Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 1

User:Fedejr7wc

He doesn't care a bit about copyright, ans posts random images from Web as PD. Can someone stop him? --Erina 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:GameOver2

Keeps posting porno pics. OK, maybe it is valuable and informative, but... looks like a vandal to me. --Erina 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Fenix 2

Can a user who speaks Spanish tell this user to stop uploading random images and tag them as GPL? --Kjetil_r 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Castell

I have blocked Castell (talk · contribs) for one week, because he uploaded lots of images without providing image sources. / Fred Chess 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we adopting a practice of reporting such things here? Jkelly 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm in general I wouldn't think it was necessary... but if a user seems like they have a lot of socks or is otherwise disruptive, it could be useful. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Roadytom

Has been uploading masturbation/ejaculation images. William Avery 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted by User:WarX William Avery 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:JuanPaBJ16 and User:JuanPaBJ17

I blocked User:JuanPaBJ16 for 24 hours after repeated uploads of Bon Jovi images, all copyvios with false license tags, and a warning in Spanish (Drini was most helpful). Soon after the block expired, he started again with another Bon Jovi copyvio with a GFDL license, now as User:JuanPaBJ17 (there's only circumstantial evidence that they are the same, but it would have held up in most courts). I put an infinite block on the new user; if he want to contribute and starts to behave he's free to go back to his old username. Anyway, please keep an eye out for a Spanish-speaking user who uploads web images of Bon Jovi, he might continue this in the hope that we'll get tired and leave him to it. I'd rather not have to deal with User:JuanPaBJ2500743507 at some time in the future, and I think the best way to prevent that is to deal quickly him until he understands and either respects the rules or leaves. If anyone thinks I've made a mistake by blocking, feel free to correct me; it's what I would have done on no:, but I am quite new as an admin here. Cnyborg 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems right; good job on getting a translation. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has likely reappeared as Nacht (talk · contribs) —JeremyA 02:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

...malluco...

...malluco... (talk · contribs), an Italian spanish speaker, uploads many images with the "PD-self" tag. There has been some confusing from Italian users about copyrights, and I suspect that's the case with this user too. For example, Image:Cemiterioe.jpg looks like it was scaned from a magazine, the same with Image:Foglok.jpg; Image:Watercycleportuguesehigh.jpg is clearly not PD-self; Image:Geadad.jpg does not look like PD-self, etc, etc. Note that the user is actively uploading files. / Fred Chess 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

edited by --Jollyroger 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC), italian user and proud of it.

User:Rtc

I'd want some input on this user, who has nominated {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-Soviet}} for deletion, causing quite some disruption. He recently nominated even more templates for deletion, claiming he wanted the EU-harmonization to be implemented. I reverted this nomination and suggested he discuss this somewhere else. Is there anything constructive coming out of Rtc's contributions? / Fred Chess 11:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You want some Input? OK, some input from me: you should kiss his feet instead of driving the Commons aganist a wall. Did I've understan it correct - you are a commons admin? Oh my god... - If there much more like you, we can wait untill it'll ends like the french Wikiquote. And one thing to notice: there are much more in the world than the en:WP. Kenwilliams 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This attack is completely unwarranted. Please discuss the issues and don't insult people. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Chess started to insult Rtc instead of discussing the problem of massive commons copyright violations. So please accept, that he is under critic now. --Steschke 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think you can exploit the heated atmosphere and block the user who is actively working against your politics, because you know that the majority of admins currently will agree to a block for all the hazzle? Go on if you think you are doing yourself a favour. --Rtc 12:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one constructive thing coming from Rtc is the distinct possibility that the very probably inaccurate {{PD-Soviet}} might actually be deleted (or better, redirected to {{Copyvio}}). On the other hand, he (like many other German users around here) sometimes seems to have difficulty distinguishing German law from that of other countries, claiming that logos are ineligible for copyright everywhere in the world merely because they don't meet Germany's exceedingly high threshold of originality. Angr 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that the position about logos etc. is frequently misrepresented in a distorting manner, which people (entirely jursified) see as nonsense which has to be rejected. Logos are not ineligible for copyright everywhere in the world, for example not in the UK. Also Germany does not have an exceptionally high threshold of originality—it merely applies Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster (GG) as a lex specialis for objects of utilitarian nature. GG already grants automatic protection. This protection comes down to basically much the same as copyright, but it lasts only a maximum of 25 years if it is registered after three years and prolonged properly. In Germany, this is entirely parallel for why clothing, cars, lamps, typefaces, jewelry etc. are generally not protected by copyright. Also, contrary to popular belief, the often cited en:Image:Laufendes-Auge.jpg reaches threshold of originality (in contrast to, for example, Image:SED-Logo.png, which is simply an assembly of previously known symbols all in the PD) and putting it on the back of a postcard violates the authors copyright. Only as long as it has the character of a logo and is thus of utilitarian nature, it is not protected by copyright. The logo which I uploaded and which you cited consists of two words. It should be easy to conclude that two words cannot be copyrighted, independent from the German situation. If there is any barrier below which works are not restricted, then this logo for sure falls below it. Else you should be careful to write a wikipedia article named en:Coca Cola—already the title of the article might be a copyright violation. ;)--Rtc 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Short off-topic notice: "Coca Cola" cannot be a copyright violation but a trademark violation. "Coca Cola" is too short in order to be subject to copyright (and "Coca" and "Cola" are not invented by the Coca Cola company). Arnomane 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and for the same reason the logo which Angr refers to cannot be copyrighted either, because it is two words written in some typeface. UK, which unquestionably has the most strict law in this sense, going as far as actually protecting typefaces, only extends this to protection to the typefaces as such (as employed in fonts), not their actual use. Actual use (as in this case done with the two words) is legal and unrestricted by the typeface copyright in any case—even if the font used was based illegally on some protected typeface.[1] --Rtc 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

