Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U · COM:ANU

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks 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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[new section]

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 here.

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, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
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, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


  • 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.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg[edit]

There is a problem currently going on with this file. It is technically not the flag of the Finish Air Force, each squadron uses it as a template with their badge in the upper left corner. @Kwasura: therefore feels it should be marked as a fake and only categories in fictional subcats instead of it's long-standing Air Force Flags of Finland category. Can someone please deal with this? Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I may sound silly but how about discussing this properly with @Kwasura:? Natuur12 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Natuur12:. With all do respect, reputable @Fry1989: ignored my last message being the one who was advocating keeping deliberately and intentionally incorrect, misleading and fantastic files. Why? And what now? They also will be restored to full the users? I just don't understand this... --Kwasura (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. At last we Talking. I am inviting more users from Finland to take part in this conversation. Not only @Kwasura:, but also @Msaynevirta:, @Motopark: and @Caselius: were participating in cleaning up the Category:Air Force flags of Finland from mistakes and vandalism. Now I am working on creation of the missing Finnish Air Force flags (one can read my talk page). Above mentioned category was perfectly fine until the conflicting file was restored on request of @AnonMoos:, who is blaming me in «refusal to use my knowledge to help fix any terminology problems», despite the fact that the request from him to do so was never occurred. Now some users advocating this file as a «template». Sort of «stars and stripes without the stars» for future artists to add whatever they want. But gentlemen, if you need a template - simply remove the badge from the existing file and you will get it. But what for? To create the missing flag I hope. But existing file is claiming to be the flag. The Finnish Air Force flag. Flag of what exactly, let me ask you? After the file was restored as a «template» I checked up the «flag template» in categories and find this and this and this and much more. Forgive me, but I do hope that Category:Air Force flags of Finland will not be trashed this way and will stay militarily net. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This damn flag is driving me to insanity and I'm ready to wash my hands of the entire thing! It has been deleted, restored, fought over several times, and this mess wouldn't even exist if it weren't for some troll (I suspect to be WPK but who knows) created a bunch of fakes and dupes. Just do what you want then! Fry1989 eh? 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Fry1989:. And I am happy to clean this mess. Just need to convince @AnonMoos: and will be moving forward. --Kwasura (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kwasura -- It's very noticeable that you've never yet convinced anybody with knowledge of flags of the correctness of your position. (You seem to have worn Fry1989 down, as opposed to convincing him.) Furthermore, your second deletion attempt was problematic in several respects (not notifying any of the file uploaders to start with, which makes your reply to Natuur12 sound a little hypocritical). Why don't you read Carl Lindberg's comment of 02:51, 8 November 2015 at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive? -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Greetings. As a matter of fact I have read all the comments from all the parties involved. And I do respect the opinion of the reputable @Clindberg:, this is why I completed the search on the "flag templates" as I mentioned previously. The results wasn't pleasing for me as I found a lot of rubbish in the Category:SVG flags of the United States alone and was surprised, I must convince. I wasn't ready for it. However, I've learned that anyone can upload anything here and it will be as good as real thing as long as it's not properly attributed. I hope nobody really thinks that this Flag of the United States (polar bears variant).svg flag is the real flag of the USA? But it certainly looks like it from the distance. And it takes to have a close look to see the difference, doesn't it? And it is the flag of the USA we are talking about. An internationally noticeable and recognised flag. Now can you say the same about the Finnish Air Force flags? FAF HQ flag(s) existed here for several years without anyone even noticing that something is wrong with them. And it took the combined effort of multiple users to clean the Category:Air Force flags of Finland from rubbish. And there was an opposition to this combined effort, and still is (this is why we are having this conversation here). It was said and voted that it is no reason to delete the fake files despite the very obvious facts. Lion and the roundel instead of the swastika, savage instead of the lynx, Liberty order instead of the Mannerheim cross, wrong colours, wrong borders, things that are missing or too much, what can be more obvious? All of it was pointed to and argumented, but @Kwasura: is still being blamed by the reputable @AnonMoos: for «the conspicuous failure to convince anyone other than himself» and «refusal to use his knowledge to help fix any terminology problems». Forgive me Sir for being naive or stupid, but I do not know what you are talking about. You are not talking to me about it so I can only guess. Yes, you are talking about me here and there, but why don't your participating in the research or failing to accept it's findings, if this case is so important to you? I honestly think you should. I do not think yet that you are trolling me, but I am sure as a daylight that you are misunderstanding my intentions or misinterpreting them. I am remaining calm and happy to start over again. But, please, do not resolve to pity «editing wars» as it will not fix anything. You happen to have all kind of names and blames for me, not inviting you to the deletion request is only one of them (thanks to reputable @Stefan2: for pointing on and fixing this oversight of mine). But be honest. Did you invited me on the undeletion request? It is time for us to start working together, not against each other. