Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help		   Village Pump
copyright • proposals		   Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections		  
Administrator's assistance

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
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, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

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.
  • 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.


Bobyr, Bobyrr, and pictures of Uzbekistan[edit]

User:Bobyr is nominating numerous pictures of buildings in Uzbekistan for deletion, citing the reason that he/she has uploaded more recent ones. Note that the new images have actually been uploaded by the alternate account User:Bobyrr. The new pictures are in most cases of lower quality, and are in many cases showing the building on a different angle. Note also that User:Bobyr is spamming across Wikipedia projects, replacing decent pictures by pictures uploaded by him/her. For instance, look at the global usage of File:Registan square2014.JPG: it has generally been placed by this user without explanation, replacing arguably better pictures. Another case is the recurrent changes made by IPs to the w:Registan article, without explanation, replacing all pictures by a poorer quality set uploaded by User:Bobyrr. I have semi-protected the article as a consequence. A user has already addressed the issue on his/her talk page, but replies are only in Russian and seem to miss the point. Olivier (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that these deletion requests are all invalid, but hopefully explaining the COM:SCOPE of Commons may help the Bobyr(r) understand why they are invalid. I have also posted a message on Bobyr's talk page, alerting them to this discussion. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I talked about these massive delation requests on bobyr's talkpage and I rather agree with ColonialGrid--Faqscl (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • У меня вопрос как Вы определяете качество фото? И лучшее фото? Что касается Регистана - то в 2014 году был осуществлен ремонт площади (http://rus.ozodi.org/content/article/25367953.html). Угол съемки может быть разный, главное показать архитектуру памятника. Участник Bobyr и Bobyrr это обе мои страницы. Одна глобальная в рус. вики другая в commons. (My question is how do you determine the quality of the photo? And the best photo? With regard to the Registan - that in 2014 was carried out the repair area. The camera angle can be different, the main thing to show the architecture of the monument. Member Bobyr and Bobyrr is both my page. One global in Russian. Wiki in other commons.)--Bobyr (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Argueing about a slippery topic such as photographic quality (especially across a considerable language barrier) is probably useless, and discussing which photo better suits a particular article is best done in that article’s talk page. Here in Commons the only thing that needs fixing is speedy closing of those DRs and clearly warn Bobyr/Bobyrr about Commons’ scope: Last year:’s photos are as valuable as this year’s, as are photos of construction phases versus those of finished works; and of course that Commons is supposed to include files which have been replaced in specific articles. If this user’s naïveté turns out to be spammery instead, then a block should be effective. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Языковой барьер не проблема. Значит с качеством моих фото мы разобрались. Теперь скажите вот такие фото могут ли отражать качество фото и саму архитектуру памятника - Bib Khanum Mosque Samarkand.jpg, Samarqand Bibi Khanum Mausoleum.jpg, Bibi Khonym Mosque.jpg? Это серия MASamarkandRegistan1.jpg, Rajasthan Panorama.jpg, Registan - Gusjer.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005-2.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005.jpg, Registan Complex (8145371129).jpg, Registan DP.jpg, Registan samarkand steve evans 10 2005.jpg, Registan Samarkand Uzbekistan.JPG, Registan Samarkand.jpg, Registan square Samarkand.jpg, Registan sunset.jpg, RegistanSquare Samarkand.jpg, Samarcand 3770a.jpg, Samarkand-uzbekistan-feve.jpg, Samarkand.jpg, Samarkand4.jpg, Samarqand Registan 2006.jpg, Stans08-241 (3134185551).jpg, Stans08-242 (3134186189).jpg, Stans08-243 (3135008052).jpg, Stans08-249 (3135012278).jpg, The Registan, Samarkand (489184).jpg, Gur Emir 2006 A.jpg, Gur Emir 2006-2.png, Gur Emir 2006.jpg, из почти одинаковых фото – тоже должна остаться? А этот компаст - Benutzer:Ziegler175/Bilder Mittelasien. Во общем раз в 10 лет надо проводить чистку фото. (The language barrier is not a problem. So the quality of my photos we understand. Now here are the photos tell whether reflect the quality of the photo and the very architecture of the monument? This is a series of almost identical pictures - too should stay? And this kompast?. In general, once in 10 years it is necessary to purge the photo. --Bobyr (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We do not editorialise about the use or quality of images, so long as the image has some educational value, and is of usable quality it is considered to be within COM:SCOPE; files that are within scope and properly licensed are kept (except in specific circumstances that do not relate to this situation). Only exact duplicates are deleted, not similar images of the same topic. Your last sentence is nonsensical, by that logic all the historic photos the world has should have been deleted 10 years after being made; that is not true, old images are of use and should be retained. You really need to look over COM:SCOPE and COM:D to find out more about the policies relating to the purpose of Commons, and when and why we delete files. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ладно, пусть остаются, но прошу удалить так называемые дубликаты и фото не отражающие памятник. Вот два моих фото: File:Registan square2013.JPG, File:Registan square.jpg сделаны для сравнения как выглядела площадь в прошлом году и сегодня. (Okay, let them stay, but please remove the so-called duplicates and photos do not reflect the monument. Here are two of my photos made to compare the area looked like in the past, and today.)--Bobyr (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Only images which are exact duplicates should be deleted. Photos that are in scope should be kept; could you please explain what 'reflect the monument' means? And, could you please list the duplicates here? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Думаю эти фото надо удалить как дубликат (I think these photos should be removed as a duplicate): Samarqand Bibi Khanum Mausoleum.jpg, Bibi Khonym Mosque.jpg, MASamarkandRegistan1.jpg, MASamarkandRegistan2.jpg, Rajasthan Panorama.jpg, Registan - Gusjer.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005-2.jpg, Registan - Samarkand - 15-10-2005.jpg, Registan DP.jpg, Registan samarkand steve evans 10 2005.jpg, Registan Samarkand Uzbekistan.JPG, Registan square Samarkand.jpg, Registan sunset.jpg, RegistanSquare Samarkand.jpg, Samarcand 3770a.jpg, Samarkand-uzbekistan-feve.jpg, Samarkand.jpg, Samarkand4.jpg, Samarqand Registan 2006.jpg, Stans08-241 (3134185551).jpg, Stans08-242 (3134186189).jpg, Stans08-243 (3135008052).jpg, Stans08-249 (3135012278).jpg, Gur Emir 2006 A.jpg, Gur Emir 2006-2.png, Gur Emir 2006.jpg. Эти оставить (This leave): Registan Samarkand.jpg,Registan Complex (8145371129).jpg, The Registan, Samarkand (489184).jpg. --Bobyr (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ну, что ж давайте найдем 5 различий на этих фото File:Registan - Gusjer.jpg и File:Registan square.jpg. Подскажу 1 пол (брусчатка и трибуна), 2 лестница, 3 скамейка, 4... и 5... За вами. Well, then let's find the 5 differences in these photos. Prompt 1 old gender (pavement, tribune), 2 stairs, bench 3, 4 and 5 ... ... For you. --Bobyr (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The clouds are different; the colour of the sky is different; the colours are different; the resolution is different; the framing is differnt; one doesn't have another image attached to it; there is a fence visible in one; one is straight. Would you like me to go on? They are clearly different images. They are both properly licensed and have educational value, therefore both are within COM:SCOPE. I will reiterate: only exact duplicate (ie, images that are exactly the same, without any difference) are deleted through the duplicate provision. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand, your requests are invalid. All the photos you just listed are different. Can you please clearly write which files are direct exact duplicates of others? Those are the only photos that may be deleted. Can you please acknowledge that you understand that files which are similar, but not exact duplicates (and appropriately licensed) will be considered to be in COM:SCOPE and therefore be kept? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Я уже писал выше (I wrote above)--Bobyr (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think at this point we have a language barrier compounding this problem. Can a Russian speaker please try to explain why these nominations are invalid, and get Bobyr to clearly show which files are exact duplicates? I also think enough discussion has passed for all of these delete nominations to be closed as kept, unless any can be shown to be exact duplicates. ColonialGrid (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • All of these photos are of the same subject, but are different photos. I do not know how I can say this any simpler: we keep all images that are different (in even the most minor ways) from other photos. Can a Russian speaker please explain this to Bobyr? I am clearly not able to articulate it properly. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Я и вижу, что тут находятся куча одинаковых фото. Все же надо удалить повторяющиеся, ну или. В фонде останется 5 фото. И надо бы заменить старые вид площади на новый вид. Надеюсь, что в следующем году кто-то сделает новые фото площади. (I see that there are a bunch of identical photo. Still need remove duplicate this or. The fund will be 5 photo. And it would be necessary to replace the old look of the square on a new look. I hope that next year someone will make new photos of the area.)--Bobyr (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Они не одинаковые и не повторяющиеся. Они отличаются освещением, размером, разрешением, деталями и массой других вещей. Поэтому старые фото никто никогда здесь не удаляет, и Ваши запросы никакой перспективы не имеют, их все закроют как безосновательные.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobyr/Bobyrr's categorisation[edit]