English Wikipedia would never accept the logo of SED as public domain. It is common sense to realize that it is hardly "free". / Fred Chess 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

public domain refers to copyright, and "free" can also only refer to copyright, since, if not, the consequences would be absurd as I have shown several times: Photos of persons, panorama freedom, coat of arms, patented objects, nazi symbols, photos with non-central copyrighted objects, are all restricted by independent non-copyright laws or by independent copyright, and are not "free" in the wide sense; they are fully or partially "nonderivative" and/or "noncommercial". On the one hand, being in the public domain does not mean something can be used freely for everything, on the other hand, being restricted in use does not mean something must be protected by copyright. In this sense, the SED logo is perfectly in the public domain. And EN will surely accept it; it is in the public domain there, too, already—as in Germany, and in contrast to Laufendes Auge—by threshold of originality:

Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations.[2]

And German court ruled exactly that for the SED logo: That it consists entirely of a few standard symbols, the shaking hands and the flag, all being standard symbols in wide use. (Again, and please do not confuse: this does not apply to Laufendes Auge). However, such logos enjoy a protection by trademark law, which is independent from copyright, and which restricts some things (mainly, displaying the logo for brand recognition) which in your feeling are against common sense. However, the difference is clear: Copyright restricts copying. But such a protection is entirely irrelevant for logos: You can easily get many "legal copies" of logos anyway, each product comes with one; and according to copyright these would be your legal copies, which you would be entiteled to legally remove from the original and attach to your own product (you are not copying the logo!) and sell them together (Copyright#The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights!). So copyright would effectively not restrict the usage which is important for logos. The infringing action is here of an entirely different nature: You are not copying, but using the logo for brand recognition. So if you want to rule out trademarks from commons, you'd have to amend Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses by "Using for brand recognition must be allowed". The english wikipedia currently does not make much of a difference between trademark and copyright law (en:Template:Logo), which is the cause of this great confusion. Here's something for you: Imagine you draw a logo and put it on commons as PD. What if somebody takes it and trademarks it? Must the picture then be deleted? --Rtc 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rtc obviously edits in good faith and is not a vandal. It is not helpful to label him as such even if we disagree with his methods. We need those users who disagree with us and challenge us to keep us honest, even if sometimes it is exceedingly annoying. Surrounding ourselves with yes-men is not a good tactic that I have ever seen and above all we just need users who care about the project.

