Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

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

I joined commons few months ago. After contributing for some time I noticed that my wife (with username Rutake) has also many photos with sufficient quality that could be useful for commons. The problem is that after some time of contributing from the same IP address, someone noticed the link between us. There is a discussion about this on the FPC discussion page. I find the discussion has gone too far and it is intruding in our private life, publicly exposing our IP addresses, discussing our relationship, arrogant comments etc. Is there any chance to delete our accounts and also uploaded images since they carry our real names. We could not foresee such escalation of events and find the situation quite harassing. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) This is also what I want. --Rutake (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the architect of your own problems as pointed out by User:Jkadavoor when he quoted: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." The connection is obvious and you could have sorted it all out buy simply abiding by this guideline. Instead you have been combative throughout and thrown the entire FPC project in disarray with nuisance delist nominations and revenge voting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this is the place to ask assistance. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope INeverCry will look into this matter and forward it to an Oversighter if required. But I see no reason for deleting the existing media contributions. Further, it is disappointing you continue the arrogant discussion even after I made several warnings. Hope it will end safe. I've no problem if everything is over-sighted. Infact, I tried to speedy close several delist requests to reduce the harm. :( Jee 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What about closing our accounts??--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to comment here further as it is an oversight request. I already forwarded it to INeverCry. You can discuss with her directly. Jee 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure INC is an oversighter :-) (I'll comment later, I have to run) --PierreSelim (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You are the architect of your own problems"?? Really, that's our answer for this person? Our answer is that a married couple, or college roommates, or two people who for whatever other reason live near enough to eachother that there will be obvious IP similarities who happen to have similar interests and edits are asking for this? This could easily extend to me and somebody who lives on the other side of town and has similar interests. If there is a clear set of reasons and behaviours to suspect sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, by all means investigate, but I find this "You asked for it!" attitude of Saffron Blaze to be inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. You are obviously missing context (perhaps becuase of the blaning at the FPC talk page) and the stream of unwarranted personal attacks Urmas has directed at numerous people well before this issue of the connection came to the fore. The context is this user and apparently his wife were contributing and voting on images at FPC without disclosing their connection. Overtime events transpired to reveal the accounts were likely connected and confirmed by the investigation. His abusive and disruptive behavior escalated when this connection was queried. He attempted to have several images delisted that were in the POTY competition. It is only now he reveals the nature of the connection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is non of you business. Why to continue it here. You just can't leave it be. That's what i was talking about. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You brought it here... not me! We don't care about your personal life, but you had an undeclared conflict of interest in some of your votes on FPC and that raised people's concerns about fairness and integrity of the voting system. None of this would have happened if you had been open about the conflict of interest. It would have stopped when the conflict of interest was brought forward if you had just said two people use the same IP but are seperate persons and will not get involved in situations where they would place themselves in a conflict of interest. It is a shame you want to leave the project over this but if that is your wish so be it, as it is your right. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And what is your business here? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the issue. What is to be done ? As an example of a good way to use, please have look to User:Jastrow's user's page, especially the section "concerning socks"... No problem...--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon, exactly! A simple declaration of a shared IP as per the guideline (no reason even required) would have prevented all this drama. Voting on the same image was inappropriate as well, but would have been handled differently if the shared IP and potential conflict of interest were declared. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YES; YOU ARE RIGHT, I AM WRONG, I AGREE!!! you are right, understood?? I just want to get out of commons, understood?? This is not a discussion page, I don't want to discuss with you. I just want to get out of here. As you told, you don't care about your personal life, I do. And I want to protect my privacy. I want to disappear, preferably with my pictures. You can shine on here. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to "getting out of here" an admin can do for you is block your accounts. Would you want that? --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on FPC talk page has been closed and even blanked without moving to the archive. So, this thread should be done now, as we cannot help you Urmas any further. I already said that you may want to request an OS to hide your contributions, and probably they will do this job for you, but that's it. Unfortunately, there is no technical possibility to delete user accounts. Colleagues, please, finally, close and forget this useless drama here. Should any of you not know what else to do now, I advise to have a look at Category:Media needing categories, just to name an example )) --A.Savin 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to resign from the right of authorship to get my photos removed here? --Urmas83 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could request a courtesy deletion for a batch of images. Some might not get deleted due to FP status and the POTY comp.

