും ഇവിടെ നൽകാവുന്നതാണ്.
Svenska: Rapporteringar som inte passar anslagstavlan för vandalism kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sidskydd eller borttagning av sidskydd kan också begäras här.
Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit kuuluttaa vandalismin ilmoitustaululle sopimattomat ilmoitukset. Tällä ilmoitustaululla voit myös pyytää sivun suojaamista tai suojauksen purkua.
中文（简体）‎: 这里可以报告不适合破坏通知栏的报告。这里也可以请求页面保护/解除保护。
Українська: Повідомлення, що не підходять для дошки для оголошень щодо вандалізму можна залишити тут. Запити щодо встановлення чи зняття захисту зі сторінок також можна запитати тут.
English: Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.
Suomi: Tällä ilmoitustaulla voit kuuluttaa muille ilmoitustauluille sopimattomat ylläpitäjän huomion vaativat tehtävät ja ilmoitukset, esimerkiksi suojattujen sivujen siirrot. Pyynnöt sivuhistorian yhdistämisestä tai jakamisesta tulee tehdä täällä.
Italiano: Segnalazioni varie, non ricomprese tra le precedenti, che richiedano l'intervento di un amministratore (spostamenti, ridenominazioni, etc.); Se il tuo problema riguarda l'unione o la separazione delle cronologie pagine, allora puoi rivolgerti qui.
한국어: 다른 관리자 요청 문서에 맞지 않는 일반적인 관리에 대해 관리자의 도움을 요청하는 곳입니다.
മലയാളം: മറ്റ് മൂന്ന് നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡുകളിലും ചേരാത്ത അപേക്ഷകൾ (പേര് മാറ്റൽ തുടങ്ങിയവ) ഇവിടെ നൽകാം. നാൾവഴിയിൽ മാറ്റം വരുത്തി നാൾവഴി ഭാഗിക്കാനോ യോജിപ്പിക്കാനോ ഉള്ള അപേക്ഷകൾ നൽകാൻ ഇവിടെ ഞെക്കുക.
Svenska: Andra rapporteringar som kräver administratörshjälp (t.ex. begärda flyttningar/namnbyten) som inte passar i någon av de föregående anslagstavlorna kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sammanslagning eller delning av historik ska lämnas in här.
Українська: Інші повідомлення, що потребують допомоги адміністратора (наприклад, запити на переміщення/перейменування), які не підходять до жодної з трьох попередніх дощок оголошень можуть бути залишені тут. Запити щодо об'єднання або роз'єднання історії мають бути зроблені тут.
中文（简体）‎: 这里可以报告不适合前三个通知栏的需要管理员协助（例如移动/重命名）的其他报告。历史合并或拆分请求应该在这里填写。
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
English: 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.
العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري.
Azərbaycanca: Bu bölüm istifadəçilərin idarəçilərlə ünsiyyət qura biləcəklər bir yerdir. Bir idarəçiyə vandalizmle müdaxilə ehtiyacı, problemli istifadəçilər ya da başqa bir şey ifadə edəbilərsiniz.
Català: Aquest és el lloc destinat a que els usuaris puguin comunicar-se amb els administradors, o viceversa. Podeu notificar edicions vandàliques, reclamar l'atenció sobre usuaris problemàtics, o indicar qualsevol altre assumpte que requereixi la intervenció d'un administrador.
Česky: Tato stránka slouží uživatelům ke komunikaci se správci zde na Commons, nebo ke komunikaci správců mezi sebou. Můžete zde nahlásit vandalismus, problematické uživatele nebo další záležitosti, které mohou díky svým pravomocem vyřešit jen správci.
Deutsch: Diese Seite ist für Gespräche mit Administratoren. Du kannst hier Probleme melden, die den Eingriff eines Administrators nötig machen, zum Beispiel Vandalismus oder Probleme mit anderen Benutzern.
Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή.
Esperanto: Ĉi tie estas loko kie uzantoj povas interkomunikiĝi kun administrantoj, aŭ administrantoj unu kun la alia. Vi povas raporti pri vandalismo, problemaj uzantoj, kaj ĉio alia, kio bezonas intervenon de administranto.
Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador.
فارسی: این جا مکانیست که کاربران با مدیران، یا مدیران با یکدیگر می‌توانند ارتباط برقرار کنند. شما می‌توانید خرابکاری، کاربران مشکل‌ساز، یا هر آن چیز دیگری که نیاز به اقدام مدیران داشته باشد را گزارش کنید.
Français: Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.
Frysk: Op dizze side kinne meidoggers oerlizze mei behearders, of behearders mei inoar. Jo kinne hjir fandalisme, problematyske meidoggers en oare saken dy't oandacht fan in behearder freegje melde.
हिन्दी: यह वह स्थान है जहाँ सदस्य प्रबंधकों से, तथा प्रबंधक एक दूसरे से संवाद कर सकते हैं। आप बर्बरता, समस्याग्रस्त सदस्य या कोई और विषय जिसके लिए एक प्रबंधक के हस्तक्षेप की ज़रूरत हो, यहाँ बयान कर सकते हैं।
日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。
한국어: 이 문서는 사용자가 관리자, 혹은 관리자가 다른 관리자와 의견을 교환하는 곳입니다. 문서를 훼손하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오.
Македонски: Ова е место каде што корисниците можат да комуницираат со администраторите, или пак администраторите меѓусебно. Тука можете да пријавувате вандализам, проблематични корисници, или било што друго кога има потреба од администраторска интервенција.
മലയാളം: കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുമായി ആശയവിനിമയം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള വേദിയാണിത്, കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർക്ക് തമ്മിൽ തമ്മിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാനും ഈ താൾ ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. നശീകരണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, പ്രശ്നകാരികളായ ഉപയോക്താക്കളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുടെ ഇടപെടൽ ആവശ്യമായ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും വിഷയങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ താങ്കൾക്ക് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
Bân-lâm-gú: 遮是予用者佮管理員、抑管理員佮管理員咧講代誌的所在，你會當報告破壞、製造問題的用者抑其他需要管理員處理的代誌。
Norsk bokmål: Dette er en side for å kommunisere med administratorer. Her kan du melde fra om problemer som krever administratorers inngripen; for eksempel vandalisme eller problemer med andre brukere.
Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora.
Italiano: Questa è la pagina in cui gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o questi ultimi tra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.
Magyar: Ezen a helyen üzenhetnek a szerkesztők az adminisztrátoroknak, vagy az adminisztrátorok egymásnak. Itt jelentheted a vandalizmust, a problémás szerkesztőket, vagy bármi más olyat, amihez adminisztrátori közreműködésre van szükség.
Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatar casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.
Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator.
Русский: Это место, где участники могут обратиться к администраторам, а администраторы обсудить вопросы друг с другом. Вы можете сообщить о вандализме, некорректных действиях участников и всём прочем, что, по вашему мнению, нуждается во вмешательстве администраторов.
Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota.
Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben.
Slovenčina: Táto stránka slúži používateľom na komunikáciu so správcami tu na Commons, alebo na komunikáciu správcov navzájom. Môžete tu nahlásiť vandalizmus, problematických používateľov alebo ďalšie záležitosti, ktoré môžu vďaka svojím právomociam vyriešiť len správcovia.
Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора.
Svenska: Det här är en sida där användare kan prata med administratörer, eller där administratörer kan prata med varandra. Du kan rapportera vandalism, problematiska användare eller någonting som behöver en administratörs ingripande.
Türkçe: Bu bölüm kullanıcıların yöneticilerle iletişim kurabilecekleri bir yerdir. Bir yöneticiye vandalizmle müdahale ihtiyacı, sorunlu kullanıcılar ya da başka bir şey bildirebilirsiniz.
Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên.
中文（简体）‎: 这里是用户能够与管理员或与管理员及另一个人沟通的地方。你可以报告破坏行为、问题用户或其他需要管理员干预的事情。
中文（繁體）‎: 這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員之間進行通訊的地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入的事情。
Shqip: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg

Note

  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Contents


User:Gruznov [edit]

Gruznov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is an (inactive) admin on Commons, hosts a wikipedia paid editing supply website. This fact is currently being controversially discussed in Russian WP, even an arbitration request is in progress. My basic problem, and the reason why to report it here on Commons, is the fact that some images from Commons (including a recent POTD, this one) are used on this website, just at the top - without any attribution of the authors, without indication of the license. With that said, a Commons admin violates the basic licensing policy of Commons for his own commercial purposes. So, the question is: shall we tolerate an admin colleague who seems not to be familiar with the basic purposes of Commons and other WMF projects (or - even worse - ignores it)? To me, this is even worthy a long-time block. Thanks --A.Savin 21:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason to block. Just pull his tools. No edits on commons since late Febuary early January. If he wants to ask for tools back then he can explain why he isn't honoring CC nor active with his tools here. The CC rights holders are the only ones that can truly complain of abuse legally.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
@A.Savin, is he still active on :ru? If yes, could you request his comment here in this thread about the license-violating image use on his website? I agree that this is not acceptable for an admin. However, I would prefer to hear from him first.
About wikify.ru: as we don't have any policy about that (as far as I know) and as even the wikipedia communities seem to be a bit divided over paid-editing so far, I don't see the need for immediate action on Commons in this regard. Clearly any advertising for this service on his userpage or anywhere on-wiki would be unacceptable. We might discuss whether a COI statement should be put on his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've now identified the other 3 images that are used in an obviously license-violating manner on wikify.ru:
--Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