  • Boryr(r) seems to have categorised many images into what at face value appears to be a good tree, but is actually a web of 'user categories', see here: Category:Temples of Uzbekistan. I suggest that all of the hidden tags, user cat tags, and category descriptions be removed, with the categories and files being properly incorporated into Category:Churches in Uzbekistan. If Bobyr(r) wants to keep their user cats, they should have ownership attributed in the category name, not through a description. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Смотри. Все категории стоят в статьях о храмах. Look Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Uzbekistan. All categories are articles about temples ruwiki:Храм Николая Чудотворца (Каган), Template:Ruwiki:Шаблон:Ташкентская епархия --Bobyr (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I've sorted all these cats and files into a proper tree. ColonialGrid (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of trust by Trijnstel[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Everybody seems to have cooled down, and let us leave drama for the Dutch Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is with much regret that I bring this here. Following on from User_talk:Trijnstel#Serious_issue_which_needs_your_immediate_attention, I have asked Trijnstel to provide reasoning for supplying files which were deleted for reasons of privacy to editors who weren't otherwise able to see them.

As a Check User here on Commons, Trijnstel is entrusted by this community to hold the tools and to comply with the privacy policy, and to keep information which is private private. By supplying the photographs that were deleted by myself, and were clearly deleted for privacy reasons, to another editor is a gross breach of the trust that this community has placed in her. Upon learning of the gross abuse of the trust placed in her, I organised for the images to be oversighted; she still has access to them as a Steward, and I would expect there to be consequences there too.