I also provided you with this link for more information about vanishing: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish

Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot remove "your" photos from here because they are no longer yours. You offered their rights to Commons, remember? But you can remove your real name from them and ask an admin to block the access to the older versions, if that is what is worrying you. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know I cannot remove the myself. But if I confessed they were not my work and the real author had no clue about me uploading them then the pictures will be removed, right? --Urmas83 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You uploaded them, so you're responsible for this content. If you uploaded other author's pictures as your own work, the real author is free to (and should) sue you for this blatant copyright violation. Enough? --A.Savin 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll find a way. --Urmas83 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to block Urmas and saw that INC beat me by a few minutes. I think it is becoming pretty clear that Urmas is determined to game the system with the consequence that Commons may be harmed. This user at least needs a timeout from the discussion, which is on track to get more and more heated. --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both accounts temporarily due to unconstructive editing, etc, caused by anger and frustration. I've left a note detailing this at the talkpage of User:Urmas83. The privacy issue may need the attention of oversighters, while the other ongoing issues discussed above require further discussion/treatment here or on his talk. INeverCry 22:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion on courtesy deletions in this particular case. Urmas =/= ArcticKangaroo, he is an adult person and self-responsible for what he already uploaded here. So, please only deletions of unused files without QI/FP status. Should the vandalism with removal of source/author info return after the current block = indef. Obviously, Urmas don't want to have his real name visible anymore. So first a crat should rename the account and afterwards the file descriptions should be amended (probably easy to manage with VisualFileChange) and an OS should hide older versions of them. --A.Savin 22:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, I'm just curious. What does Urmas's case have to do with me??? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of thorough awareness of the license terms, I assume. It is pity if our contributors are not well aware of the terms. I think we need to educate our new contributors to avoid such incidents. Jee 08:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some similarities to what you requested with your uploads some months ago are there, for sure. (I'll refrain from difflinks, it's unnecessary and hopefully more or less forgotten.) --A.Savin 10:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've emailed Odder about this issue. INeverCry 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a pattern. When someone decides to ragequit, and they find out they can't revoke their images, then they cry "oh but I was never the author, I was lying the whole time." I think we should take such claims with a gigantic grain of salt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what he is implying is some of the images are indeed his wife's but he was using an account in her name without her knowledge. Thus he would have had no right to license them. At this point his word on the matter would be pretty worthless, but the issue would be easily handled through other channels such as OTRS. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed my earlier advice to close/blank the talk-FP discussion wasn't acted on. This has been mishandled and A.Savin + some experienced admin/crats should have a chat to ensure such things are dealt with properly and sensitively in future. The whole situation has been allowed to escalate. I suspect Urmas should have been blocked a day or so ago for their own good while calmer discussions with them happened off-wiki. For the record, Alvesgaspar, "they [the images] are no longer yours" is incorrect. Urmas and Rutake own those pictures and have full copyright and other rights over them. Commons merely has a licence to host/use them, that is all. In no sense does Commons/WMF own any of our work. Every single pixel and every letter in every word belongs to content creator. Nobody should forget that and anyone managing other people's images should firstly be respectful and grateful for the donation. While I don't think those images should be courtesy deleted, I do think some courtesy should be shown rather than a "these are ours now ha ha ha" (not that I'm suggesting Alvesgaspar is saying that). -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have exaggerated for one side, but you surely did the same (or worse) for the other... Once an author donates an image to Commons he no longer 'owns' that image, in the sense that he is not allowed to impose more severe restrictions on the license, prevent anyone to use it in accordance with the terms of that license, impose any kind of fee to anyone using the image or just remove it from Commons. Thus, it is just not true that every single pixel and every letter in every word belongs to content creator. The only thing the author keeps is the intelectual property. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alves, unfortunately we are seeing the extremism in both ends everyday. See [1]: here the user (a very experienced and talented contributor here) is showing high end possessiveness to his works. On the other side, some of our users attack our contributors by reckless renaming "of their files", adding insulting categories, making harassing file descriptions, etc. etc. The attitude of those people are "You contributed it here; now we can do anything on it. No more questions; otherwise you will be blocked." Here is the importance of moral rights and the need of mutual respects in a project like this which very scare nowadays. :( Jee 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone look at this users uploads. I've already nominated one for a CV, but this user has appeared to have uploaded hundreds of possible CV's as the images have no meta data. I would appreciate if someone looks into this and mass delete if needed. Cheers Flickrworker (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly uploading from this flickr account which hasn't released those images under a free licence. I recommend a mass deletion too... edit:, but on the other hand he is confirmed by OTRS, so probably not a problem though it may be easier for him to change the licence on their official flick account to a free one or atleast confirm that the images are from flickr (on their flickr account)....--Stemoc (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, does he still has to put a ticket on each image he uploads? Which I thought was the rule so a reminder maybe the way to go. Flickrworker (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely should... someone with authority (*cough* admin *cough*) should tell him that..its not a one-off thing...--Stemoc (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have at present some problems with the comments of this user, the first time here, I tried to make him(her) understand that the comment is a bit assaulting, on his(her) talk page [2] as well as by means of Alexander here : [3], and now there is that. I understands that someone can not like my photos, but those comments go slightly too far for my taste. And in the measure or he makes this kind of comment only on my nominations, I think that he shows a blatant will to to not be pleasant, the barrier of the language does not explain everything, a single "not wow" or simply an oppose without comment would be better than an unhelpful assaulting comment. I did not manage to convince him to make efforts, his answer is "be adult", I thus shall have liked that somebody helps me there or prevents him from being voluntarily unpleasant. Even in blocking him for some time, if it is not possible otherwise. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. The comment is clumsey more than anything. However he repeats it, which maybe intentional considering the drama you created on the first image. However he is not a native speaker of English, I do not think that he is being insulting on purpose, although the way you and he behaved the second comment most certainly is (clearly a landscape, no need for the comment but because of you're reaction he decided to bite.). As a native English speaker I do not read it as insulting, OK, just take it with a pinch of salt and try and suggest softer comments from him. Flickrworker (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to make a dispute resolution effort at relevant talk pages (FPC, QIC, VIC, etc.) prior to move here. I would rather stop participating there if I can't manage things there. Here more people (even people don't know what is going on there) respond = more insults :( Jee 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the skillfull way the Urmas situation was dealt with, I think this is a bad idea. FPC, QIC, etc. are part of the community, and the idea of ad hoc courts of justice for those pages (which is what is going on on FPC TP) is a very bad one. Pleclown (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Jee, we will try to find a better way. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleclown, I was away for a week; just returned yesterday with fever and cold. Not in a mood to sit in front of the computer. But still believe, I handled it in the wisest way within the little time I participated there. :) Jee 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done For administrtors : I opened this topic and I close it. I start a discussion on the FPC talk page like suggested by Jee. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little late now, as the comments were made in November, but the set of images are now up for bulk deletion.