...and pulling tools is supposed to fix the CC problem how, by making the person angry with commons ? novel strategy, easy to gauge the chance of success. If you want to take away someone's tools, it's generally to do with misuse of the tools. Some people need little old Grandmothers to tell you that you attract more bees/flies/butterflies with honey than you do with vinegar. (the saying changes from place to place) ask someone nice who speaks Russian to bring up the issue when Gruznov is not so busy. Penyulap ☏ 22:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your points and agree that pulling the tools shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction. CC licences should be understood by all admin though. If he can either remove them from his site or add attribution then all should be fine. As to the small weblink in his userspace there shouldn't be any problem at all unless he puts up a huge bannner that says "Eat at Joe's!" Many users have links to websites and I doubt many have been a problem if they are not huge resume/banners.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
well, yes you are right, they do need to understand, and they do certainly need to comply on commons, but if I can see what's on your hard drive and notice you've copied a lot of copyright movies, isn't that private until it becomes an embarrassment to the project ? If someone's off-commons activities have no effect on the project, then who are we to police them ? Copyvio in Indonesia and China is the culture :D not the exception. I've sworn never to speak to some of my friends if they bought microsoft windows (they should use linux, or if not, you know..).
understand and comply on commons, what you do elsewhere is your business, until the press makes it effect ours.
That said, it does give the people effected a good topic to bring up at a discussion, as a side issue (like circumstantial evidence sort of thing). On one hand you'd have the 'you only do what is right when you have to' crowd Vs the 'doesn't matter it's off-commons' crowd and the 'you need more integrity' crowd. A side-dish at best, not a main meal. Penyulap ☏ 07:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a factual correction - some log entries (deletions) show up until late February. --99of9 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • a Commons admin violates the basic licensing policy of Commons for his own commercial purposes - I think it is only an assumption. As Canoe said above, "The CC rights holders are the only ones that can truly complain of abuse legally". So as far as no contributors have any complaint, it is not an issue at all. (The example given above is not a work of A. Savin). Further, many contributors (like me) have no complaints however their works are used. And sometimes many contributors give permission for a more generous use on request. Last: Even if the contributor has a complaint, we (The Commons) has no right to act upon; the contributor has to contact a legal authority. JKadavoor Jee 03:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
@ Túrelio - I already notified him here, in Russian wiki he seems not to be much more active... And my issue is not the paid editing (which everybody's free to offer offwiki, as long as there is no policy against it) but purely the license-violating usage of images. Yes, I'm not the photographer of that images, it's not my business to take legal actions. It's a disappointment about this kind of dealing with free licensed stuff just by an admin colleague. If I would make external web contents anywhere (no matter if commercial offers, or a private blog or so), it would be a matter of course to attribute the author if using a picture from Commons. --A.Savin 07:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
D'accord. I've notified the 3 image-contributors and asked whether they have granted him CC-deviant usage terms. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. This theoretically possible constellation I hadn't taken into account. But, who knows... ;-) --A.Savin 09:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The creator of File:Schwedenfeuer Detail 04.JPG has now confirmed that there had been no agreement with User:Gruznov to use this image outside of CC-BY terms. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A good move; but I still don't know whether this a reason to de-admin. A bit off-topic; but some other usage violations: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/8675579601/ It seems this user upload COM:FPs in his photo-stream which is a violation of Flickr terms. As per Flickr terms (www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne) only the original owner can host a file there. I personally inform some of my colleagues; but the only action from his side is to make them private so that no one can see it now. :( JKadavoor Jee 05:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Though the first posting hinted at de-admin, the current discussion is an attempt to assess of the situation.
The other issue should really be raised in a different thread. As far as I can see, the only mistake is that the Flickr-user put it under a CC-BY license, whereas it is actually under a CC-BY-SA license. This needs to be corrected. I've left a note at our image talkpage and notified the Flickr-user. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It's actually a copyvio upload, not only because of the lacking -sa restriction but also because of a license version downgrade which is impossible for CC. --Denniss (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
See http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne: Don’t upload anything that isn't yours. Flickr is not allowing any third-party uploads. But the stopping process is not so simple: "If you see photos or videos that you’ve created in another member’s photostream, don't panic. This is probably just a misunderstanding and not malicious. A good first step is to contact them via FlickrMail and politely ask them to remove it. If that doesn't work, please file a Notice of Infringement with the Yahoo! Copyright Team who will take it from there. Check out the “Copyright/IP Policy” link in the footer of every page for more information." JKadavoor Jee 11:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have not specifically granted permission for my image to be used either, although I am not so incensed that I would make an official complaint about it. Sbork (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. --Túrelio (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please can someone email Gruznov (I see he already has a talk message). If this situation is not rectified, I would support a de-admin, but hopefully it's just a mistake, and he will fix it as soon as he's aware of the problem. --99of9 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've left a note on his :ru talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No answer here. However, in the meantime he edited something. --A.Savin 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And now the 4 images have been removed from the mainpage of wikify.ru. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello. Unfortunately, only now I found the time to answer. I recognize the problem with the images. The reason for the situation is very simple. I have instructed my designer (I'm co-owner of a small design studio) to do an illustration for the site. He does not understand the copyright laws. I just did not check his work. That was a mistake. When I noticed the problem, I replaced the image. Gruznov (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's a frequent subterfuge by copyright violators. I assume that it's rather easy to check your employee's work before finally accepting it, isn't it? --A.Savin 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
True, I've heard this too often: it was the volunteer, it was the intern, etc. However, as this was the first incident and as it has been corrected now, I think we can leave it at that, as the old saying goes Once doesn't count. --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
OK --A.Savin 18:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Mist lifting off cedars by DJ Schulte.jpg
The guy who came up with SOPA, remember SOPA ? was in the same situation as Gruznov regardless of believing Gruznov or not, it's still been agreed in the conversation above that it's not a problem. But I can show you the picture, the exact one that the senator got in hot water about for having on his website, here, I uploaded it to commons :D Penyulap ☏ 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does EVula still have admin privileges? [edit]