Over the last 48 hours, Trijnstel has avoided answering the questions asked of her, although she has edited on Commons and on nl.wp, and she has been very active on IRC. Avoiding questions being asked will not make the issue go away, but because of the severity of the abuse of trust and the lack of response on what is a very serious issue, it is my intent to start a joint de-admin/de-CU discussion, as Trijnstel simply can not be trusted any longer to hold these tools which require the highest possible respect for others privacy. I, sincerely, do not see any other possibility in this situation. russavia (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how all trusted users on Commons should keep the Photographs of identifiable people in the highest regard, this does require a clear answer from Trijnstel, preferably avoiding the finger-pointing of background politics and whatever "norms" are on other projects or on OTRS. --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Fae, et al, sorry I should clarify that the request for their removal was not made via OTRS; but rather via private discussion with the person on IRC. So whilst this isn't an OTRS issue, it may have OTRS implications I guess. russavia (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it serves our project to reopen this drama. We have dealt with the willfull offenders and I think that should be sufficient. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia, Please stop framing people and please stop this vendetta/witch hunt. You are really pushing this way too far. And for what? Another game? And much regret? Please... And they where deleted for com:IDENT and not because they were a clear privacy violation. I believe that the "portretrecht" is misinterpreted but a courtesy deletion was fine of course though don't blow this out of proportions. The real privacy violation is done by you, Russavia, by publishing a private email conversation plus somebody's private email and you created a massive Streisand effect. Plus MoiraMoira, the alleged victim doesn't even have any problems with it like she said here. She does has problems with your privacy violation though. So how about you dropping the stick and start behaving yourself properly. In the end it is you who broke Commons and you still continue to do so. The URAA, Pricasso, Polandball, the sock puppetry at en-wiki and a lot of other soaps. No, the only one who should resign as an admin is you, Russavia. You have harmed this project and other Wikimedia projects and it's contributors for far too long. I won't tolerate this any longer Rus, I like the good work you do but it is overshadowed with dark clouds of drama. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Asking a trusted user to provide basic accountability for their decision to take action is not a witch-hunt or a vendetta. As a courtesy Russavia raised this on Trijnstel's user talk page and waited two days for any reply before raising the matter here for consideration. In contrast, your comments, as a sysop, are full of tangential purple prose and direct threats. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: Thanks for the clarification. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Jcb: Trijnstel wields some critical trusted rights on Commons, being asked to account for their actions where they appear confusing or worrying ought to be the norm and expected governance policy, not considered personal, insulting or marginalized as drama. If, to use your word, Trijnstel used their powers "unwillfully", when presumably they could have chosen to take no action, I think that requires some evidence that the rest of us Commons volunteers can understand and does not dig up tangential stuff about "willful offenders" which should have no bearing here. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to put more oil in the fire. I can't see a abuse of trust by Trijnstel. This AN/U case is imho laughable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine as an opinion. I am exceedingly uncomfortable at the idea that Trijnstel does not have to account for their actions when asked. If there is no case to answer, then what is the problem with Trijnstel explaining exactly that for themselves rather than relying on silence until this goes away by itself? --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose any administrative action against User:Trijnstel. There does not seem to have been any reason not to trust JurgenNL at the time when the information was provided, as evidenced by the community's decision to grant the user the "viewdeleted" user right a couple of months later. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We have nothing to do here since MoiraMoira already expressed her opinion. I don't like people publishing private mails. We don't have a policy about it; but it is a very unethical practice. Jee 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Commons most certainly does have a policy about it. An email is a literary work which normally attracts the same copyright protection as any other. Unless russavia obtained Trijnstel's explicit permission to: a) translate the email into English and b) publish both the original and the English translation on her Commons talk page under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFD licences or equivalents, then his posting of those texts on that page is a blatant copyright infringement, and contravenes Commons copyright policy. And if that is the case they should be deleted forthwith. Moreover the posting of those texts was completely unnecessary for russavia to achieve his stated purpose. In the first place, Trijnstel has Commons email contact enabled, so russavia could easily have raised his concerns via that medium. In the second, Trijnstel as the author (I presume) of the allegedly offending email can be reasonably supposed to be already aware of its contents, so even if Trijnstel had not been otherwise contactable there still would have been no need to post the entire text of the body of her email on her Commons talk page. Thus, unless Trijnstel did explicitly give russavia permission to post that email, I can see no justification whatever for his doing so.
The posting of screenshots of the email to imgur, which russavia acknowledges doing in his post to Trijnstel's talk page is even worse—again, unless she has given her fully informed consent for that to be done. "Fully informed consent" here means that before agreeing to the upload of those screenshots she was told she was thereby agreeing to grant
"... imgur a non-exclusive, royalty- free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use, to display online and in any present or future media, to create derivative works of, to allow downloads of, and/or distribute"
those screenshots. I obviously can't speak for Trijnstel, but if I had been in her shoes I would never have given permission for that email to be posted on either Commons or imgur, and I would now be baying vociferously for russavia's blood (or at least for his admin bits).
David Wilson (talk · cont)
David Wilson: Noted, and forwarded to Philippe for an official opinion. Jee 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
One other thing I neglected to mention are the links russavia posted to the screenshots on imgur. Unless Trijnstel gave permission for those screenshots to be published then not only the screenshots themselves, but also any links to them are copyright infringements, and so those on her Commons talk page should also therefore be deleted.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
David J Wilson let's not allow this discussion to get off course on the real issue, which is the abuse of trust by Trijnstel by accessing and distributing photos which were clearly deleted for reasons of privacy. In any case, according to meta:Wikilegal/Copyright_Status_of_Wikipedia_Page_Histories use of copyrighted materials is allowed on our projects as fair use. Even if we don't accept fair use files, day in day out we use "fair use" on Commons to comment on issues, etc. Exposing abuse by an advanced permission holder on this project fits in with "fair use". Anyway, I hope that once Trjnstel is finished with her cross-wiki Check User duties she will see fit to explain her actions. russavia (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I categorically disagree that the way you have dealt with those emails could in any way be construed as fair use, and I regard your claim that it could be so construed as utterly absurd. If I had thought that there was the remotest possibility of its being the case I would never have raised the issue in the first place.
Also, the document you linked to is almost totally irrelevant to the issue. All it does is argue, not very convincingly in my opinion, that the inclusion of material which did constitute an infringement of copyright when it appeared on the current version of a page could be regarded as being fair use once it has been archived to the page history and no longer appears on the current version.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Russavia and JurgenNL. Russavia, you suggest that this case is of significant importance, so I would think it to be wise to get a full picture of the situation before reaching any wide-ranging conclusions. Personally, I would have some initial questions to you and JurgenNL to get a better idea of the situation. I'm not sure if he's reading along, but perhaps he is.
    1) Did you, JurgenNL, consent to Russavia publishing these screenshots online?
    2) If the answer to 1) is "yes," why did you, JurgenNL, consider it appropriate to share private email correspondence with a third party?
    3) Did you, Russavia, contact JurgenNL in order to obtain these screenshots from him or did JurgenNL contact you, perhaps even suggesting to use them to publicly criticize Trijnstel's conduct?
    4) Did you, Russavia, know Trijnstel's real name prior to receiving these screenshots from JurgenNL?
    5) If the answer to 4) is "yes," did you, JurgenNL, know about that at the time you provided Russavia access to the screenshots?
    6) Why did you, Russavia, not seek oversight assistance in first place if you were of the opinion at the time that their availability on Commons is a severe violation of privacy rights? Didn't you have to assume, at the time of performing the deletion, that interested third parties might still view the file, particularly in light of the fact that the depicted person is a long-time editor and, of course, many to whom the image might be of interest will hold advanced permissions?
    7) Did you, Russavia, check back with MoiraMoira prior to you posting this message on Trijnstel's talk page whether she agrees with that? After all, while you do not name the files, your message encourages interested third parties to dig deeper and perhaps identify the affected material, effectively worsening the alleged breach of privacy.
    I apologize for the amount of the questions, but I feel they are important to get a comprehensive idea of the situation. As you rightly say, "keep[ing] information which is private private" is an important principle in our projects. Note that they are a complement to potential questions to Trijnstel, not a substitute. Thanks in advance, — Pajz (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO Trijnstel made some questionable decisions and should explain her actions. Personally I don't trust her anymore. a×pdeHello! 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear from Trijnstel. --Rschen7754 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also like to hear from Trijnstel. Nick (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear colleagues. The reason why I didn't respond earlier is because I am very busy in real life. I will make a statement soon since you're entitled to a proper explanation. Please give me some time since this is not the kind of explanation you can write quickly. I will make this explanation as complete as possible but this as well will take some time. I will try to post an explanation tomorrow but it may take longer though please know that this has my top priority. Trijnsteltalk 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement of Trijnstel[edit]

Dear everyone. I promised to post a extended statement on this page and of course I stick to promises. I deal with these matters seriatim.

The complaint[edit]

  • Let me first answer the main point: namely the - imho rather harsh - statement of Russavia (and therefore also JurgenNL) that I would've abused the admin tools, and therefore apparently can't be trusted with any other advanced tools anymore. Well, I can be short, that's untrue. Yes, I've send a few photos to JurgenNL two months before he would be appointed as an admin on Commons, but:
    • 1) First of all these group photos (yes, more than one person was on it) weren't deleted years ago because of privacy violation. And apologies for being vague on this point, but I can't be more clear - they were deleted to protect the privacy of one user as another could come after that person (and it was unrelated to JurgenNL). The reason in the deletion log ("COM:IDENT request") points at that, though I doubt Russavia was informed about the real reason; which wasn't important for him anyway. In a certain way they were only deleted as a courtesy request which Russavia performed.
    • 2) Though more importantly, the photos were taken years ago and the deleted versions were up until recently also accessible on the Dutch Wikipedia, on which JurgenNL was an admin from March 2013 until October 2014 - which means he could've easily seen the images himself as well. The photos on the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons weren't oversighted until a few days ago, when Russavia suddenly requested oversight - though not per request of the user herself.
  • I've spoken with the user who requested the deletion already a few months ago. They understood and explained it wasn't a big deal. She repeated her statement here as well.
  • As far as I can ascertain I have only dealt with a colleague in a trusting way sharing information available that enabled him to feel part of a group of admins. The real mistake I certainly made and regret is that I trusted JurgenNL. I however was certainly not the only one who trusted JurgenNL back then as he was an admin on this project for nine months and for a longer time on the Dutch Wikipedia. It however is only human to assume a colleague behaves decently when he has been entrusted with advanced rights.