A commercial user, ARFISA Representaciones, SCP, has been good enough to upload a large number of images. They are of nuts and bolts: dull stuff to many of you, but as there are many obscure types included, those interested in engineering on WP saw them as quite valuable. It looks like they're a catalogue of nuts and bolts. Licensing is correct. Image quality could be better, but I'm sure that these are what the uploader had and we should be grateful to receive them. Certainly I made use of several at en:WP as soon as I saw them.

The reaction of Commons to this user has been remarkably poor. There are outright attacks on this new user for having the temerity to upload such stuff. See User talk:ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. Several Commons users have threatened blocks, questioned whether these images are "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and even described them as " Is this your special way to vandalize over here? ".

These comments are unacceptable. Per WP:BITE et al. Do I really have to spell this out?

These comments are incorrect. Maybe I'm a sad anorak who cares about nuts and bolts, but I'm happy to have them and WP has already benefitted from them.

The entire set has now been tagged for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ARFISA Representaciones, SCP. The nomination of "Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s)." appears simply wrong on both counts.

The problem here is obvious. ARFISA Representaciones, SCP is a commercial user. A commercial user who has, in good faith, uploaded content that they control and that they have offered to us under a free licence. We should be grateful to them, not attack them in this way! Or are any commercial bodies simply forbidden from Commons? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem here is obvious. You see, the whole Commons comunity speaks with one voice and only brave Andy can save the day. For someone interested in nuts and bolts, you should get a grip. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable practice for organizations, companies, artists, music bands, etc to confirm permissions via Commons:OTRS, if they didn't specify free license this on their own web sites or hosting services. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that and it's a reasonable change to policy that you might wish to raise.