As far as I can tell from the logs, User:EVula had less than 30 actions of any kind (edits and other stuff) this year, and has had various previous long periods of inactivity -- before today, when he suddenly decided to run amok, committing rogue deletions of images, telling people to "fuck off", and various other unsavory behavior which you can read about on the talk page. At an absolute minimum, EVula should have to tell us why he deserves to retain admin powers, and what constructive things he intends to do with them... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's a pretty poor presentation of the situation. I told one person to fuck off, after he left me a ridiculously over-the-top (and pretty confrontational) message on my talk page about my "rogue deletions". Speaking of my rogue deletions, if you look at my logs, you'll see that I stopped once I was told to stop (was I happy about it? No, I was not, and I made my opinion clear, but I certainly stopped). And speaking of my logs, yes, I have less than 30 edits so far this year (only five and a half months in; we're not talking about a twelve-month span), but if you go further back[1], you'll find a slew of uncontested deletions of copyright violations. As for my long periods of inactivity, that would be because I have a life outside of this project (including being a bureaucrat on enwiki and Wikiquote, where I was also a CheckUser until the other CU was demoted for inactivity and so I procedurally lost my flag as well). I do a lot of cross-wiki work, and sometimes that means I'm active on Commons, and sometimes not... and sometimes I'm around without needing to make any edits; I do my best to sync up content between Commons, enwiki, Wikiquote, and Wikisource.[2][3][4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's try this the other way: why does EVula need or even "justify" these admin powers?
These deletions were wrong. Borderline cases, clearly, but in those cases they're even more clearly not suitable for a speedy deletion. If it's dubious, discuss. I have sympathy for the "objectification" issue (and &deity; knows what Kathy Sierra would make of this), although I have to admit they made me laugh and (as someone who has to teach good HTML/CSS coding practice) I think I could even find an educational use for them as a means of getting some of my (male) muppets to pay attention.
Losing their rag at an angry editor isn't on. We're just not permitted to do that. Forgivable in the heat of the moment, but it's not how this sort of issue should be handled and EVula ought to know that.
If they're so busy running the universe elsewhere, why do they need admin status at Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
We may wish to adopt an 'interwiki user' similar to w:Interprovincial Standards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Though I'm not familiar with the process for removing the sysop bit on Commons, on a common sense level, I would support recalling admin privileges. Unilateral action overriding, and making no mention of, previous discussion is a problem. (For what it's worth, which is little, I tend to agree that the files should be deleted; but the way you go about it matters, and this way in particular seems to express a kind of contempt for how things work on Commons that isn't very compatible with having extra privileges.) -Pete F (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
If he stopped when prompted about his deletions and is willing to discuss then there's no need to go for the jugular here. Killiondude (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no question of banning his account etc., but a valid question remains as to whether he meets ordinary expectations of Commons adminship, after everything is taken into consideration. If his duties elsewhere are such that he is unlikely to visit Commons for more than a few days every three months or so, then that's problematic right there. And the ratio of his controversial actions to uncontroversial actions in 2013 is unfortunately high. AnonMoos (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't see why EVula should be desysopped. We have an inactivity policy in place, and if EVula does not meet its criteria (ie. is active enough), then they should retain their sysop bit. The policy is very clear about who is considered an inactive administrator—and if you'd like EVula to be desysopped because you disagree with their deletions (or the way they were performed), start a de-adminship process at Commons:Administrators. odder (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
If I wanted to go that route, then I would have already done so. There's no single "smoking gun" which would require instant de-adminning, but there's a convergence of several factors which taken together are overall somewhat problematic... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned here. EVula is being reminded that Commons does not editorialise what other projects may or may not use. At least one of the images was in use, rightly or wrongly, at the time of his speedy "out of scope" deletion. Whilst Tm was perhaps wrong to have approached the matter in the way he did, EVula's response on an another wise legitimately asked question was below the pale, and is unbecoming of someone who holds respected positions on other projects.
Admins on Commons are given a lot of discretion on such matters, but it is now obvious that this is not a case where admin discretion was validly used; particularly as the admin feels so strongly about the subject and because files were in use. It has been explained to EVula that the correct procedure for such things is DR so that the entire community gets to opine. If such things were to re-occur, then a de-adminship request should take place, but given that the EVula has been reminded of community expected standards, and is discussing the issue (even if somewhat still emotively), then this should suffice for the time being.
It should also be noted that this is being discussed on the gendergap mailing list, so if images are taken to DR and an influx of "voting" occurs, this will be part of it. russavia (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, something needs to be clarified here: the only image I deleted that was in use on any other project was File:Pin.jpg, which was being displayed on the Indonesian Wiktionary "pin" entry. Perhaps that counts as editorializing, but seriously... the image is of the Pintrest logo; even if we disagree about whether the image should be here or not, I'd like to think we can all agree that the Pintrest logo doesn't belong on that page, and I would make a similar "this is the wrong image here" edit even if it was something more benign (like, say, an image of a tree on the Korean Wiktionary article for dogs).