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Kwasura, when you nominate a file for deletion, consider clicking on the "nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox. This will largely automate the nomination process and ensures that everyone is notified properly. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Thank you very much. I will use your advice. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Kwasura -- Your attempted analogies with variants of the U.S. flag are completely useless and illuminate nothing with respect to File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg. Since you have played a conspicuously unconstructive and unhelpful role with regards to this image for several months now, my strong advice to you would be just to leave it the heck alone for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I am sensing a great deal of disrespect in all your manner. This indicates that you've lost it. You already lost it a long time ago. You have nothing to say. You don't want to listen. You don't want to see or read either. In fact, you don't even care about the FAF flags altogether. You probably don't know yourself why you still arguing. You have no case, you defending no truth, and you have total luck of enthusiasm towards the subject. It's all «yes, it is»; «no, it's not»; «because I like it» and «I want it this way» with you. These are all your arguments. You simply trolling me. I asked you not to start an «editing war» - and you doing the opposite. I invited you to take a part in the research so you can benefit from it - and you telling me «to leave it the heck alone». And I am a bad guy! :) Wow! How can you do it? Or who are you, Mr. AnonMoos, human or troll? Did someone hijacked your account and using your profile or you always like that? This is an «Administrators' noticeboard», so say something constructive, show as your sources, prove your point, make a contribution. «Leave it the heck alone» and «I like it this way» is not enough here. It is not an academical answer. It is just not enough. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if you hadn't played a strictly and purely negative role with respect to this file for several months -- only causing problems, and refusing to participate in any constructive attempt to find solutions -- then my attitude towards you wouldn't be so cynical at this point. AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Slander again and again. Nothing new. But i am pity you. Perhaps hypocrisy is your main feature. --Kwasura (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kwasura: you're creeping into personal attack territory but you're well and truly being uncivil. Just a shame Commons doesn't have a policy on using the project as a battleground. Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: I am only defending myself. You want to take this right away from me? I am not the one who started this battle. But I am the one who want it to end as soon as possible. I don't like arguing, but I don't mind explaining things I know to people. If they care of course. Do you thing it's wrong? --Kwasura (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kwasura: Comments directed at you have been about your editing and combative style, not directed at you personally. Editing on WMF's projects is not a right, it is a privilege. Doesn't matter who started it, what matters is that your uncivil comments have nothing to do with the file in question and you've also edit warred (it's a wonder you haven't been blocked for it) on the file page. Time for you to drop the stick and walk away, or face being blocked from Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Forgive me, but I don't know who are you, how long you are following the conversation, how much are you informed about it's subtleties, nuances, and what makes you think that i am the one who need to be blocked for the assumed wrongdoings? Right or privilege - I have it as much as you I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not the one who started the dispute. I wouldn't call it the editing war yet, but editing the file with the reason as (rv nonsense) or (Nothing fictional about this flag) should not be allowed. This is not an explanation. This is not a proof. This is just a statement. Thus it is not enough. Please, don't be judgmental and take part in improving the category. But I have nothing to drop, and will appeal any discriminating or thoughtless decision. I know how to respect and how to be respected. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Could somebody explain why Finland would be using swastika's on it's military flags? Surely that isn't correct? Surely it is not true that every unit in their air force has it's own variant on a flag with a big fat swastika in the center of it? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is tagged with {{Fictitious flag/svg}}. It's unfortunate that we have to host fictitious flags with nazi symbols here, and there's plenty more. Somehow fictitious flags have gained fictitious educational status here... I guess there's not enough real flags to go around... INeverCry 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, INeverCry -- unfortunately, it is not a fictitious flag. The Finnish Air Force roundel from WW1 until after the end of WW2 was a blue swastika (obviously predating the rise of Nazism in 1933), and this is a relic of that. For another relic, see the yellow lines in File:Presidential Standard of Finland.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos:, please, do not try to misinform people here. You well know (at least should by now) that the flag without the badge in the corner is not exist and never existed. All the references are provided for you to read and see for yourself gentlemen. --Kwasura (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow! Forgive me, @Beeblebrox: could somebody explain why something that is found pretty much everywhere on the globe since 10,000 BC is being attributed exclusively to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and it's dear leader Mr. Adolf Hitler? Surely something that existed 12 years can not spoil something that existed 12,000 years? Certainly not for the Hinduists, Buddhists, Latvians or Finns, who was using it long before the NSDAP was even created. Wikipedia's article Swastika is long, but very informative. But, if the are talking about the Finland, I kindly recommend to read this (aslo long, but leaving no more questions about «how can they?!»). @INeverCry: thank you! This is exactly what I am talking about. Different Wiki projects exist for the fictional history. Don't understand why such file need to be kept here? You are so right, «fictitious flags have gained fictitious educational status here...». It's about the time to start making changes, in my honest opinion. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that various other groups have used variations of it it in the past and continue to do so. What I find doubtful is that a European military force would use a swastika that looks exactly like the nazi swastika to represent themselves in the current era. And the references to it as "fictional" seem to back that up. I don't know why made up flags that don't exist need to be hosted anywhere but on a some sort of fansite for people who like making these things up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same as the Nazi swastika is tilted by 45 degrees whereas the Finnish swastika is not. There's an article about the Finnish swastika at sv:Finländsk svastika, but the article only seems to be available in Swedish. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: as I said before, mentioned symbol is European enough. Finns use it from 1918 and quite happy about it. Finnish Air Force flags are relatively new thing. First five were handed on the 4th of June 1958 by the President Urho Kekkonen, last one - on the 4th of October 2005 by the President Tarja Halonen. So the Finnish Air Force flags are quete new and certainly current. Now the "fiction", that I am talking about, is not in depicting a swastika on the FAF flags, but in not depicting the badge in the flag's corner. But without this badge flag can simply not be, because it will represent nothing. --Kwasura (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) @Stefan2: Can someone define me the "Nazi swastika"? Because tilted or not tilted makes not much difference. Germans used both. Reichsdienstflagge 1935.svg Standarte Adolf Hitlers.svg Reichsprotektor Böhmen und Mähren2.svg. --Kwasura (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we get over the incredulity that a European country would ever dare use swastikas in an official capacity when we have known for years that this is real, and get back to the issue at hand? The Royal Air Force of the UK has 1 flag. The issue here is that the Finnish Air Force does not have 1 flag, each division has their own flag (based on a common template) with a badge on the corner. The question at hand is a incredibly simple one, should that blank template flag be hosted on Commons? Any other comments are irrelevant. Figure it out, but I'm tired of this fight. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm agree with @Fry1989:. Back to the point. Anyone who want to create the flag of the missing FAF subdivision can take this as a template. The file advocated as the Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem is useless and was deleted. --Kwasura (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Kawasura -- I'm entirely serious and quite earnest in recommending that you consider just leaving the file alone for a while. You've already been banging away at the file for several months, and in that time you've played a purely negativistic role, and haven't managed to accomplish anything productive or constructive or useful in the slightest degree. Maybe time for a little vacation? AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You trolling me. OK. Let's assume that I've "played a purely negativistic role, and haven't managed to accomplish anything productive or constructive or useful in the slightest degree", as you say. Fine. What is it that you did to establish the truth and clean up the category from rubbish? Anything? Show me. Because the last piece of nonsense is hanging here solely for you. Just because YOU want it to be there. Save it on your computer and have it then. --Kwasura (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, this is simply NOT a fictious flag according to any reasonable and accepted definition of "fictitious flag" ordinarily used on Commons. Maybe you should finally process this fact and deal with it in some manner which doesn't involve stirring up unneeded turbulence on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I very well know what I'm saying and what I'm doing. This is certainly NOT a "Finnish Air Force flag..." - Finnish Air Force doesn't have a flag (contrary to the RAF or the USAF). YOU want it to be a "Finnish Air Force flag..." thus encouraging an uninformed users to utilize this file as "the Finnish Air Force flag" (that's exactly what happened) misinforming everyone as a result. You don't see it of course, or you just don't care. But it's a time for you to start asking yourself what is it you are trying to achieve? --Kwasura (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Now you're pretty much just lying, since I specifically renamed the file from "Finland Air force.svg" to "File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg" for the express purpose of preventing inadvertent misunderstandings as to what the image represents. What I'm accomplishing is preventing you from deleting or messing up this image based on your strange personal misinterpretation of what a fictitious flag is. Since you've been banging away at this file for several months now, and haven't achieved anything, or really convinced anyone of anything, maybe it's time to step back, step outside, and take a deep breath? AnonMoos (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You are trying my patience again? Some more fresh accusations. No problem. I haven't got the right to warn or block you for such language, but maybe someone would. Let me enlighten you again, since you are the only person who still arguing here. Fact: this is not the "Flag of Finland Air force squadrons" and those are not "squadron emblems". So the question remains the same: what is it you are trying to achieve? 1. you are not creating the flag; 2. you are not creating the template (of either 1st or 2nd type); 3. you are not created the original file; 4. you simple defending someones mistake (note: you, not the creator of the original file). For whatever reason you are doing it - it does'n help at all. Where exactly were you planed to use this file since it represents nothing? Think again or "step back, step outside, and take a deep breath" :D --Kwasura (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