In the meantime however this isn't our policy. Our upload procedure emphasises the need to specify a licence, rather than to also submit to OTRS, or to host elsewhere first; so then why should our response be (as you did here) to request bulk deletion of uploads for complying with the policy we've asked them too? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If those files are from http://www.arfisa.com/ then we need a mail from their formal mail ID. If Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary is vague, consider expanding it. I agree with Andy Dingley that an educative advise on how to proceed on the user's talk page is better than a bulk DR. Jee 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agriocnemis pieris male at Kadavoor.jpg looks too professional for an amateur photographer at Commons to have taken it. Should I tag it for deletion, pending OTRS? Should I tag all of Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor for deletion similarly? That's only the same as has been done here. Of course not! Per AGF, and per your declaration on upload, then I'm quite happy to accept that your GF licence declaration is valid and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the bona fides of either yourself or ARFISA Representaciones, SCP in such a matter.

Commons needs to either require OTRS confirmation for every upload, from the fuzziest selfie upwards, or else it needs to lay off using OTRS as just an intermittent threat instead to bully contributors that some editors clearly dislike as a group (and I'm looking firmly at Ies' comments here). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting any user comments on that talk page; only suggest the the importance of OTRS in case of contributions that are also available on a professional website. I've no problem to provide OTRS; but I have no professional website or personal domain specific email ID. But ARFISA Representaciones, SCP has. Moreover those contributions are scale down versions with watermarks and borders as in the website; so the doubts by Andy king50 is very relevant. EugeneZelenko is one of the most experienced user here to whom we can trust. If there is no need to monitor our contents, no need of any deletions. WMF will delete contents rarely on take down notices. Jee 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an engineer and find it sometimes very disappointing that even basic technical stuff is absent or under-representated in all wikimedia projects. Because there was no reasonable alternative i started removing text captions and frames while getting more and more upset by the obvious and outrigth promotional (ab)use e.g. in the image descriptions, file names etc. whilst delivering very poor quality images of images the uploder certainly has much better quality versions (if he is the copyright holder/website owner). So i came across with the idea to replace as much of them with newer, better images as much as the use in wikimedia projects is concerned. I have camera and access to a large store of screws etc. but until now missing motivation. So i see no reason for deletion from this point of view. The other side is the copyright question. If the images are taken from other websites, the uploader must verify he is copyright owner, usually via OTRS. Anyone can claim to be a representative of X company. And even a sales representative usually is not legally authorized to publish images of his companies webside under a new free license. At least this question must be clarified using OTRS and a official company mail adress. If not there seems only the way to follow the usual way as in any potential copyvio. - Andy king50 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a continuation of this AN, Эрманарих is continuing their overwrites with File:Escudo de Brisbane.png, File:Coat of arms of Tasmania.png and File:New South Wales coa.png, as well as vandalising File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg. They also opened this DR which should be closed as disruptive. The files should be RevDel'd so this user can not continue to revert, and I'm also asking for a block. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Than to you so disturb the improved files? --Эрманарих (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin deal with this already? I will not respond to a vandal. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for an admin to deal with this. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After being accused by administrators Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 for being already engaged in known license laundering, I requested explanation on his User talk:Magog the Ogre and leave the following message:

To accuse someone of license laundering is a serious matter. I find photos with appropriate license(CC BY-SA 3.0) and then upload them, no more no less ! I do not contest the images validity but if someone have to be accused of License laundering address your concern and warning to the panoramio and flick users not me! I did not find any rules that said that prior to upload a file with a valid license(CC BY-SA 3.0), I must go through extensive research. If I am wrong prove it, otherwise review your wording as I find it extremely offensive, totally unjustified especially when it comes from an administrators who obviously do not respect one fundamental: USER GOOD FAITH ! Fredtham59 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then surprise. Administrator Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron make a clear threat:

The above user is apparently trying really hard to get blocked for license laundering.

This is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators conduct.