So, what to do. If we disagree with his methods (especially for nominating license templates for deletion), let us outline what acceptable practice for this would be. I certainly wouldn't mind a stronger process for this type of deletion -- it tends to need a lot more eyeballs than simple copyvios. If he persists in disruptive behaviour then short blocks at the time of the behaviour after being warned are appropriate -- this is true for all users. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm well I have looked into his last deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Templates contradicting EU directive and it seems to me much better written than the previous ones as it tries to be strictly on topic (no ranting, sadly enough that it took so long for this progress) and at least tries to highlight the topic from different angles although you probably could argue why not disucussing this at our license policy pages previous (so that an eventual deletion request is just a formal thing, ok haven't looked into the archives maybe it happened already). I haven't looked into the matter of these things yet, so as of now I have no opinion about that particual deletion request itself. So in summary I see this as Pfctdayelise: Short time blockings when appropriate (highly disruptive rantings and such) but I wouldn't consider him a vandal (although quite often he is a huge pain, as he forces you to spend him your 100% attention and thus disrupts your own work, even if you need to do something equally important). Arnomane 15:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on en:Wikipedia:Vandalism, I'd say no. (Although there are some who would probably point out that it's an en-wiki page.) -Samulili 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rtc, with his lengthy arguments on the Deletion request (now recently at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Logo-Germany), is IMO done to try and garner support from the mob. Because certain things are not allowed as outlined on our pages about licensing, he knows that he won't get his ways through in the matters he is discussing. Instead he wants to stir up an angry mob against Commons. I have for long come to the conclusion that this is his main purpose on Commons. Whether others think he acts in good faith or not is up to them, but to me, he are arguing from the point of view of a w:WP:TROLL.

Fred Chess 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's the troll? I do not oppose the argument for proposing the deletion. (Protected in UK.) It is entirely correct. I do not oppose the argument for executing the deletion. (Protected by trademark.) It is entirely correct. I did not vote against deletion, and in fact I do not even oppose the template being deleted. I merely gave comments for stupid and incorrect comments made by voters. It is my right to voice my opinion on the matters, say that the deletion request argument and decision by themselves are perfectly consistent, but it is neither consequential, nor consistent with other things. Also the template's argumentation was misrepresented by voters. Also the template was not created by me for uploading pictures or for justifying existing upload behaviour, but merely because logos were existing and were incorrectly hidden by use of other templates such as PD-ineligible. I did not cause the problem, I merely made it apparent. Ask the italians and the russians about "garner support from the mob". I did not do so. If you can't stand criticism, harsh criticism, you should ask yourself if that's really the attitude a good administrator should have. I personally am not against logos, but I do accept the arguments brought against it and I do not striclty oppose the deletion. Here is my opinion about your message here trying to get my voice suppressed once more: may it be roasted in hell. --Rtc 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

@Fred Chess: After your last statement I ask you to withdraw from your admin position. --Steschke 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred should stop his personal attacks by now, contrary to the "lengthy arguments" they are completely useless. Without regards, the angry mob 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "the angry mob", Fred should stop his personal attacks. User:Rtc is not even close to trolling, he is of great value to the Commons community. --Kjetil_r 23:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as Rtc and Sancho Panza are making a mockery of deletion requests by responding to each vote opposing theirs with fierce remarks such as "Burn this fucking comment to hell", I will not be quiet with my criticism.

But please do not confuse my opinions with my adminship.

Fred Chess 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dynamicknowledge

The user has uploaded several shots of Halle Berry, and as soon as I could remember my name again after looking at them, I found the PD-self tag suspicious. The combination of different sizes and naming styles indicates that they've been lifted from websites. I've asked the user at his/her talk page, but please keep an eye open in case there are more uploads. Cnyborg 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that these need to be nominated for deletion, unless we find the real source we cannot be sure that they are copyvios. Jkelly 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they have to be nominated. That will also draw some attention to them from other users, who might recognize some of the images from other sources. The user has had no activity since these uploads, so I doubt that there'll be a response. I'll nominate them for deletion. Cnyborg 21:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now nominated them at Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User:Dynamicknowledge. Cnyborg 21:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Carolus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I promised a concerned user to keep an eye on User:Carolus. The user has been "improving" old paintings. You can see his activities by clicking on "upload log" above. There isn't any policy on this as far as I know, so I'd like some input on this. Many of his improvement really do improve the colour or contrast of an image -- but how can we know how a painting is supposed to look? For example: Image:Albrecht Dürer 010.jpg -- compare this new version with this old version. Second example Image:El martirio de San Felipe 1639 José de Ribera.jpg-- compare new version with old version. Although the colours were clearly improved in both examples, there was also some loss in the finer details, in particular to the second example. Also see Carolus response to his improvements on the second image. / Fred Chess 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'have reverted some as I think the only way these images can be better is by being more closer to the original. -Samulili 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin Lmbuga personal attacks (Portuguese speaker needed to read the attacks )