I checked every single image to see if it was in use (and if it wasn't, I deleted it), I didn't haphazardly wade thru Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and delete every file I saw (I loaded all the images in tabs and hit End to see their usage; this is how I missed the fact that they had blue talk page links, incidentally). Files like File:Bling-bling - table.jpg, File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg, or File:Body painting - Tweet.jpg I didn't touch, because they were being used somewhere. I wasn't looking to disrupt anything, which is why I specifically targeted unused images. It isn't accurate to say that the files were in use when they absolutely were not. (Pin.jpg was in use, but incorrectly, which is why I made an exception to my personal rule; even if the image is kept, it really needs to be renamed...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a personal rule; it's a rule for everyone. Commons does not delete files that are in use. Arguably, you could have deleted it from the Wiktionary page and then deleted it as out of use, but not just delete it on Commons. And as an English Wiktionary editor, if my fellow editors are fine with a picture of African-American genitalia on wikt:en:cat (definition 14), I'd really prefer that non-English speakers didn't come through and delete the image, either here or on the English Wiktionary, because they "know" it doesn't belong on that page. I don't know that "dog" isn't used to refer to a dogwood tree, which might be entirely appropriate to illustrate on the "dog" article. (Or maybe in Korean English dog got applied to GIs and then the poplar tree? It's possible.) In the case under question, whether the Pintrest "pin" sense is worth documenting in a Wiktionary is a decision left to that Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a stranger to cross-wiki edits, and am very comfortable working in non-English environments (to put it mildly). I wasn't making a judgement call on the image's suitability as a Commons admin; it was being included automatically due solely to its file name, not because of any editorial decision made by an Idonesian Wiktionary editor. After I deleted the image, I refreshed the page and there was a different image of a pin in its place (a blue plastic pin; I didn't click the image, so I don't have a file name for it, sorry). Removing the image from the Wiktionary page would have been the more destructive/disruptive edit, as it would have required me to remove the gallery template (which someone else removed later; this is how I originally saw it). The gallery template has existed on the article since its creation (December 13, 2011), which predates the Commons image by almost a year (September 21, 2012). Hence, the image's use wasn't an editorial choice on their behalf, but an errant technical inclusion, which is why I made the exception. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
EVula is right about this Wiktionary thing. I've seen a lot of them and also removed a lot of them in the past years. Jcb (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't be comfortable working in all non-English environments, unless you actually know all languages, or are claiming that no familiarity with the local language (and hence knowledge of the local culture) is necessary to work on a Wiki. If there's a problematic template including inappropriate images, fix the template, don't delete the image. And you didn't mention the template; you said you'd do the same thing if it were a picture of a tree on the dog page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The template is fully-protected; I couldn't edit it if I wanted to (that said, even if I could have edited it, no, I wouldn't have; that would have been significantly more disruptive than deleting the single image here, as the template is currently transcluded on at least 10,000 pages). And yes, I am comfortable working in all non-English environments, given that the majority of work that I do in those environments is updating interwikis or adding/removing images from Commons (or, more recently, propogating authority control data across multiple projects).[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
As for the tree/dog example, that was a poor example on my part; I suppose a better example (as far as being able to tell that an image is a bad fit for a page) would be to find a picture of Bill Clinton at the top of Barack Obama's Korean Wikiquote page. I wouldn't need to know the language or be familiar with the project's local policies to know that it isn't appropriate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is once again a very big problem with people approaching Commons in the same way that they do English Wikipedia. Commons actively encourages the use of media not only on Wikimedia projects, but also outside of them. There is no way to check if the file is used somewhere else or will be used in the future for some purpose. The truth of the matter is that these files are educational as "understood according to its broad meaning". Not in use has never been a reason for deletion (especially speedy deletion). If EVula were to delete all the images of X-rays of the head and tell the person who complained to fuck off, there would be no discussion right now, it would not only be a desysop, but probably a ban. However, there is some sort of hatred of human sex that comes from ENWP, and Commons is growing accustomed to being too multicultural for our own good. I think that it is time to say "enough is enough, if you don't want to expand the repository of free educational media, you should not be here". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
C'mon, EVula is just trying to increase efficency in commons by getting rid of spam, uneducational images and - I have to say it - bullshit. In contrast to others EVulva is doing the dirty but necessary work. X-rays of the head shows the problem: Tons of images, commons is abused as sole database, more a data graveyard of any kind. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Then we admins must be ghosts. Boooooooo. I'm scary! Leave us in peaaaaaacccceeeee!!!!!!! -mattbuck (Talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by the title of this thread. I would think that before the torches and pitchforks come out, Evula would have had to display repeated egregious misuse of the tools. Instead, we find that after the dross is removed, there is a complaint that a copyrighted logo was removed, which was being used on one page which was not about the company which owns the copyright. The correct approach to that is not to call for a desysopping, but discuss whether the deletion was appropriate. I'm not seeing any argument it wasn't (although I may have missed it in the noise above." And as Yikrazuul mentions, Evula is doing cleanup, so the site doesn't become a dumping ground of poor and illegal images. That is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. KillerChihuahua (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you implying that these studio photos, taken with willing models and which are appropriately licensed, are somehow low quality or even illegal? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I think that given all of the sexually explicit images lacking consent on Commons, it was a poor choice to go after this particular set. They are of professional quality and it is highly doubtful that they are any consent issues. I understand, however, why these images are a focus on the GenderGap mailing list. They are gratuitous use of stereotypical female nudity to illustrate a subject that is wrongly associated with men. Those images would never be used to illustrate the pictured markup in a serious encyclopedia. I believe you are seeing a tension between the idea that Commons is a repository for anyone's use and a repository for use on Wikipedia projects. It may be time for those with the former view to abandon Commons and start their own fork, because it is starting to feel like something is coming... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Damn right. As Commons:Scope says: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose: The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. I would love to know in what sense File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg is either instructional or informative; what knowledge it contains. It is long overdue that the entirely conscious distortion and abuse of the stated goal of Commons by numerous people intent on creating a collection of various grades of pornography, titillation and exhibitionism was put to a stop. — Scott • talk 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
As I have explained elsewhere, there is a difference between "educational" and "encyclopaedic". Educational does not have to be encyclopaedic, nor does it have to be serious. I did type up a larger screed but suffice to say I think you're both talking utter bilge. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I use the word "encyclopaedic" even once? No. So nice straw man. — Scott • talk 18:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Matt, I think people here understand that "educational" and "encyclopedic" are both completely flexible terms that have no agreed definitions, so save your energy for something else. I didn't use either of those words or suggest that something was or was not "encyclopedic". I'm just pointing out that the idea of Commons as a free repository for images that are unlikely to be used on WMF projects is an idea that is getting more closely examined because of what you and others have allowed Commons to become. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
"I would love to know in what sense File:Body painting - Videoplayer.jpg is either instructional or informative" Note that you did not say "informative to me", therefore you must accept that others find different things interesting and want to gain more understanding about them. If a person were to write a book titled "Body Painting 101", this image may be in chapter "Computer Technology in Bodypaint". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Using that ludicrous argument, I could write a book that included every single image ever deleted from Commons. — Scott • talk 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
As Commons:Scope says, if it's in use, it's in scope. Videoplayer.jpg is in use. There is nothing on that page that says that all forms of human endeavor are acceptable to be documented except for the titillating or pornographic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle -- as I previously said on EVula's talk page, these images could be considered somewhat questionable, but they are really not the same as those images widely considered worthless (such as endless redundant low-quality self-cell-phone snaps of penises, see {{Nopenis}}), nor those images which should be deleted on sight because they're actually in sober fact illegal. Given the outcome of the previous deletion discussion, unilateralism was really not the way to deal with these images... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm sure Evula thought they were doing the right thing, but in doing so went against standard Commons practices. I don't think there is any chance that these images would be deleted if put to a community discussion today. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Show me one illegal image that he deleted. There's rules about such clean up, as in it doesn't get unilaterally done by admins, that speedy deletion is only done in uncontroversial cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua -- This is really not about image "Pin.jpg" (whose existence I was completely unaware of when I started this thead). It's about long periods of inactivity, broken by unilateral "out of process" actions, and some poor responses when his unilateral actions were questioned by others. I also don't think my original message at the top of this thread can be characterized as "torches and pitchforks"... The title of this thread was not chosen to be inflammatory, but to indicate that the burden should really be on EVula to explain why he needs admin powers. AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't pluralize. Infrogmation, in stark contrast to Tm's repetitive and needlessly antagonistic posts,[17][18][19] (mattbuck even told him to calm down over his posts[20]) left a pretty direct message about my deletions.[21] Given Tm's tone, I dismissed him with the oft-mentioned "pfft, fuck off" (because he was acting like a child, as far as I was concerned), but Infogmation I addressed clearly (including a crystal-clear mea culpa about the fact that they'd been involved in a previous deletion discussion that I hadn't seen).[22] When mattbuck chimed in,[23] I addressed him reasonably as well.[24]
I called the whole mess bullshit, because that's my opinion of the situation, but you're making it sound like I was lashing out at multiple editors who were making calm posts on my talk page, or that I went on a rogue spree and ignored everyone telling me to stop; neither is true.
As for my inactivity, I don't know why that keeps being brought up; even before this fracas, I exceeded the minimum threshold of of activity. In the previous six months, I had 50 admin log actions (along with two uploads and a few administrative and non-administrative edits to pages), and the minimum is 5 log actions in six months. I'm not as active as pretty much everyone else involved in this thread, but I object to being painted as having gone from absolute zero edits to a deletion spree; that isn't the case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
EVula, surely you know how things work around here? You tried to delete the naughty pictures - now you will be punished. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So it's okay for an admin to start deleting images that show the naked faces of women, or the blasphemous pictures, or the ones inconsistent with Marxist-Leninism? Why is there some special rule for the images that annoy you, but not the images that annoy other people?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking me? Read my comments further up the thread for my answer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is not about whether EVula's actions were, as a net effect, A Good Thing. I have ignored the arguments about this, as they very much boil down to reductive trolling (and responses to reductive trolling) about everyone's favourite issue, "porn on Commons". This is not actually the issue here, although glancing at this topic would convince you otherwise.

