Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
introduction
Help desk
uploading
Village pump
copyrightproposals
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 legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[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.

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, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
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
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)



Corrupted or infected files

A local copy of File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_-_Nachtwacht_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg image have been reported has containing the following vulnerability : http://www.iss.net/security_center/reference/vuln/JPEG_Oversized_DC_Table.htm . Please check if the online one is also compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenage (talk • contribs)

Russavia

Hi all, user Russavia, who was blocked by the WMF, is contacting people in a structural way with this misleading text "redacting text which Jcb received no authorisation from myself to post" - People agree, thinking that they only give permission for usage at Wikipedia, and then Russavia creates some sockpuppet to upload the files and to make a template, e.g. Template:KurtFinger. We recently received a complaint by somebody who felt misled by us, where it was actually Russavia who misled them, see Template:PeterBakema.

This cannot continue this way, Russavia keeps contacting and misleading people in our name. I propose that for any new ticket in this series we delete the files and the template and that if we also received a reply from the photographer that we inform them that we do not cooperate with any action of Russavia. Any ideas? Jcb (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fine with that. Contacting the WMF might be useful, just in case. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Frankly, the quoted text is not strictly misleading: Indeed, if photographers relicense their work with CC-BY-SA, it can then be uploaded to Commons and used in Wikipedia. There is no sneaky lawyer trick here, although I would have added a sentence as to warn photographers that said license does release their work to wide use and reuse. But of course people should read legal texts before commiting to/through them. This also prompts me to ruminate over two things:
  1. Hopefully this case will allow similar language to be banished from all WMF platforms and campaigns. It could spell the end for brainless things like «This arcticle needs a photo! Snap one now and add it!» or «Lets take a gazzilion pics of monuments/trees/cheese, flood Commons with then, and be ellegibl to win a prize!»… (Nah, who am I kidding — those things are the future, granted!)
  2. I was not a big fan of Russavia when he was around, and some of the stuff he made after the banning was frankly in very bad form, but… boy! — his haters’ club sure seems to harbour quite a bunch of vengeful nitpickers.
-- Tuválkin 19:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestion implying that Russavia is welcome here is as far from the truth as possible. He is unwelcome here independent of whatever WMF says at this point. That discussion had a conclusive consensus already. If you want to criticize IEG grants, this discussion is the worst place to do it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sigh... I cannot even begin to imagine what he is thinking. He has made so much effort to prove why he should not be welcome here. I think we should not let that effort go to waste and make sure he is unwelcome here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely troubled by the Template:KurtFinger. It contains the text "This permission only extends to photos taken by Kurt Finger at this link and link" and then follows the standard CC4 licence tag. But those links are database queries so return all photos by that author at airliners.net and panoramio. Wow! As a query, this includes photos currently on those sites and any future photo the photographer might upload. Ever. I guess this is part of the problem with Template:PeterBakema. That's absolutely unacceptable. Our image description pages should have per-image permission, and the use of a database search as the scope of any permission should be banned. Could one of Russavia's friends please ask him to stop doing this. And some other Admins need to delete or rewrite those templates. Much of the issues with licences and permissions would be resolved if Russavia had persuaded photographers to join and upload to Commons directly. But I guess doing that is too much to ask of such a huge ego. It is always best if the Community can engage with the creator, whether this is about licence conditions or categorisation or simply fixing up flaws in the image. Commons simply doesn't work if the licence terms of an image are in doubt, and we are on very dodgy ground indeed if a WMF global banned user is acting as an "official" go-between and uploader. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If the permission covers this then all is fine. If the permission is revoked the license is still valid for images uploaded up to the revoke date.--Denniss (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Any one of us can talk with the person in question. Feel free to contact the license holder if you like. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The whole point of a free license is that I shouldn't have to contact the copyright owner, and need to trust that the license offered is genuine. Instead we have a licence tag template created by a banned user, who misleads the photographer about his status on this website, who uploads the image in contravention of the Terms of Use of the website (which doesn't permit him to edit or upload here), and a template tag that looks like a "rights grab". Instead, if the photographer had got an account here and uploaded the image themselves, any issues with the licence could be resolved directly. How soon before Commons appears on PetaPixel because some photographer says they were scammed by a banned user, who the Community knowingly permitted. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed. This is why users here should behave in a manner that shouldn't get them banned if they care about the project at all. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (EC)Yes, that's why I propose to stop accepting these release. However, like Denniss states above, the files that have been uploaded still have a valid permission. I don't think we should remove them. For new cases, I think we should invite the photographers to upload the files themselves directly to Wikimedia Commons. (and of course not at www.aviationcommons.org, the personal website of Russavia). Jcb (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems very much that my fears were correct. Russavia has asked for permission for existing photos from users, and has then created a template that performs a "rights grab" of all future photos. I do not claim this was done out of malice, merely incompetence. No photographer would create such a template, as it gives away far too much. We end up with the mess linked above where the template now warns users that permission has been revoked and adding doubt as to what is legal to reuse. In addition, he has failed as a go-between when explaining licence terms. There may well be OTRS failings, but the issues would be an order of magnitude less of an issue if the photographer had been persuaded to upload images themselves. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not much interested to comment about a user as the ANU thread is archived without any closing note. It seems all of our admins hesitate touch that case. :) But the wording in such templates are leaking as Colin pointed out. See for example, this file. Now the permission is valid as we have alive link to the source at Panoramio. But what happen when we miss that source? I didn't see a License Review like mechanism in that file page stating that a bot/admin/reviewer verified that the file is available in Panoramio in a particular date. Or, am I miss something? Jee 03:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO Russavia is not welcome here only because he is banned from editing the WMF wiki's by the WMF. We can't do anything about that. But saying he is not welcome here is a stretch and not really accurate. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well that's clearly not true. There are a just handful of editors who persist in claiming support for Russavia, that is all. The rest are either not interested, or are not at all surprised by his global ban. If you'd seen the foul-mouthed and abusive posts made here, you wouldn't be surprised either. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, it would be extremely backwards for a free knowledge project to try to discourage someone from spreading the word about free licenses. Anyway, we can't control what a blocked user says outside our wikis; it's way easier to control external activities of someone who isn't blocked (conclusion left as an exercise to the reader). As for disputes over OTRS permissions, the solution is always to make things as public as possible: it makes little sense to have public licenses declared in private documents and there is little excuse for anything first published on the web to use OTRS instead of a statement on the original website: Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? should be fixed to discourage OTRS licensing as much as possible. --Nemo 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed. The photographer can easily mention a license here if he wish. Here it seems people misunderstand that the permission given through OTRS is limited to on-wiki use. If that is true, we need to educate people and discourage OTRS permissions whenever a publicly visible and transparent permission is possible. Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Evasion of blocks