Russavia and JurgenNL[edit]

  • I can only guess why Russavia and JurgenNL come up with this incident right now, though I have some thoughts about it:
    • JurgenNL, firstly, was obviously not happy with the request for comment against him and TBloemink. That was the reason why both of them lost their advanced permissions everywhere. Someone suggested that the above-mentioned incident was the reason why I kept my silence during the RfC, but that's not true. I already warned - and spoke to - JurgenNL and TBloemink a lot, this combined with the fact that I know and happily worked with them for years and they know a lot about me too, I decided to keep my mouth shut. There were already enough people responding and I didn't want to influence the RfC. I didn't want them to keep me accountable for any action that might be taken against them, and besides, I wanted to protect my own privacy as well since they know a lot about me too. Since JurgenNL already threatened with using this during his RfC, I can only conclude this to be an act of revenge for him losing his buttons. I didn't mention it during the RfC as 1) I didn't consider it relevant for the RfC, 2) I didn't expect it to be important as the victim explained they were okay with it and 3) privacy related matters should imho - if possible - be handled discretely.
    • Russavia is a whole different story. I too have known him for years, and I supported him until not long ago as well. I even voted for keep during the de-bureaucratship of Russavia in August 2013. While he often contributes in a positive way, he's also a controversial user who can cause a lot of disruption - regardless of his own thoughts about his behaviour and even though he's still an admin on this project. He, for example, deliberately uses sockpuppets to evade a ban elsewhere, pretends to be locked up in North Korea and creates or edits pages just to annoy others. The Pricasso case has caused a lot of attention too (see here and here for example; I was one of those who closed the second DR). I don't believe in coincidence though, and the fact that Russavia posted the first note with his complaints on Friday 28 November (just for the weekend in which I'm always very busy in real life) only a day after I nominated his article Polandball on the Dutch Wikipedia for deletion is imho not a coincidence anymore. The article, which was deleted the same day by another admin btw, was created in the user namespace of Russavia and moved to the main namespace on 5 AM, when everyone in Europe is asleep. All this history between me and him, combined with the fact that he bugged me for a year by begging for information from the CU log (as he feared "abuse" by a former CU), can also only be seen as revenge by him.

Last but not least, when the privacy of someone is involved, or possible abuse of it, then why is it necessary to post a compelling note on my user talk page on Commons, to send an email to Wikimedia-l (to which I'm not subscribed btw), to frequently discuss the issue in a public IRC channel and even to inform staff member Philippe on Meta all at the same time? Also Russavia found it apparently necessary to officially inform the Commons community within a day after posting his message on my user talk. He could've tried to contact me privately about it (via email for example) and then I could explain it myself. The way he has done it now reminds me a lot about the Streisand effect and possibly only causes people to look up the photos, or the log, which is of course the opposite you would want to achieve when it's about the privacy. But Russavia clearly doesn't care about privacy, as he posted the complete content of the email correspondence between me and JurgenNL, of which I didn't give permission to do so. Not for uploading it on imgur or on Commons and also not for translating it into English. In fact: I wasn't even contacted about all this before Russavia posted his note on my user talk. His actions regarding this matter seem to be intended to cause turmoil and disruption rather than dealing with it in an appropriate manner respecting the privacy of the parties involved.

All in all is it not me who abused the rules and the policies, but clearly Russavia and JurgenNL themselves. And then I'm not even mentioning the language they're using both here and elsewhere (I was called "one of their clique" here) and even though I promised to come up with a statement they were still demanding me to come up with it rather sooner than later (though I said I wanted to work on a careful response). And even though JurgenNL keeps his mouth shut as well - while he provided Russavia the email correspondence - it's yet another example that he hasn't changed a bit. Finally - I agree with the person who was dragged into this by JurgenNL and Russavia that these links to private mails should be removed and oversighted. Jurgen has again violated privacy (this time mine) and wilfully misused Russavia for his actions. Russavia chose to do this himself however. I trust that proper measures can be taken towards these two persons here and leave this up to the community to deal with.

I hope this statement covers every concern. This will be my only statement on this matter.

With regards, Trijnsteltalk 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making a statement, even though you do not intend to answer any follow-up questions. I am disappointed that two-thirds of your response is an attack on others rather than focusing on your own actions and your rationale for making them. --Fæ (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Need for action against Russavia and JurgenNL[edit]