Furthermore :

• Commons:License laundering make it clear that license laundering is not my fault since such uploads may evade detection as copyright, since the source website appears to provide "evidence" for the license. I do not contest license laundering I contest of being wrongly accused of license laundering.
• I also tried my best to explain why I have reason to not suspect "license laundering" prior to upload the files hereCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 following an invitation on my talk page. Administrator are expected to be fair, exercise good judgment. Visibly we do not have the same concept of "Fairness" Wikipedia:Administrators
• Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others . Does the treat he made should be regarded as respectful and civil ? Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Administrators
• Harassment "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats". Are administrators above wikipedia policy ?Wikipedia:Administrators Wikipedia:Civility
• Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but that right is denied, before I can explain myself I am already labeled as guilty of license laundering. Wikipedia:Administrators
• I did follow the procedure by leaving a message on his talk page, he had time to make treat on other user talk page but can't respond to my polite request.Administrator are expected to give explanations and be communicative as necessary . It seems that this administrator have little concern with that.Wikipedia:Administrators

I am not asking much:

• My right to participate to the dispute resolution without treat of being banned.
• Be fairly treated, unless an other administrator will make the final decision, I have good reason it will not be the case.
• Reword template and conversation that said "This user" by " the photos author"
• Formal apologize from the administrator.

Best Regards Fredtham59 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image ist from dpa. Source is only a place for whitewashing the license. Maybe Fredtham59 don't do this all with intent - but the way he upload images is a big problem for Commons. All of us more active Users here know how it mostly goes. We can not accept that Commons is filled every day with images with incorrect licenses, with white washed images and so on. If users don't understand and don't accept this - they have to go. There's no other way. It is only fair to tell Fredtham59 how it stands. And sorry - normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard. It is hard to belive that Fredtham59 is so new, that he did not knew, what he has done here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry - normal new users ...... he has done here.

Really ? Am I a so dishonest person that I first use the wrong notice board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents then someone copy it on Magog the Ogre (talk). ‎Then I modified the text to upload it here ? In wikipedia language what you just said is considered as personal attack Wikipedia:Civility, it's against the rules. Furthermore, as I said on the version I upload on the wrong notice board : Although I do not care on the photo outcome, since the administrator leave the treat message on a user talk page involved with the dispute resolution, there is a clear COI WP:CONFLICTand WP:NPOV for both users Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron within the consensus-forming process.

 ( conflict of interest and neutrality point of view) and you just make it even more clear ! THANKS Marcus Cyron (talk)

"normal new users did not find so easy the Administrators' noticeboard" : As a fact I just click on Help - and follow the link Admin noticeboard, it might be hard for you but for me less than a minute. Are you suggesting that my skills are bellow than my 8 years old daughter who know how to find a help page ???

You also forget to mention that there is a total of 4 Photos at the exact same moments, positions of arms,fingers, mobile phone ... identical, from 4 different angles. 3 from reputable agency Reuters [4], ANN [5] , DPA [6] and the one you deleted. Furthermore on the panoramio user page it said "I was with a group of photographers"

I should be nice if you want to discuss here to bring to the attention of all not only facts that best match your point of view but all. Fredtham59 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the incivility, Magog the Ogre commonly uses sarcasm, comedy, and "you're testing my patience" threats when speaking to users about very serious matters including their blocks. I have no comment on the remainder of this complaint. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikimedia policies are not necessarily identical to those in use in Commons; linking to them has not the intended effect. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean it's not a good idea to hold yourself to the same standards on Commons as you do on Wikipedia just because the "rules aren't quite the same here", if that's the excuse you are trying to make. Regarding civility, I do not like how Magog the Ogre speaks to other users, even ones who I completely agree should be blocked. A recent example is Giorgi Balakhadze, I don't find that response funny but Magog the Ogre clearly does and thinks it's ok. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making excuses for any one, and surely not for Marcus Cyron. But if Fredtham59 wants to present an argument on Common’s admin duties, he should link to the relevant Common’s policies not to those of a sister project. I know that for most English native speakers the difference may seem tenuous, but for the rest of us, there’s a huge diference between what’s inherently an English-language project, where we can be at most welcome guests, and what is an universal project where we all play on a level fiel and English is used as a mere practicality (to cut a long story short). Quoting w:en policies as done above creates an atmosphere I’m unconfortable with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taught that civility is about education and not only about written rules. Furthermore as you can see here Commons:Policies and guidelines there is nothing about civility, does it means that I have the right to say whatever I want or administrator have the right to be rude or work without guidelines ? I might be wrong but if wikipedia link to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Administrators do works on both pages wikimedia and commons which is untrue for most wikipedia link or commons links, the underlying meaning can be interpreted as both be part of a common policy. Fredtham59 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────┘
To quote a famous saying: ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." Fred's textwall above is a perfect example of pounding the table. Without question, he has a) engaged in likely deliberate Flickr washing, or b) in the (improbable) chance that Fred didn't know better, he is still throwing a temper tantrum and trying to introduce a red herring over the fact that his copyvios are now being deleted.