Before this topic began, EVula had already admitted that they did the wrong thing, and that they realized their actions were not acceptable. So there's no problem for me. Except, one thing is very conspicuous by its absence: an explanation for their actions. As I see it, it's either:

  1. EVula acted out of ignorance, specifically ignorance of the fact that there is no policy supporting unilateral deletion of media like this. If this is the case, why do they have admin if they don't even know something so basic? Did they forget this?
  2. EVula did this purposely

Neither of these are good. I won't elaborate on the second one because it raises a lot of other questions. I also won't discount that there is another explanation for their actions other than incompetence, or whatever reasoning motivates doing something like this on purpose –⁠moogsi (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose another possibility assuming good faith of this admin, perhaps it was a temporary change of character, maybe EVula was under an influence of some chemicals, just broke up with a loved person, or just didn't get enough sleep. This can potentially cause somebody act out in some way. I know that I have in the past hurt people that I cared for when I was emotionally unstable, and I would not want to be the one who believes in some version of "original sin" that can never be forgiven. So I am more than happy to assume that this incident has finished and will never happen again, if EVula will at least promise that it won't. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps EVula was not on drugs, deprived of sleep, or in a state of emotional distress. Perhaps they were simply acting in what they felt was the best interests of the project. That may be a reason to discuss their use of the tools, but this thread would likely not be here at all if the images were of flowers or buildings, and no one would be suggesting that they should not be an admin because of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If an admin ran around speedy deleting images of flowers or buildings on the grounds that they were out of scope, the only difference is that that many of his backers wouldn't be here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I can assure you this topic would definitely still be here, except it would be about a tenth of the length, and the main focus would be "what the HELL are you doing?", as opposed to some lengthy policy debate about whether deleting flowers or buildings is the right thing to do. Again, there is no policy supporting unilateral deletion of media like this. It does not matter what the media depict. "Discuss their use of the tools" is what I am trying to do, but again you think it's necessary to refer to the subject of the deletions. It's not necessary. If someone were deleting pictures of plumbing fixtures outside of process, there would be questions. It's almost as if the subject of the deletions were chosen specifically to make a point... but again, I charitably assume that EVula did not know what they were doing, or that deleting a particular kind of media would cause any particular kind of reaction. But I find myself attributing way more ignorance to them than I feel they deserve –⁠moogsi (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said, there could be any number of explanations. It's the lack of a single one that bothers me –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we can take a bad situation and make it into something positive. In this particular case not much harm was done in the end. The images were restored and there seems to be no more vandalism from EVula, this does, however, give us an opportunity to setup some sort of standard policy to react to unilateral mass deletions. While block tool can potentially be used, it is not really appropriate, because (at least to me) it implies that the user adds something to the project that is not appropriate, we also do not wish to make it more difficult for a person (who was chosen by the community for what it's worth) to discuss the situation. So maybe we can have something like "temporary desysop" that takes place when somebody reports large number of deletions without any sort of discussion. This desysop would then be brought to everybody's attention and the community can discuss the situation. We can also stipulate that an administrator must provide one's rationale for deletions (not just "pfff, fuck off") or accept the permanent loss of admin bits. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't really block admins, as they can just unblock themselves... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Shikku27316 [edit]

I would like to report problems and disruptive behaviour of the user:Shikku27316. The first reason I report here is a personal attack and the second reason is pushing his POV. Regarding the first point, the user attacked me personally on ethnic basis, calling me "VardarianBoy", which is highly offensive for the Macedonians and it is used by Greek nationalists. Regarding the second point, he is adding wrong information on the page linguistic flags. He claims, based on his personal view and some theories with limited support (no sources given though) that Albanian and Greek do not form their own branches of the Indo-European tree family (see en:Indo-European languages, but they are part of the Paleo-Balkan languages (which are dead languages). However, most of the serious academically accepted classifications of the IE languages state that Greek and Albanian form their own branches of this language family. This is used on EN Wikipedia and it clearly states that there are not enough linguistic proofs that would support his view (see en:Paleo-Balkan languages, en:Greek language and en:Albanian language. I gave him one source, he omitted it and reverted me again. There a thousands of books where Greek and Albanian are not classified as Paleo-Balkan. His claims are not supported with sources, and having no proofs to present, he started attacking me on ethnic basis. Best--Никола Стоіаноски 19:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

He still reverts without giving academic sources (his explanation can be seen on the talk page, not related to linguistics at all).--Никола Стоіаноски 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've warned User:Shikku27316 for the personal attack. I've temporarily full-protected the Linguistic flags page to prevent edit-warring, and I've asked User:Shikku27316 to address the sourcing issue related to his changes. INeverCry 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hektor [edit]

User:Deutz-Fahr [edit]