The statement by Trijnstel is fully satisfying to me. But I'm much concerned about the way how Russavia and JurgenNL handled this. There is no excuse for publishing the content of a private mail here with only intention to harass the user. If this is acceptable in Commons, how we (ordinary users) can confidently communicate with an admin or higher authority privately. This is indeed a breach of trust and exceeding all the limits. I already asked the opinion of WMF to Philippe (WMF) here. Would like to hear the opinion of my colleagues here too. Jee 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Russavia should voluntary resign as an Administrator (under a cloud) and JurgenNL should be blocked indefinitely. JurgenNL had no right in sending the emails from Trijnstel that dates back to November 2013 (which was done clearly in revenge) and Russavia had no business publishing it without explicit permission from Trijnstel (whom could've been contacted privately, via email this user or the email address that is visible on the leaked emails). Bidgee (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On two basic grounds:
  1. Emails or IRC "private" chats with "trusted" users are not confidential, ever. Similarly emails to OTRS have absolutely no guarantee to stay confidential, regardless of expectations by any involved party (please mentally separate a guarantee of privacy from the convention that volunteers in trusted roles should respect confidentiality, the difference is key here). Frankly anyone who thinks they are is a mug who will be caught out at some point - I should know as I was that mug, in major ways, thinking that I could discuss problems with trusted users and Wikimedia employees and this would stay confidential. This can be a hard lesson to learn, but there are many, many, examples of Arbcom cases and similar that are based on such in-camera chats being used as evidence or published with the justification that this is in the interest of natural justice or whistle-blowing. The latter justification is particularly interesting as Wikimedia projects have various policies and practices which aim to protect whistle-blowers from backlash arguments, which is precisely what is being attempted here.
  2. All organizations which value governance and transparency (which in theory includes all Wikimedia related organizations) have systems of freedom of information requests. This means that you can request full copies of any correspondence or analysis that involve you in some way, and in fact many organizations will allow you to request copies of any correspondence. This is fundamental to public accountability. It is possible to separate private email correspondence from personal correspondence, this is why redaction is often possible before releasing the record, however the emails in question here were not "personal" in that sense, they are about the actions of trusted users performing tasks related to their trusted roles. In terms of privacy, no previously unknown truly private information apart from that needed to explain what actions were taken by trusted users has been exposed here; as far as I can work out. --Fæ (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fae, I see you point. I have to wonder, however, about your view. If I send you an email, this is not confidential? You would feel free to share it with third parties, without letting me know about this? I think, by the way, that the "whistleblower" defense doesn't really convince here; after all, the purpose of that, even if there was a rule to that respect (which at least I cannot infer from Commons:Emailing users which states that "they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails") is hardly to allow everyone to publish private information to the largest possible audience (rather than, say, some WMF staff), using the means that brings with it the largest possible intrusion into privacy (not referring to what happend, but publishing entire emails) without (apparently) making any attempt whatsoever to find a different solution. And last, I think we still haven't heard whether Trijnstel's real name was leaked in the course of this passing along of emails (I don't know that, which is why I asked Russavia and JurgenNL about it two days ago, so far without a response). On that note, Russavia and User:JurgenNL, may I gently remind you of my questions of 16:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) above? Can I, can we expect a response to these? I think it is important to put this alleged misconduct (by Jkadavoor) into proper perspective, and your cooperation would be appreciated, just as you demanded Trijnstel's cooperation in the other issue at hand. Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe you want to probe my view in relation to your discussion about me on IRC yesterday. This case is not really related however as this may be used as evidence of my views about OTRS, I'll answer both that aspect and the one you raise about Russavia's actions with regard to our understanding of respect. It's complex to unpack, and I'm just bashing out an informal quick response here rather than putting together a guideline or essay, so bear with it.
Email confidentiality—Emails to me personally, which are either obviously personal or marked as personal are treated by me in confidence as a courtesy. This has nothing to do with the law, which I know as I have read up on UK law in this regard in relation to my volunteer roles and past professional roles. Emails to me when I have been acting in a paid role or as a trustee were subject to terms or contracts which I was obliged to comply with. I am currently associated with a university and a Wikimedia User Group, emails to me outside of that can be fully expected to stay private unless they contain issues that put people at risk or have information about a crime. Even in these cases I would think twice before passing on or publishing a email rather than paraphrasing or quoting the part of a text at issue. Were there a police investigation, I would pass on everything I had for fear of harming a case otherwise.
Emails to people who are acting to represent a charity are always considered on the record, even when marked "confidential and private" or similar. There is a debate about whether unpaid volunteers who take up trusted roles are encompassed by the same law, however fraud, data privacy etc. equally apply in this scenario. This is the reason why when I was a Trustee of WMUK (an unpaid elected volunteer role), we took out liability insurance that covered any volunteer on our projects including OTRS volunteers; otherwise they would be fully personally liable which seems plain unfair. Consequently emails to the WMF, Chapter, User Group etc. may be subject to a freedom of information request (or similar) or be caught up in a subpoena or other legal action which the organization would have no choice but to comply with. There is nothing to stop the resulting records from being published in court or elsewhere (such as in the press under a public interest rationale). Extending this view, any email (or IRC discussion) to an employee of any Wikimedia organization would be subject to their contracted terms, again this may leave the employee or other employees with access to the text or recording of discussions with no choice but to comply with their contract. This may include copying in management, their legal representatives or the board if the contents of the discussion contain any possible threat or risk for the organization as well as reporting the discussion to the police or other authorities in the event of assertions of fraud, other crimes, terrorism, threats of suicide, a young person at risk; essentially if in doubt, tell the authorities.
Saying all this, emails can be confidential and respected outside of issues of threats, risks, criminality. A correspondent should be warned about these limits, and there have been various attempts to do this on OTRS email footers as well as website explanations. When acting as an OTRS volunteer, I always kept this in mind and firmly steered away from encouraging discussion with any correspondent on legal matters and for example always qualified discussion of copyright as this being my understanding of project policies rather than legal advice.
Russavia's publication—I agree that the actions of a whistle-blower should be proportionate. Publication of evidence might be needed as the only way forward if (a) the organization's whistle-blowing procedures have been exhausted or failed, (b) reasonable non-procedural alternatives have been attempted.
With regard to (a), it has been suggested that the OC would have been the right process to use. I am unsure as I have not used that process myself so I am unaware if it is timeous, effective, or the best process for raising misconduct for Commons trusted roles. Neither am I directed to the OC when I examine Commons:Administrators as a means to raise misconduct issues, so from the bank of Commons policies, our community here is not obviously directed to the OC for these problems. In fact, far more obviously one is encouraged to raise a complaint on the user's talk page and then escalate to a public desysop vote.
With regard to (b) my understanding is that Russavia has attempted less public means to discuss Trijnstel's actions which were unfruitful and even though Trijnstel can be seen making edits on the projects, made no response to enquiries and seemed uninterested in even giving a holding reply until the case was escalated to this noticeboard (even then it took a while). Certainly when it comes to issues of misconduct and governance I believe that Wikimedia Commons would benefit from its own guidelines for whistle-blowing, along with community agreed standards for how to handle evidence that might be presented, rather than encouraging whistle-blowers to, for example, just publish their evidence anonymously on Wikipediocracy.
For this aspect, I agree that there may be a complaint raised about Russavia's publication of email as being excessive, if it can be demonstrated that an effective alternative was available for Russavia to follow and that Russavia had no overriding issue of public interest to publish what they had available. However I have not seen it spelt out in simple terms exactly what truly private material has been published as a result. Certainly if the email was entirely written while Trijnstel was acting in their trusted role, then the aspects of this being a record of the trusted role in action comes into play, and consequently this being a project of the Wikimedia organization.
I feel this is a long and knotty response as it is, only partially unbundled and using semi-legal jargon which may be misunderstood if read as plain English. If you want to develop any aspect, I suggest that is either limited to discussing a specific aspect of the published evidence, or this is taken elsewhere as a tangent to the governance issues of Trijnstel's case; if you wish to do this please keep in mind I have some real life commitments on my plate. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I do not believe that Russavia's "only intention [was] to harass the user". Russavia was wrong to publish private emails. I understand they wanted clarity. I agree with asking clarification, but not with the method used. First talk it through, privately, with people involved. Public steps can follow. Moreover it would have been prudent to get a second opinion before going public. Russavia needs to realise they acted poorly. If this is clear, then I think we should accept the facts and move on. Current drama was not necessary. More drama is not necessary. JurgenNL was blocked indefinitely on the Dutch Wikipedia recently, which is currently under review. I will refrain from further comments on the matter. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Philippe (WMF) just closed the discussion on his meta talk page stating "The appropriate venue here (the allegations against Trijnstel) is the Ombudsmen Commission." So Russavia or JurgenNL should have to forward the evidence to OC discretely instead of publishing here. Could a watching admin rev delete that post in Trijnstel's talk page, please? Jee 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, Philippe does not direct Commons, neither has he attempted to give administrators on this project advice. Administrators here take their own actions on their own cognisance rather than acting because one WMF employee made a side comment on another project. I know you often raise Commons matters with WMF employees, keep in mind this may be unhelpful when pursuing change here as it can be seen as actively attempting to by-pass our community processes. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed action, no matter whether it comes from WMF or not. @Jkadavoor, done. Jcb (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jcb. @Fæ: I don't know whether you noticed it or not; but that discussion was not by me. It was by Russavia pursuing to interfere, and Philippe's reply was also to him. He just rejected Russavia's request; didn't respond to my comment there. Further, he didn't suggest any action in Commons; it was me who requested a rev delete here. Jee 15:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for historical reasons I'm fully aware of what goes on at Philippe's talk pages. Russavia knows that were they to use an off-Commons correspondence with WMF employees as a means to by-pass gaining consensus here, I would be first in the queue to criticise them for doing it and my trust in them would be damaged. Anyone is free to raise anything they like on meta, or to approach any WMF employees as they see fit. The issue is whether you then choose to portray off-Commons discussions as a done deal when you eventually come back to Commons rather than pointing to them as off-wiki views without consensus for action here. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
1. What I asked Philippe is just the WMF opinion/stand about publishing contents of private mails. 2. Where you see the requirement of consensus to oversight something here? It is only acting admin or OT's personal decision. To make it clear, I had made a COM:OVERSIGHT request at the same moment. Jee 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Then it appears you have been forum shopping in order to achieve the outcome you want. If you raised this request with Commons oversight, you should have left it for one of the six Commons oversight members to decide if any action was required. Instead you asked for any admin to make a revdel, without explaining that this was already logged with oversight. Had you explained this, any wise admin would leave the matter to oversight rather than potentially acting against them. Revdel may not require a specific consensus discussion, but this is a consensus building discussion, so presenting Phillippe's view as if this were sufficient justification for admin action, and in addition failing to mention you had already contacted oversight is inappropriate, when the exact same evidence is subject to an active discussion on AN. You put an admin in a position where they have taken action with no chance of knowing the complete background. Even though Jcb may have taken exactly the same action, please take some time to consider how this can appear, especially when criticising the actions of others.
By the way, I could have told you that the WMF has no opinion on how Commons trusted users should handle emails when executing their elected or appointed Commons roles. This is down to our policies. It does not require Philippe to say this in another place. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you stop preaching about areas where you have little knowledge? My request was genuine; acting admin and reviewing oversighters endorsed it. Such request are intended for speedy actions; so we can use as many venues as possible, including Stewards and Staff if required (please read those pages). There is nothing wrong if a less experienced admin made a mistake; better safe than later.
Regarding your advice: I'm willing to learn from the ignorant. But please don't discourage me to ask for help from Staff or higher authorities than to depend on a non admin who failed in more than five RfAs. Jee 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll simply say that I agree with Bidgee and his arguments, together with the statement by Natuur12 above. I have more to say but if Russavia voluntary resign I'll leave my comment as is. -- Geagea (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this suggested e-mail (on IRC, by a link from JurgenNL) one or two months ago already (sept 22, I've been told now), it comes again and again when it is helpful for some certain people. The e-mail itself is very old. To me this whole circus looks like a bribery, I can understand that Trijnstel is not reacting to it. Yes, it was not smart of her to show JurgenNL that info/send that email, she more or less told me 2 months ago when I was first confronted with this old shit. Are we going to see it every time someone has an issue with Trijnstel? Does it mean that I myself should also start collecting compromising information, so I can use it whenever it is helpful? And what I do not understand, is that Russavia needs to bring this out to the public for JurgenNL. JurgenNL should not have accepted this information, and/or should have rang the bell the day he received it, and not the day he could use it for his own cause, one year later. Edoderoo (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose any action beyond a trout smack. Russavia shouldn't have posted the email but the request for more information was genuine. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There you go. TBloemink talk 13:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe that Russavia was trying to protect any privacy here. This is simply an act of revenge angainst Trijnstel. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When we're all done chewing on each other, how about a nice group hug and get back to work? If we're all here in AGF, then mistakes can be made, apologies offered and accepted and the project goes forward. It's not this project, but another which is dear to my heart, which constantly cautions us to put "principles before personalities." I am a very new admin here (less than one year), but my opinion is to always consider how your yourself would like to be on the receiving end of _______(whatever you are about to do)________, and if it is something which you would not like very much - simply don't do it. Publishing emails is like 4channer behavior - not what is expected from Commons admins. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The action taken by Russavia was unwise, however for reference, I also attempted to speak to Trijnstel about the issue and was also completely ignored, despite them replying to a comment I left elsewhere around the same time. I'm unsure how else the issues here could have been handled when discreet attempts to speak to the user in question were fruitless. I'm also very concerned about the disparity of proposed sanctions here, Russavia released private information, Trijnstel released private information, I expect total parity in terms of sanctions and any loss of permissions. I propose all users involved be reminded about the expectations when given access to non public information; namely that they are expected to treat e-mails in strict confidence and that they do not share material deleted/brought to their attention on privacy grounds with anybody not holding advanced permissions and ideally with nobody other than the oversight team. I would additionally caution Trijnstel (and to a lesser extent Russavia) that they are expected to be fully accountable for their actions and when queried, they should make responding to the community their first priority, a delay of several days whilst actively editing elsewhere shows contempt for the community. I propose we conclude matters there. Finally, whatever nonsense is presently going on at Dutch Wikipedia, it stays on Dutch Wikipedia.
  • I've just had a message from Trijnstel who confirmed they tried to contact me at the time, but I didn't receive the message. We've had a chat and clarified a few things. Nick (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A wise comment. Jee 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Category:Videos[edit]