Users who purposefully upload copyvios or who refuse to apologize for having done so in the past are not the kind of person I particularly worry about making block threats to.

Take it or leave it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you shouldn't make threats at all, and that you don't see that as the problem but rather see it as "they're unrepentant sinners so it's ok" should be very alarming. Warning a user that they will be blocked if they continue a certain behaviour is what you're supposed to do, and you should know that. My god how did you ever become an admin? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not able to "make threats" to block someone, what does that mean about all the times you've warned someone to stop or they'll be blocked? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of difference in wording. Also I'm not an admin nor do I aspire, you're supposed to be held to a higher level. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the OgreFacts are facts and whatever you may think or say, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. Unfortunately you uphold suspicions as facts as they are more pliable to back your short from addressing this issue with civility, fairness and good judgment. Fredtham59 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solicito que el usuario Fry1989 sea amonestado por falta de etiqueta e insultos, como puede verse aquí. Además se dedica a hacer cambios sin fuentes y a acosarme en mis aportaciones. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. Además ha eliminado las referencias que le he dado en su página de discusión // P.S. 2: Este usuario me está difamando más abajo.[reply]
// P.S. 3: Otro insulto más en este resumen de edición.

((English)) I request that user Fry1989 request be admonished for breach of etiquette and insults, as can be seen here. He also works to make changes without sources and he harass me in my contributions. --Echando una mano (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) // P.S. He has removed the references that I have given in him in his discussion page // P. S. 2: This user is defaming me below. // P.S. 3: Another insult more in this edition summary.[reply]

I already removed my remark and I'm sorry I said it. However I am not harassing your contributions, I'm fixing them when you make mistakes. I already posted a source on your talk page which proves you're lying about me editing without sources. You are the one editing without sources, you changed the ratio of File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg for no reason. What's worse, you live by the policy of "revert first, ask questions later" as shown on that flag, you reverted back to your strange ratio without a source or reason and then 3 minutes later you reverted back to the original ratio after finding the FOTW source which was the original source for the 1:2 ratio in the first place! You act like you own files, you act like you're so special and that I'm chasing you around and harassing you when I've been trying to avoid you. In the case of the Chilean coat of arms, I have explained to you 4 times now that I changed the torse to all white because that is what the Government of Chile shows it as, and I completely re-did the shield so it is symmetrical. That's hardly harassing your contribution, it's fixing known errors. You constantly revert files after you have been reverted instead of discussing the matter, you have overwritten dozens of files with significantly different versions in violation of COM:Overwrite, you have uploaded copyright violations, you have been nothing but trouble since you came here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can give so many examples of this user's actions in the last few months which have driven me to near insanity and I said something off-colour in response. I've already apologized, but I will not apologize for fixing errors in a file. If I wanted to harass this user as I have been accused, I'd revert all their COM:Overwrite-violating uploads. I'd revert the huemel and eagle on File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg back to B1mbo's version. The reality is all I've done to this file is change the torse back to white as according to the Chilean Government SOURCE (which I posted on their talk page despite their accusation I don't have sources) and fix the symmetry of the shield. That's all I've changed, or rather fixed because Echando una mano's version had these errors. Now does that sound like harassment to anybody? It doesn't to me. And instead of asking me about my changes, Echando una mano reverted without discussing it. Just like they did on File:Flag of the President of Paraguay.svg, just like they have on a dozen files before this. If you revert Echando una mano for whatever reason, no matter how valid, they will just revert back, they don't ask you why, they don't discuss unless they are forced to, they just revert revert revert and then accuse you of non-existent harassment and not having sources even though you just gave them one. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently alongside the accusations of harassment and not having sources (both not true), I am defaming (defined as the "Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication") this user by telling the truth about their editing history. I guess next I'll be accused of attempted intimidation, and murder after that. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely laughable, anything and everything I say is an insult now. I have been accused of harassing this user which isn't true. I have been accused of not having sources even though I GAVE ONE on their talk page. I have been accused of defamation which is not true. Now my disbelief at this nonsense is being construed as a further insult. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]