This user name is in violation of COM:UPOLICY as it is a group name of a firm and either some admin needs to discuss with the user about changing the username or this account needs to be blocked. Note that the user has made promotional uploads. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This proposed policy has not (yet) been adopted as an official policy. In this case the uploader is a person, who has been identified as an authorized employee of Same Deutz-Fahr Group. IMHO there is no urgent reason in this case to block the user name. I don't see any advantage of letting them choose another user name. It will still be the same person, working for the same company. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
They are great images. Do we have a policy about corporate uploads that don't have logos, spam, or watermarks? His are all clean.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, there is almost no problem with his contributions except there was some OTRS permission required which has been sent. It is about the username. There has been related discussion on my talk page too between User:INeverCry, User:Jcb, User:Jameslwoodward and myself. I am fully aware that "Other stuff exists" argument does not work here, but IMHO it is about fairness when blocking certain users for username alone and not blocking others. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Which of the files uploaded by Deutz-Fahr are "promotional" in your eyes? --High Contrast (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All of them. That does not mean they are not useful. But, other users have similarly been banned e.g. Yoga Federation of Russia whose contributions were equally okay IMO. Rahul Bott (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deutz-Fahr's photos are not promotional. They neutrally show their machines in their agricultural role. You think it is promotional because the company itself did publish those images. But promotional content is something different. --High Contrast (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
High Contrast, I've said repeatedly that there is almost no problem with his uploads but with the username. Other users have similarly been banned just for wrong username. I've given one such example above. So, I am saying either some admin should advise the user for a username change and if (s)he doesn't agree, then only go for a block. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
What does it say in ticket:2013041010007541? The user might be an employee or he might even have got the permission from the company management. --Leyo 08:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC) See the confirmation on de:Benutzer:Deutz-Fahr (in German). --Leyo 09:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rahul Bott, have you used other accounts on commons ? May I ask why you are so interested in this editor's username ? Penyulap ☏ 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, I do not think my use (or lack, thereof) of other accounts is relevant to this discussion. Why are you taking the discussion in that direction? Do you think this discussion is a disruption? If so, please tell me and I will restrain myself. I reopened this discussion because it was simply archived by a bot and not properly closed by any admin. And, I repeat I've no particular interest in this individual user. Infact, I've only tried to organize some of the files that he uploaded and I've repeatedly said that they are nice files. I'm only saying that perhaps his/her username should be considered for renaming with his/her consent.
Reply to Leyo: User:Jameslwoodward has argued on my talk page that even if a person is an employee with a company today, (s)he might not be so tomorrow. Then, what happens if (s)he makes uploads on behalf of his/her former company with the company username? Rahul Bott (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, I often ask people under some circumstances. Btw, when you say "I'm only saying that perhaps[...] ", I think a better summary is you've asked more than once for the person to be blocked, rather than perhaps this or perhaps that. Penyulap ☏ 08:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the request exactly twice once by nominating his/her userpage for deletion and when User:Jcb suggested me to bring the matter here if I wish, I did so. And I also admit that I was a bit lax in not phrasing my request correctly. However, comments from User:Jkadavoor convince me that this case needs no further discussion and I'm sorry if I unintentionally wasted a few people's time.
But, before I end, I've another query regarding User:Prakash Kumar Meher who is a notable person with his own en.wiki page. Do we or do we not require an OTRS permission for his account here on Commons? Also, in this second case, the user has made uploads which were deleted due to various reasons like "No license", "Missing permission", others' works et cetera. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's an idea to make proposal pages clearer, so that they aren't so incredibly confusing. As for meta, well, I figure there is no point trying to tell them the sky is blue or the earth is round, they'll just keep churning out poorly-written garbage that doesn't integrate with the standard practices on the projects. But their poorly thought out m:Single User Login finalisation announcement makes me wonder what is a better name for my supposedly soon to be only account PALZ9000, Penyulap, BittyBattyBitBotIsNotABot or Thomas Moore. hehe, maybe 'dumbass' if it's not taken, then I'll get a job on meta. Penyulap ☏ 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with image spammers [edit]

Is there an accepted way to deal with image spammers? Is there a standard welcome message that should be left on the user's talk page? By image spammer I mean people who upload their own work complete with their vanity URL/watermark? For example Tangcla (talk · contribs), who uploaded three pretty poor quality images. I removed the watermarks (and having considered the images also removed two of the images from the corresponding Wikipedia articles that he had added them to) but wonder if I should do more. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

the standard response on commons is uncoordinated idiocy. I've seen someone upload thousands of fantastic images that were quite popular and very high quality, and was indef blocked for a small watermark on the images. The images they kept, the editor they discarded. Problem is that watermarks vary considerably and some are supposed to be part of the image. Some admins and editors are unable to make meaningful decisions about the images and come up with 'all watermarks are a blockable offence' even though that is absolutely not the case. It is really unfortunate too.
If you want to take a stab at I think the page is Commons:watermarks that would be cool, but I can't so much as get morons to pull their thumb out enough to agree that some watermarks which are supposed to be on images because they have historical significance are OK and not a blockable offence. It's appalling. I would be happy to help you change the situation if I can, like if you want to work on that page or a proposal or something. I run out of energy arguing and then go and lecture the sparrows in the skies for relief from the frustration of trying to get people to think rather than be a bunch of cabbages.
If we had a nice watermarks page to show them how fast their watermarks will be removed then it would be quite discouraging for them by itself. What's the point of putting them in when it's seconds to remove them. Someone even wrote a bot to do it too. Penyulap ☏ 21:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this project is to create a repository of free media that can be used for educational purposes. This means that the correct response for a person who uploads many freely licenced (meaning that the watermark can be removed) images is to thank them. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=96875768"