someone can look bye --Chatsam (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I warned the user two days ago, but Giftsbymeetas uploaded still a copyright violation and I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

El Golli Mohamed[edit]


I request your intervention to a call to order, possibly with the prohibition of voting power on El Golli Mohamed. After an impartial negative vote of @Cccefalon: a potential image quality, El Golli Mohamed turned against him by opposing all candidates:

Seeing the images we can easily see that this is revenge ... Thank you for the consideration. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Informed user. -- Poké95 12:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And the FPC-Sockpuppet User:Fotoriety please also. --2003:88:6A13:5644:EC4A:3BE5:7472:6FB6 13:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: It pursues the same actions again just now :
We could quickly make a momentary blockage time to discuss these facts? --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact I just realized that it challenges or opposes all those who had a negative opinion on any of these images. These are done totally unacceptable. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Medium69: and @Pokéfan95: and @Cccefalon: Mohamed Gouli is a new user from Tunisia,he hase QI and birds photographers , I think we need to help him and talk with him but block him not the solution he can help in Reviewing QI please let me know, if I should to call him to explain a few points, I think we need to change the policy of reviewing QI, as an example, only users has more than 50 QI review images --Touzrimounir (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not there. He opposed on ALL images Cccefalon revenge, which is unacceptable. From there the air to have calmed down, but for me, I keep an eye on. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