Hi, There is recurrent vandalism on this category (see [1]). This was recently reported on the French VP. Accounts involved includes Cebola Da Cash Birdman ; Miguel antonio alberto ; Alberto An ; Joaquim Alfredo ; Belchior Lucala ; Alexandre Gael ; Isaias Arlindo Marinho ; Isaias Lumungo Quinilson). A CU is probably in order, as well as further checks about vandalism elsewhere. This category is protected for 3 months, and all accounts above were warned. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All accounts blocked and tracked in Category:Sockpuppets of Cebola Da Cash Birdman. A check user should look into this. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lmbuga heavy personal attack and heavy vandalism[edit]

I blocked Lmbuga for one week. Yann (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Yann! And what is with his edits on QI? --Steindy (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will let others answer. Please also note that he vandalized my talk page on French WP. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; User:Lmbuga is enjoying the benefit of doubt about his/her language problem, many times. He/she needs to understand that his years of contributions are not an excuse for poor language/behavior. The following two threads are also related, so need to be analysed together. Jee 07:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This block is way too long. The very first block because of personal attacks and vandalism should last some hours to give a chance to calm down. Lmbuga is NOT a typical vandal. -- Smial (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Smial have total right is too long! I would have blocked both for 1 day. --LivioAndronico talk 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Lmbuga has been causing problems for a while and thus the punishment of a week may not be so out of the question. This appears to be Steindy's first offense? Still it is an injustice to block one and not the other, as they are both acting in bad faith. -- Ram-Man 13:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Fully support Ram-Man --LivioAndronico talk 13:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Matt since you are an administrator and you've got to do it too, can you get the holy honor to tell us your own opinion? I would be immensely grateful.Thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 13:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Better Livioandronico2013 should stay out of this discussion out because it is highly biased in this matter and should Ram-Man only hone his language when he refers to other users as a troll [2].