After a (so far, polite) dispute over digital manipulation and naming of an image, the Administrator User:Lmbuga left me a very strongly worded message where he explains, among other things, that he "understands that it was always about personal pride" (my translation for "Entendo que desde o começo é questão de orgulho pessoal...").

I left him a short message remembering him of the good pratices on Wikipedias of "Assuming good fair" and "avoiding personal attacks".

After that, he left another message in my talk page, this time explaing that he knew "from the beggining" that a "intention of public defamation" is the only reason I use english sometimes (my translation from "Desde o começo tinha claro que o uso do inglês era devido a uma intenção de difamação pública"). He also went to ironize telling me "You're big. Surelly bigger than God" ("É você grande. Seguramente maior que Deus"). And again "The data is evident: You and your images are the best in the world." ("Os dados sao evidentes: Você e as suas imagens sao o melhor do mundo").

A new message from him followed, asking me to "never edit (his) talk page again on regard of this discussion" ("Rogo não edite mais na minha página de discussão por este assunto"), then continued "Wha't next? Do you want to emperially have the last word? The matter is over for me" ("Só falta que deseje imperiosamente ter a última palavra. Para mim o tema está fechado").

I believe all this reaction was uncessessary and unnacceptable, as I never disrespected this Admin (nor any other user for the registry). And even in the case some Admin feels disrespected, the expeted reation is for the Admin to block the offender, instead of fire back so furiously. I don't think this user's behaviour is compatible with the Commons community. It's not suitable for a user, let alone for an Admin.

Thanks in advance for the attention. Let me know if anyone needs any more info on this issue. Awaiting for some help, --Abu badali 01:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see an admin dispute here. I see a dispute between two users about which version of an image is better. This happens all the time - it's not unusual.

Lmbuga doesn't seem to be acting in an admin capacity - he hasn't blocked anyone, protected anything, well he did delete something but I think that is not the topic of the dispute - so I don't think there's a need to discuss it here.

Frankly it is very unusual to have a user complain that an admin didn't block them. If that really worries you, then we can arrange it. ;) ;)

I mean what do you want us to do? Tell Lmbuga not to be sarcastic? Enforce your preference over his? Take it to the image talk page, and make your argument about the image not the person you're arguing with. I don't think you need our help. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for help on the dispute. Indeed, I barely mentioned the dispute. I'm complaining about Lmbuga' language and attitude towards me, that I think we're highly unpolite and unnapropriate for any user, regarless of being an Admin. The place to complain about some user's attitude and bahaviour is this page, and not some image talk page. --Abu badali 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lmbuga is one of the most respectful people you find in the Wikimedia projects. He pay attention to all help requests. Users who understand Portuguese language can verify the whole conversation. Abu badali seems to be annoying because of Lmbuga's intervention to talk about image licenses with another Portuguese user (requested by Paddy). In one of the replies about the image to Abu badali, Lmbuga says: if you wish you can upload again your version of the image. Abu badali seems to be easily hurt and he make a mountain out of a molehill. --Prevert^(talk) 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He was far from respectful to me. Has was sarcastic, to say the least ("You're big. Surelly bigger than God"). Right after saying "if you wish you can upload again your version of the image" (in this message) he says "Do not disturbe with your personal proud" and then "I understand it was always about personal proud..." do Commons users are suposed to assume good faith just like Wikipedians?