According to the log, the user is blocked in Commons. So the edits [1], [2] and User_talk:Denniss#My_talk_page are evasion of blocks and need to be handled by admins per Commons:Blocking_policy. Jee 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The block was never decided upon by other admins so it honestly does not count as a block especially by an admin who is biased towards russavia...this thread is about russavia so not allowing russavia to post here is the same as talking behind someone's back..let the communtiy decide fora change? looks like every thing than happens on commons nowadays is either the WMF using their long arm or the admins bickering amongst themselves...--Stemoc 05:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not "talking behind someone's back" because Russavia clearly reads this page. Russavia is welcome to contact one of his many friends if he has feedback, and those friends may post appropriate information here. By that, I do not mean acting as a meatpuppet and copy/paste the abusive text verbatim, but to post only what is pertinent to the functioning of Commons and in a way that deals with the images we host/etc rather than about other users. Russavia has lost his ability to comment on other users here since is is no longer part of this Community. There is absolutely zero reason for any banned editor to be permitted to abuse users on this site. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

On Russavia editing here

Any editor or admin restoring text added by Russavia to this page will be reported to WMF, who will take a dim view of your actions. This user is not permitted to edit here, under the Terms of Use we all agree to every time we press the "Save page" button. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that intimidating users into silence / submission is appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
He's not a "User:" here any longer. Get over it. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe in trial in absentia. Russavia has also demonstrated that he's in possession of key information, and that information can be valuable in the community making an informed decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are beating a dead horse... Yann (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If Colin wants to be a tattle tale and go run to the WMF about stuff that happens here that is a problem that needs to be addressed IMO. The WMF doesn't generally involve themselves in Wiki business so we shouldn't involve ourselves in theirs unless there is some reason to change that. If the WMF wants to take action that's their decision. But we don't need to start running to them every time someone makes an edit. I have not seen any indication that the edits being done do not improve the project so IMO if someone is willing to vouch that the change being made is an improvement, then that is more important than who suggests that the change be done. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, which part of "You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists" do you not understand? I can accept that some of Russavia's friends don't personally want to go deleting his edits. But restoring his deleted foul-mouthed rants to the Admin noticeboard is a step too far. Every editor is responsible for all edits they may to this site, whether their own original words or restoring the edits of others. Any editor restoring the edits/content of a WMF globally banned user is on seriously thin ice, and should re-examine the Terms of Use they are editing under. It's not hard to understand. In this modern age, I believe there are countless means of communication between individuals, and any vital information that Russavia wishes to convey can be done so without him actually editing this wiki. Since most of what Russavia wishes to say involves insulting people he doesn't like, I think we could all do without that. Russavia has amply demonstrated, on this noticeboard, why he is banned, and why the community is better off without such ill-tempered individuals. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the way I see it is that a minority of individuals with a problem with him, mostly on ENWP and most likely as a result of the Jimbo Painting, convinced the WMF to ban him. Its not an issue of "his friends", its a vocal minority of the community. As I said, if I make an edit for anyone, banned or otherwise, its because I have identified it as being an improvement or a positive contribution. I assume others feel the same way. If someone comes to me with an improvement and its reasonable once I review it, then I am going to make it. If the WMF has a problem with improvements being made than thats a bigger problem outside the scope of this discussion. I cannot do anything about him being banned, what I and others can do is review suggestions for improvement and make them if they are an improvement. What is a problem to me is for one or 2 editors to go tattling to mommy and daddy everytime an edit is made that looks like its the result of some banned editor. If its an improvement, then let it go. Reguyla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll ignore your ridiculous speculation on the ban; it isn't relevant. You talk of "improvement" but Michaeldsuarez restored Russavia's comments simply because he wished to give Russavia a voice on this site. That isn't permissible. Anyone wishing to post information they've received from Russavia should do so in their own words and take full responsibility for them. If you post insults and offensive language and emails for which no permission has been obtained (as occurred the other day) then that's blockable no matter whether you are restoring an edit or writing yourself. You can try all you like to paint an imaginary world where we permit "improvement" edits by Russavia on this site. The fact remains that he must not edit this site and any editor permitting him to do so (e.g. by restoring deleted edits, or adding verbatim text on his behalf) is quite likely to find themselves also banned. You don't seriously think there's any other interpretation of "You accordingly may not " that says "but, of course, you can do all these things if Michaeldsuarez/Regula/whoever makes/restores the edits for you". He's banned and may not edit here. Move along. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, had you seen the rev deleted contents posted by that "user"? I think you will not comment this way if you ever saw them. This is not about WMF ban. The fact is that he is blocked here now. We have an established procedure to appeal, and Commons:Blocking_policy very clear on it. Please check how other indefed users are handled. (Further, Odder already stated in his talk page that there is a discussion between WMF and OVs. So he can appeal to the OVs than socking here.) Jee 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course I am not aware of oversighted information and I am not claiming Russavia is perfect, he has his problems too. What I m saying is that its ridiculous and childish for us to turn on each other and go run to the WMF every time someone makes an improvement to this project that was suggested by him. I have to admit I am sympathetic somewhat to his situation being inappropriately and unfairly banned on another project myself. I am also not talking about comments but about actual improvements. I think Colin has taken an unhealthy interest in his blind ambition to his this apparent self appointed mission of attacking anyone he sees that associates in any way to Russavia. If anyone needs to move along here, its him. Russavia is banned and by the WMF, so the Commons:Blocking_policy doesn't even apply. He cannot appeal it and unless the WMF is willing to unban him there is no reason for him not to edit around it or whatever. Its one of the significant drawbacks of the WMF bans, they are no return so its like backing an animal into a corner, they might as well fight because they have nothing to lose at that point. So again if the WMF wants to police his edits then let them do it. They don't police our bans, we shouldn't police theirs. Reguyla (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You missed the current status which is a local block with a reason. Jee 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean the one from Yann, stating intimidation and harassment? Yann, who has consistently argued about how horrible Russavia was and how we need to go out of our way to block him? Where was the discussion about the block? What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless. All that block does is give a few people here, who want more reason to go after him, additional justification for conflict and disruption. We are making way, way more out of this than there should be. Does anyone really think this will help? I hope not because it will almost certainly make things worse. Its a WMF problem, let them deal with it if they want. We should be focused on improving the content on this project, not holding daily/weekly/monthly discussions about how best to deal with Russavia when its obvious he can literally evade his ban forever without much effort. Are we really going to discuss this every day forever? Maybe we should assign a couple admins or checkusers to just sit and watch for signs or Russ! Reguyla (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"What's the point, he is already WMF banned, us blocking him is pointless." That's why many people here believe the wmf ban should be enforced here. Some other people (incl. you) argued that wmf ban has no effect here. So now he is double blocked/banned. And a local block can be lifted if there is clear consensus for it (per Commons:Blocking_policy: "To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block."). But a block don't need it; so what Yann did stands. ;) Jee 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I never said the WMF ban has no effect here. It does have an effect, it supercedes the community and is out of our control. As such, its not our responsibility to police it any more than the WMF policies our site bans. If people want to spend all their editing time chasing after Russavia then its their time and I guess they can do that. Personally though, the WMF generally hasn't shown any interest in helping the communities outside keeping the servers running even when asked to help out so I don't think its our responsibility to clean up their mess. They created the monster, let them call Van Helsing and fight it. Oh a double block, that's a big deal! Us adding a local block amounts to a local county charging someone an additional convenience fee for not paying federal taxes. Its pointless and has precisely Zero effect or meaning. The WMF ban supercedes anything we can do here. We cannot unblock him, we cannot know why he is blocked and we cannot block him, its part of how the WMF bans work and the positives and negatives that go with it. Make no mistake, the WMF isn't doing this ban for the community, they are doing it for the WMF and for a couple of advocates that want him gone and have for a long time including people from other projects and Jimbo. Reguyla (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, you are simply trolling. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin that's bullshit and you know it. I am not trolling. I disagree with you, its not the same and it doesn't mean I am trolling. You need to stop accusing and bullying people just because they disagree, you have a habit of doing that and that conduct is unacceptable and hinders a collaborative environment. If you don't like what I am saying or disagree, that's fine, but don't accuse me of trolling because that is just a lie, I take offense at it and I don't need you telling me I am trolling. People like you are the reason that the WMF projects are in decline and are such a toxic place. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, they are trolls and they are disruptions. The bottom line is, the WMF blocked Russavia, it is not our problem. We do not need to get involved, we do not need to police their actions. They do not need us too and we do not need them to monitor our bans and blocks. Period! Now, any admin should tell you to retract that accusation of trolling and apologize but I doubt that's going to happen because you are talking to me, because I am only an editor and because admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them, their pet projects or their POV. But that is a bigger problem that needs WMF attention and is outside the scope of this discussion Reguyla (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Troll: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The original topic of this post concerns a banned user pretending to be a Wikipedia/Commons editor and misleading photographers, not only about his status on this site, but possibly also about the licence release they are making. This banned user then sockpuppets to create a template that claims an enduring authorisation for CC permission for any photo from a given website forever. These are not good things. But the issue of what editors-who-are-not-banned should do about it is derailed by the banned user then posting offensive messages and emails for which he has no permission to this page (which would get any one of us blocked) and then edit warring to retain it. This edit warring was then compounded by Michaeldsuarez helping Russavia restore the offensive text. That's the topic, for which you have nothing to add. I repeat. You are trolling. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you for that accurate description of trolling from ENWP. So, you started this section of this discussion, you posted inflammatory statements directed at me being a troll, you are derailing this discussion with off topic discussions, you are continuing this discussion with the "deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response" from me, which you have. So basically, you are accusing yourself as trolling. Thanks for making my point rather than yours. If you don't want to have a discussion about a topic and have no intention of listening to other peoples viewpoints, then don't start the discussion and just do whatever it is you want to do. But don't accuse people of trolling and insult them because they don't share your viewpoints. Its unprofessional and childish. Reguyla (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Reguyla you are two days late and completely missing the context. The context was an ongoing edit war involving Russavia supported by Michaeldsuarez. Reguyla, nobody, absolutely nobody, in this particular topic, needs to have a conversation about the fairness of the Russvia block, your unfair blocks on Wikipedia and how all admins are crap and how WMF is evil. There are other things being discussed here, of which you seem to have nothing useful to say. Hence the complaint of trolling. Which stands. Please find something else to do: nobody on Commons cares about your treatment on Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to win any friends by posting "admins in the WMF projects don't give a F!!! as long as it doesn't affect them" on the Admin Noticeboard. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Colin, what are you even talking about. None of what you said even makes any sense and doesn't pertain to anything in this discussion. I didn't mention anything about admins that I don't think is true and not until you started insulting me as and antagonizing the situation by calling me a troll. I also really didn't mention the fairness of any blocks other than indirectly stating I know how it feels. Again, just because I disagree with you doesn't make it trolling and again, this tag teaming that you and Yann do in discussions is ridiculous as I have mentioned before. Your trying to derail this discussion to win your side and that's all their is too it. I am not even on any side. You make some valid points. My point is that whether we block Russavia here locally is pointless. He is already WMF banned so it has zero effect. My other point is that the WMF should handle their own business. If they want to ban someone without input or consultation with this community then they need to handle the details of his block. They don't do anything with our blocks and bans, we shouldn't need to deal with theirs. All this cross talk and finger pointing is just a waste of everyone's time and your baseless accusations of me trolling just show that you don't have any desire to hear anyone's views other than your own. Russavia is banned, fair or not and the WMF isn't going to undo that. We can't do anything about it and its doubtful anything we do, block or not is going to make Russavia stop participating. We need to stop creating new discussions about him every damn week because that's all we are doing on this site is discussing how to resolve an unresolvable situation. Again, the WMF created this problem, let them deal with it. The more you attack people, the more they are going to retaliate. All you are doing is creating drama and making sure that Russavia goes out of his way to create accounts and edits by unnecessarily antagonizing the situation. Just like the song on the movie Frozen. Let it go, let it goooo! Reguyla (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You really, really, haven't read or understood what this original AN post was about. It wasn't some random rant about Russavia, but a particular ongoing issue we are having with this user. It is ongoing because he continues to evade his block, continues to pretend to be a regular editor here, continues to create problematic "licence" templates... You aren't interested in solving the licence problems this causes. Unlike you, I actually commented on that issue. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And again, you assume wrong. I read every word of it and fully understand what its about. I even agree that there is validity to it and that Russavia is pushing his luck. I also think that there was validity to the other weekly discussions which also led too....no where. Just as this one will lead too....no where. He is not going to stop evading his block just because we double block, triple block or tie knots around his userpage. Do you really think this new block is somehow going to magically make him stop contributing? I didn't comment on that issue because I am not as familiar with license stuff yet. I'm still learning the commons stuff. What I did comment on was this new discussion, about the same topic that we have discussed over and over and over when you needlessly called me a troll because I think we are wasting our time talking about the same unsolvable issues all the time when the WMF is the one that should be dealing with it instead of kicking the chair out of the way and leaving us standing when the music stops. Again, they created the Russavia mess with their super duper global WMF ban. Where are they now? I don't see them here dealing with this do you? Reguyla (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Commons users are being abused by an banned user posted by IP ("wikimuppets" and "nameless dipshits") who is now edit warring to restore this abuse on this page. Hey folks! This is the Admin noticeboard! Do some adminy stuff! -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think running around like headless chickens really helps. Since I have no idea why Russavia is banned (or rather I have a suspicion that its for something trivial) I would be inclined to leave all that to WMF. Rich Farmbrough, 04:09 27 August 2015 (GMT).
Rich, I guess you didn't see the posts that were repeated inserted by an IP (Russavia) the other day. If you or I had posted them, we'd be sitting out a block right now. But that option isn't available since -- he's already blocked -- so all we can do is revert/protect. Continued speculation on whether Russavia's ban is unjustified is getting boring and not relevant to the issue. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's the "I" part of BRI that seems to be escaping everyone. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45 27 August 2015 (GMT).

Self-image deletion request

File:रामा.jpg. I had de-linked it from my userpages and thought someone will propose it for deletion sooner or later, but it is still there. I request you to please delete that file. (I have forgotten password of that account but it is easy to prove that it is me by uploading million selfies. But it should not be necessary.) Thank you. Ikshvaaku (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletions of non-copyvio images

Moved to COM:AN/U. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Pius XII.jpg

Plaese check File:Pius XII.jpg. Hardly "Own work"? (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PiusXII12.jpg). --RicHard-59 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

flickr photographers categories

Categories of flickr photographers are among the main category tree, commons photographers categories may not be. Is that correct? Where is the equality? --Jean11 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jean11: Category:Photographers on Wikimedia Commons is at the same level in Category:Photographers by web site --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer, thank you. --Jean11 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)