The other insults to my person on the French side of user Yann and his vandalism show that the lock is still been far too short. It is worrying that Lmbuga according to him is a teacher. --Steindy (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Are the administrators going to let this continue? Please intervene. I need not hone my language and meant exactly what I said. I said trolling not troll. I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this international project, but trolling refers to a person's actions, while troll refers to a person themselves. I did not make a personal attack, I (accurately) described a person's (ongoing) actions. -- Ram-Man 15:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#Consensual_Review_2 once again. There is indeed a conflict between User:Lmbuga and Steindy. There is no excuse for counter attacks; so Steindy MUST refrain from it. I also noticed a lot of "per User:Lmbuga" and "per Ram-Man" votes by LivioAndronico which may insult Steindy who consider them as pointy attacks. So my suggested solution: [User:Lmbuga]] is already blocked for a week. Steindy and LivioAndronico MUST refrain from attacking each other. Better a voluntarily interaction ban for a while. :) Jee 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I have somewhere Lmbuga and Livioandronico2013 attacked or assaulted continue? Rather the opposite is the case. I have shown only the behavior of these two users and this will hopefully you can still do. --Steindy (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If no additional bans are instituted, then at least let it be made clear that we can eliminate the inappropriate comments/reviews without being accused of edit waring. I would have just taken care of these before, but without user blocks, I suspect Steindy would either revert my changes or continue to make comments about how I'm "censoring". It's not just personal attacks, which we try to self manage by ignoring them, it's improper QI reviews which slow the process down. -- Ram-Man 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
See the last comments in the third discussion. Those three must refrain from further attacks, reverts, etc.; otherwise will be blocked to stop it. @Ram-Man, feel free to remove existing insults; but it is wise to leave it to an uninvolved. Chances that Steindy thinks you are involved. :) Jee 16:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ram-Man: Where I have a process other user reset and where I made improper QI reviews? Please documents and not baseless accusations! --Steindy (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor:, in my many years on these projects, I've never shied away from conflict and been involved in some major ones. And it's fairly common practice on QIC to just leave things as they are, so I suspect I'm the only one who will clean it up, as most people like to stay out of the conflicts so they don't become targets. I'm obviously not going to engage in an edit war if my changes are not honored. -- Ram-Man 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ram-Man: So we are of same breed. Carry on. Will support as much as possible. :) Jee 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, I've completed the cleanup of QIC, so hopefully there are no contrary edits and we can move on from this. -- Ram-Man 18:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Steindy several personal attack and heavy vandalism[edit]

  • The latest changes seem designed to dodge the behavior requirement to prevent being banned, while still being difficult, if not outright hostile. At least one of those images that was "nearly perfect" has some obvious significant issues, and the reasons for promoting are not valid. I ask that an administrator revisit this and see if this qualifies the single offense that is grounds for a ban. Supports of obviously weak photos must go to CR where they bog down the review process. I suspect this is exactly the point (besides the inappropriate thrill of trolling snark). -- Ram-Man 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Inacceptable for me. With such edits, Steindy consciously damages the QI project and Commons. Reverted, and blocked the user for 1 week. Come what may. --A.Savin 22:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I will add a block template for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Steindy is well known for such a bad behavior on dewiki (indef blocked there). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This block, if ever, should have been done by another admin, who is not involved in this conflict. Bad taste. -- Smial (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you actually read the story? None of my own nominations are concerned. Moreover: I don't nominate anything anymore on QI. --A.Savin 18:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013 several personal attack and heavy vandalism[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. We, at AN/U, not interested to review tye merits of any voting at FP/QI/VI. 2. But I see some unacceptable/attacking/humorous/attacking comments at Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#Consensual_Review_2 from both parties. This must be discouraged. Jee 03:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some of those edits are simply responses to trolling by Steindy. The comment in question is actually a quote of User:Lmbuga who was already banned, not by LivioAndronico. Also, timestamps of edits do not imply how long it took to evaluate photos (e.g. Preload images in browser tabs). It also only takes seconds to find enough faults in many photos. -- Ram-Man 03:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ram-Man for the hints. Livioandronico2013 seems to be new user; so we can give him some considerations. But User:Lmbuga and Steindy are very experienced users and don't eligible for any considerations. I've little experience with Steindy; but User:Lmbuga is infamous for his bad language. Anyway it is better to block or even indef the old xxxs to make room for fresh bloods. :) Jee 05:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Je User:Lmbuga have certainly wrong to do so, but has often instigated by Troll as I could show before. However it is not a speech of experience is a discourse of education in my opinion. Anyway thanks for your comment.नमस्ते. --LivioAndronico talk 09:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, for this permanent kindergarten on QIC with ad hominem reviews, revenge votes and similar shit, which has now been transferred to ANU, all three (Lmbuga, Steindy, and Livioandronico2013) deserve a block of at least 1 week. Lmbuga already has been, so what about the other two? I'm gonna wait for some feedback by a third party, and if it is OK, I'll implement the blocks. --A.Savin 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A.Savin, this kindergarten on QIC disruptive. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin, see my comment above. You can block both of them if they made one more attack (here or in QIC). Jee 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No need for more blocks in my opinion. But these two editors must comply with three simple rules which are part of QIC (and of Wikimedia's culture, in general): i) All editors have the same right to participate and express their opinions: ii) all opinions/votes have the same weight; and iii) image reviews should only address the pictures, never the authors or the reviewers. Considering that a block is to be taken as a protective measure, never as a punishment, I also believe that the block imposed on Lmuga is exaggerated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no excuses for comments like this. This is not something we expect from a user who has more than 9 years here. Jee 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin and why you should never stop me? I declined to poor photo (which moreover too often say that I do not do), and I was stuck and want to stop me? Steindy has quarreled with everyone and you want to stop me? incredible. --LivioAndronico talk 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Now Steindy is quarreling with Jebulon:

Nomination Zlatko Junuzović, player of the Austria national football team. --Steindy 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Discussion Please denoise the background, and crop out the hand, then I'll support.--Jebulon 14:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. With ISO 1600 granularity is visible. This is perfectly normal. 2. Why should I distort my pictures? My photos are originals night the motto "what you see is what you get". It's about photos, not about who can use Photoshop or other programs better. Retouched photos have no encyclopedic value. --Steindy 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want block him too? --LivioAndronico talk 17:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the status of steindy on wiki in German :Blocked indefinitely. Reason: Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar. --LivioAndronico talk 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know the beginning of the story and who is honest here but to block only who seems the most impulsive and who lost its cold blood in the first one is in my opinion a severe punishment. What is the thing that made him cross the line? Maybe he did it alone, I don't feel that he is alone in this history. It is true that he often start clockwork, but if you keep your calm with him normally there 's no problem. Is it that the beginning? Only because Lmbuga made rewiews not in the tastes of Steindy? Me this is what I understood, maybe I'm wrong and maybe I did not understand correctly Steindy. But if I'm right the less I can say is that I'm not happy at all with the turn of things and of the block of the only Lmbuga. -- ChristianFerrer 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Christian Ferrer:, why do you speak out, if you do not know the cause of the conflict? Why you are not willing to read? More than my chronological listing and Difflinks I can not do that. The cause is the way in the first lines of my COM:AN/U. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately, this type of user, cause damage and disease to the community. Such things have helped me develop my own emotional intelligence and observe how far I can get with my patience. I think it is a mixture of inexperience, lack of tact and spoiled. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Christian: It is a heavy problem of pages like QIC, FPC etc. since long time. Many users meanwhile consider it as a platform for self-adulation and cannot tolerate any kind of criticism. Originally, QIC was an idea of teamwork and learning by doing of photography and postprocessing, and it had worked some years. But what we see now here is nothing but ruinous competition for top positions on lists like this one, with non-ethic behaviour and revenge voting. As for me, I'm not sorry at all to see such egocentric people be banned. --A.Savin 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin Yes, I often think to delete my personal caregories (and counts of my images), it's hard to believe because I have very many categories and many counts of my images however it is the case :). For what I see here it's not Lmbuga who is not happy to see its images not promoted, he is just a hard rewiewer and he is only guilty of to have worse character than me. Of course the insults are not good, but I fully agree with you for not to block only him and that because I do not think he is at the origin of the conflict. -- ChristianFerrer 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