Prevert, your user page says you understand Portuguese. You really don't believe Lmbuga has being rude to me? Do you think I have disrespected him? Do you believe his assumed good faith on me? --Abu badali 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand Portuguese but I don't understand why this thread is here. Some of your messages in Lmbuga's talk page sounds contempt, Lmbuga's reply sounds severe but not rude. I prefer to believe this thread it is due to translation mistakes or misunderstandings. Please, if you want to clarify the issue you can go to my talk page. I am sure we can find the best answer for all subjects. --Prevert^(talk) 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is here because this page says "This is a place where users can communicate with administrators" and "You can report ... problematic users". And according to what I'm used to see on the english Wikipedia community, Lmbuga's behaviour was very "problematic". I've put this thread here in the hope some administrator would see it and intervene, condemning Lmbuga's behaviour.

You said "Some of your messages in Lmbuga's talk page sounds contempt", can you provide diffs? (I'm challenging you to do that, I'm just asking you to be more specific). You said "Lmbuga's reply sounds severe but not rude". Do you think "You're big. Surelly bigger than God" is not rude? Don't you think by saying "I understands that it was always about personal pride" he shows that he did not assumed good faith on me? If you "know from the beggining" that someone is moved by "personal pride", I believe you're not assuming good faith.

I surely would love that it all was just due to translation mistakes and misunderstandings. --Abu badali 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I understand it now!. This thread is not about Lmbuga it's about you. Sorry, I'm not interested in talking about you. I hope you don't believe this is rude. Bye. --Prevert^(talk) 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the tone on Commons community always like this? I guess my mistake was to expect the same kind of mutual respect that I'm used to see on English Wikipedia. --Abu badali 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Majorsure

I've just blocked Majorsure for 24 hours, and tried out the new template {{Wait}}. He has uploaded a lot of obvious copyvios, one of which I just deleted, and most of his images have all the signs of copyvios. He has, however, figured out how to tag them with a dual GFDL/CC-BY-SA license, which makes it all a bit harder. Since that license has been used for some of the obvious cases, it reasonably certain that he uses it no matter where he got the image from, but I'd like a second opinion on this one before I start tagging as copyvios or open deletion discussions on the images. Cnyborg 23:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of uploads is pretty long; could someone please take a look? Others might spot more obvious copyvios that can be deleted, so that the list on the deletion request I'll post later can be shortened a bit. Cnyborg 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ricehrlich.jpg and Image:Marcos3.jpg come from epfaprensa.org. The uploader obviously takes images found on the web and tag them as CC/GFDL – I suggest that we delete them all. --Kjetil_r 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've now tagged all remaining images with {{Copyvio}}. I did that since one the one hand, that's what I (and Kjetil r) believe them to be, but on the other hand I don't want to go crazy on the deletion button. If more admins think that they are copyvios and should be deleted right away (some of them are actually eligible for deletion because of missing source info, I just needed to get something done before the block expires), please say so here, and I will take my share of delinking and deleting. I'm leaving a message on the user's talk page now; could a Spanish-speaking user please translate that message, as I'm unsure of Majorsure speaks English. Cnyborg 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mapplayer

This user has uploaded a substantial amount of images in the last twenty-four hours, claiming rights to release them into the public domain. See this page: Red Alert 2. Some of these are posters. In assuming good faith, we're assuming either that the user owns the rights to these images (which I very strongly doubt) or that the user doesn't understand releasing to public domain. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 13:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jaimabra repeatedly uploaded problem images

This user has repeatedly uploaded images with uncertain copyright licensing. After previous problem images have been deleted, there has been no regard to warnings. I have warned this user about blocking in English, but as (s)he probably cannot read English, could any Spanish-speaking admin send a Spanish warning message? I cannot type Spanish.--Jusjih 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no other admin responds, I have blocked the user for 3 days of repeated copyvios.--Jusjih 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rudyvignaug

Is still uploading Pepsi artwork. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Rudyvignaug William Avery 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Has been blocked by User:Radomil. William Avery 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Belginusanl

This user has been uploading images of children both to here and to en.wikipedia (check his en. talk page) with a insane amount of personal information on the child imaged. One of the current images hosted on en.wiki is on IFD there and this is identical to the Commons Image:Nina 2006-09-10.jpg. I've removed the personal details from the Commons image and protected on a version without them. The source still contains the excess personal info though. Seeing as this user appears to repeatedly upload similar images, should we take action here against the user and do something about his contribs?--Nilfanion 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User is now indef blocked both here and on en.wp. (see en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Belginusanl). Little girl says it all to me...--Nilfanion 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)