  • User:Fotoriety, blocked for one month for consideration of only voting "oppose" on photos. An account created only to be negative is not here for the project. I took no action on El Golli Mohamed since the request seemed to be only to block his/her voting rights, not to block the account. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, could you please specify why you blocked Fotoriety? OK, an anonymous IP claimed that Fotoriety is a sockpuppet of El Golli Mohamed, but this is in fact neither confirmed by CU nor (as far as I can see) any plausible assumption whatsoever. And I fail to see any policy that prohibits user accounts to participate only in FP candidates. On the other hand, given the fact that Fotoriety is rather harsh reviewer, we perhaps should not discourage them, as we all know that there are also numerous reviewers who are just too lax (especially concerning nominations by their "friends") and so we have the problem that FP is being overflooded by pictures which actually are "some better than average" rather than "the very best of Commons". --A.Savin 18:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@A.Savin I blocked the account because it was only used to make negative votes and remarks. Any non-trolling reviewer would have had at least a few images about which they could be neutral or even positive. But to be negative all the time shows troll at work. Perhaps my comment "obvious socking" should have read "obvious trolling" instead. I reviewed the account and found that it was only in use for negative voting. I did not analyze those negative votes to see if they influenced any actions or biased in favor or against any particular user. Please see User_talk:Fotoriety's unblock request to see the types of interactions found acceptable by this user. I don't think "harsh" begins to cover it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin, Fotoriety's voting pattern/style was discussed at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 15#May single purpose accounts be allowed for voting?. But I'd say that conversation was more provoked by Wladyslaw being upset rather than that the oppose vote he got was undeserved. At the time I looked at his contribution log and found a handful of supports, a lot of comments-without-votes and a lot of oppose votes. But it must be remembered that FPC at any one time has dozens of nominations and Fotoriety only opposed a few of them. If he'd gone through the list opposing everything, or was particularly unfair in his opposition, then I'd be more worried. Lots of FPC reviewers only ever support (though thankfully they don't support everything) and there's plenty human-nature reasons why people do that even though it isn't nearly as helpful as if people do oppose also from time to time. Fotoriety always gives a rational reason for oppose, and does seem to avoid the worst kind of pixel-peeping opposes we sometimes see with some reviewers. Fotoriety has sometimes made personal attacks and clearly reacted angrily to your block, making remarks that aren't acceptable. I think, though, to be blocked out-of-the-blue after three years of contributing to FPC would provoke a WTF reaction. Fotoriety voted twice this month, so I don't see why an immediate block was justified rather than opening a discussion with the user and/or other FPC-forum regulars. So, while I think his comments in the unblock request deserve an apology, I also think the block seems quite unjustified (unless some other evidence comes to light) and it too deserves an retraction and apology. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I can´t see anything good with the work of Fotoriety, he is obviously here just in times when he has a bad mood looking for a valve. This is destructive, in my view, otherwise you can not rate and understand his contributions. This is not that sort of peaceful cooperation in the project volunteers need an want, it`s rather counterproductive. It's always the same when pressing busybody, this is wellknown from Wikipedia very well. --Hubertl 09:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you two clashed at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hasht Behesht, Detail of the dome by Pascal Coste.jpg. Aside from the insults and speculation about his mood, do you have anything concrete to give as evidence that this user must be banned from the project for opposing a handful of images each month. Is there a pattern of opposing images with reasons that are clearly groundless, or of picking on certain nominators? If the votes are well-grounded, what it is your business how Fotoriety spends his time on Commons? I've opposed more FPCs in one day that Fotoriety generally does in a month. So really, where are the grounds for a block without community discussion. FPC needs oppose votes just as much as it needs support votes. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We can of course be fair and leave Fotoriety blocked, but then also block all the "support-only" FPC protagonists who damage the FP project with their lax reviewing. For example, we have two users there, let's name them R. and H., who are also friends IRL. User R. often nominates his own photos on FPC, and user H. supports every single nomination of him, regardless of the real quality and wow of the nominated picture. So then, in order not to have double standards here, we should also block H. for one month. But I think it is nonetheless better for us not to block anyone in this issue and to unblock Fotoriety. Fotoriety is eligible to vote on FPC and their comments are mostly plausible and do not provide any impression of personally motivated voting. It is their right to participate only in nominations where they have to oppose. Some people may find their reviews too harsh, but it is no problem for the FP project (rather on the contrary). --A.Savin 12:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have carefully observed his contributions. Block this user is absurd, if this user is blocked Colin should also be blocked. The well-founded negative votes are what help to evolve the quality of the section. This user should be rewarded, not blocked. --The Photographer (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I also disagree with the blocking of Fotoriety. First, for formal reasons: nothing in FPC (or Commons) rules prevents an editor from opposing most nominations. And second because, as The Photographer said above, opposing votes have a positive effect on the overall quality of the nominations, provided they have a rationale (which is usually the case of Fotoriety's votes). I also used to oppose a lot at FPC and I wonder why I wasn't blocked for it! Please correct the obvious mistake and unblock the user with apologies... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I find this very confusing. Is there a single vote by Fotoriety that can be described as unfounded? I only see two votes by him in the current list of FPs, and both are not the first opposes on the respective picture, both include a reason and both seem fair and reasonable (whether or not you agree with them). What he does is not only within the rules, it's actually a positive contribution. In any voting process, reducing the number of promotions cannot be inherently less valuable than increasing it, as both are necessary. — Julian H. 13:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I unblocked Fotoriety as per the opinions of A.Savin, Colin, The Photographer, Alvesgaspar, and Julian H. above. Further issues should be discussed on Fotoriety's talk page, and/or on COM:AN/U. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. I do not disagree with you on the unblock. Please see this diff where an apology was given and also a request for chill time. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrators should take care to apply Blocking policy as stated, or to discuss "edge" cases where soft terms like "hostile environment for another user" are being interpreted to apply to votes which are probably not targeted at anyone specifically. If some good new types of block scenario arise, it would be smart to propose these are added to the list in the policy.