  • This is another personal attack by Livioandronico2013 (3. Dez. 2014, 19:39:43), because this has nothing to do with commons and Livioandronico2013 does not know the circumstances that led to this lock. It's ridiculous when a rampaging a user with administrator 28,375 articles and 1,649 created new pages holds „Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar“. I am not shamed for it, but wear this with pride lock, as this shows what kind of act administrators in the German Wikipedia. This lock has therefore been recognized by multiple administrators to be faulty, why was recommended to go to arbitration. After I have therefore concluded with the German Wikipedia, I will not do this.
Since I prefer to let others speak numbers on commons: commonswiki 19.229 Edits and User Steindy has 7014 files – Total image usages 10697 – Distinct images used 3033 (43.24% of all images of user).
But you can send in those users who like defiant children behave and others pursue persistently protect as Livioandronico2013. As a result commons will help for sure and thereby commons certainly better. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@A.Savin:, you can block me if it makes you happy. I hope that you can prove that

  1. I have instigated the dispute,
  2. I continued myself and how livio behave in the same way with a series of discrediting Edits,
  3. I (previously also Lmbuga or) have somewhere attacked or insulted personally Livio.

They should also not only compare pears with apples. The same applies for the Tyrolean colleague @Steinsplitter:. Your derogatory term as a kindergarten shows that you have dealt faithfully with the problem and its causes. Read Difflinks is probably not your thing.
You, mister A.Savin, should further think about your threats and insults with which you had bothered me undesirably on 20.09.2014 and on 24.09.2014 by e-mail and I forwarded as announced to my hedge an admin.
A possible barrier anyway I do not care, because this does not punish me, but commons. --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This was my last statement in this discussion. I'm going to get out of these discussions, in which I only speaks against a wall. I do not like this evening the evening go bad again. Good night! --Steindy (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • For what I see, I think Lmbuga is the one who suffers provocations and he was so fed up that he cross the line. I stand here because I personnaly attended one of these provocations : a nomination by Steindy where Steindy put a note (this nomination is for Lmbuga...) I don't remenber exactly. But I rewiewed this nomination, declined for good reasons and added a comment your note is stupid. So for me Lmbuga was harassed, he could not keep calm and react properly, it is his only fault. It is my point of view. -- ChristianFerrer 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Steindy to present your situation is NOT a personal attack but simply the truth! --LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with what wrote by Christian that is a wise person. I say and I emphasize once again Lmbuga was wrong to react like that, I would not have ever done. But I emphasize even more openly that was instigated several times and I do not find at all right that has been stopped and only him so heavily. --LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Unable to Login Using Wikipedia Login Name and Password[edit]

My wikipedia login will not allow me to login to wikimedia commons. It tells me that my password is not correct. But I am POSITIVE that I am using the same information to successfully login to Wikipedia. I changed my password on wikipedia a day ago because I had forgotten what it was, perhaps this is the problem. I have tried the "FORGOT PASSWORD" option on wikimedia, I enter my email, but I do not receive an email with a new temporary password. Does anyone know what might be the problem. The page recognizes my Username. Thank-YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.95.38 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a SUL account? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your quick response. No I do not. Do I need one and if so how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.95.38 (talk • contribs)

No, but if you don't have sul, maybe you have a different E-Mail address here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I was able to log in to Wikimedia Commons just fine. @174.89.95.38: Have you tried clearing your cache? It could be a caching issue. Also, it could be a bad cookie, too. If you think that's the case, because you cleared your cache with no avail, please feel free to tell me and Steinsplitter what browser you're using. DLindsley Need something? 01:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ARTWORK777[edit]

This user has been socking on Wikipedia to create an article called "Bajotz" with context copypasted from elsewhere - it looks like they're now doing a similar thing on Commons, duplicating apparently random images from the internet with variations on the same filename as their "own work". --87.81.167.93 08:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User warned, files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for solving a conflict[edit]

User:Steindy was banned yesterday for a week, so far as I can see, even for his discussion page.

The underlying conflict, namely uncertainty because of the assessment, or the non-assessment of nominated QI images, is dealt with the banning of Steindy.

Thus, peace has returned in principle.

Unfortunately, a more open conflict seems to be still not clear, because Livioandronico takes it as an opportunity to spread the lock of Steindy while claiming unoccupied assertions and speculations about the motives of Steindy.

I think this is basically unfair to face up publicly against a disabled person, the more so because it does not take place on a discussion page, but on an image candidacy. it's all about just for the fundamental devaluation of the person.

I have pleased Livioandronico on his talk page, not to stir up the conflict, which has nothing to do with the image candidacy. I said, that this is not the usual behavior of an adult person and deleted his contribution. Livioandronico disagrees and has indicated that it is not up to me to decide that, but an administrator should do it. I can certainly follow his opinion.

I therefore request that an administrator delete this action, for not continouing stiring a conflict during the blocking time of a user - especially, when its on a completely wrong place to do so. Furthermore, no more action is needed. It´s just a question of fairness! --Hubertl (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Hubertl (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Next time Hubertl and mostly Yann least have the decency to inform stakeholders of a discussion and not do things in secret.--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Livioandronico2013: You are not outside of the conflict, so you should also step back, and avoid getting involved. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann:If it's interesting to me is stall must be notified, especially by an administrator. However I would not have objected, and then step back to what? I had reason of the thing, I'm not having to step back,don't worry.--LivioAndronico talk 15:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete my image[edit]

I like Wikimedia to delete my picture File:Ship-Zeven-Provincien-Infographicmedia.jpg, because it are the wrong ones. I Can remove it and replace it withe the right One.

Thanks, Kay Coenen

✓ Done Next time please use {{speedy}}. Taivo (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedroalb3721 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Uploads songs of some kinds. No reaction to previous notices. Spanish-speaking administrator may be needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Last warning sent. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshddz104 (talk · contribs) CopyVios[edit]

A quick glance at his talk page shows repeated warnings about images he has uploaded but he hasn't listened to them. Thanks EoRdE6 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=141664684"