This is not a good case to hang a precedent on for reasons expressed above by others. However I would like to highlight that using "faggy little wanker" (diff) even when not directed at other editors, is not acceptable as it risks normalizing casual use of offensive anti-LGBT language on Wikimedia projects. If further actions are taken on this account, it would be healthy to see that this is made unambiguously clear. Thanks -- (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ellin, do we have any evidence that the IP editing his page is actually Fotoriety? The comments look very much like someone taking the piss out of both Ellin and Fotoriety. If it really is him, the admission that "I have a shitload of socks here and on Wikipedia" is enough to restore the block permanently. I thought a blocked user could edit their own page unless that was specifically locked down due to abuse. User:RP88, does your protection allow the real Fotoriety user to edit his page? So I'd rather hear directly from this account than some random IP before concluding anything. I totally agree with that "offensive anti-LGBT language on Wikimedia projects" is unacceptable. If this is Fotoriety, he's got some explaining to do. -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I am certain the IP edits mentioned by Ellin and Fae were not by Fotoriety. Those edits were from some joker editing via IP addresses of open proxies routinely used for forum spam. At no time did I block Fotoriety, he was, and still is, able to edit his talk page using his own account. The only block I applied was a 24-hour block on IP edits to Fotoriety's talk page, since the IP editor was just hopping from one proxy to the next. —RP88 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting the potential for this being a Joe job. For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if Fotoriety could confirm whether the logged out edits were theirs. Joe jobs are highly disruptive, and I sympathize with anyone targeted this way. -- (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
First, I'd like to thank every level-headed, intelligent person above who supported my unblocking , especially Colin, Julian, A.Savin, Alvesgaspar, The Photographer and Yann; i was just as flabbergasted as some of you. Also, i would like an apology from Ellin Beltz, not only to show that she is truly sorry but also to show that she has acknowledged, symbolically, that she accepts and has learnt from her erroneous way. (I too am sorry if my language caused offense.) Lastly, i strongly condemn whoever made those IP edits discussed above. It could be a sore loser involved with this whole blocking saga, or it could just be a troll, but it certainly isn't me. Thanks.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone: @RP88I appreciate the suggestion about the possibility of a "Joe job". Thank you for pointing out that the language on talk page posts was disturbing and for sympathy for anyone targeted by computer trolling. Thank you Yann again (as above) for the unblock and the caution to Fotoriety about personal remarks/attacks on the unblock on the latter's talk page. The new statement Ellin Beltz should be strongly reprimanded for her reckless, high-handed unilateral action which was made at the very least under severe incompetence and at worst under malicious intent is missingCOM:AGF ,diff. I have no way to know who created the offline message/s, but the foregoing appears to have been created by the user. I do not see confirmation about the logged out posts yet. My concern about harshness continues. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, i have issued an apology; now, will you return the courtesy?--Fotoriety (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Fotoriety, I do not see any apology for the comment quoted above, would you be so kind as to provide a link? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, I worry for the implications of this response; i will be on alert.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Almost all of SourabhSyal1's uploads are picked up from The site does not give credit to SourabhSyal1 as creator as claimed. The blog copies copyrighted images like [1]. Request mass deletion of all files uploaded by the user.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I checked a few and speedied all. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gurumayum Arvind[edit]

This user didn't learn from blocking and reuploads previously deleted copyvios. Please check. -- Ies (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by EugeneZelenko. Alan (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC) and bulk category changes[edit]

Bulk manual edits to replace the more specific "trucks by year" categories with the less specific "automobiles by year" cats, e.g. [2]. No response when asked to discuss this at talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sort by name of files[edit]


I need to sort the file list of uploads by a name, not by the date. Who can add a configuration? --Cherus (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cherus, I'm trying to understand this. In other words, a full list of all files in alphabetical order by filename? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ːˑSee image. --Cherus (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to the listing at Special:AllMyUploads, which I don’t believe is sortable. About all I can think of as an on-wiki workaround, @Cherus, is to create a user category for your uploads, which will sort alphabetically, and where you can also use your own system of sort-keys if you wish. If I, too, fail to understand the question, please clarify.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The prefixes in the categoriesǃ[edit]

We know that in the categories of downloaded files are placed and sorted alphabetically, but some files at the beginning of names have a prefix (Ru, De, Kz, etc.). We must to add in the settings of that categorization the automatic exclusion consoles for separating files alphabetically without those prefixes. Also, at the tag PAGENAME needs to provide same adds for the removal of that extensions and attachments. For exampleː FileːRu-leave name.ogg --> PAGENAME show all of this name, but(ǃ) if it possible, to program in the PAGENAME|FileːRu-leave name.ogg, it would be great for everyone. --Cherus (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This board isn’t the best place to ask such questions; it’s supposed to be for problems with user conduct. MediaWiki software issues are altogether beyond the purview of this site, although there are knowledgeable users who follow the Village Pump and Help Desk noticeboards, and may have suggestions of how to use the available features or to request improvements at mw:Phabricator, where the developers hang out.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

̈ Ok. Thanks --Cherus (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Despite repeated warnings, Gattolio9998 continues uploading images from many web pages, without the slightest respect for copyright. It is not the first time he does and has received many warnings. I ask the administrator who attend this request to consider the application of a block. Regards, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)