Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 10

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

Marialys1505 (talk · contribs)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of Oscareduardocrespo (talk · contribs). He started uploading similar files right after I blocked Oscar (mostly computer chip images from various websites), with names such as File:Oscar eduardo.jpg and File:Oscar.jpg. Is an indef block appropriate for Marialys1505, or should I request a CU first to confirm the sockpuppetry? –Tryphon☂ 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I indef blocked Marialys1505. Oscar is still blocked for a week; I'll keep an eye on him. –Tryphon☂ 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In passing (:)) there might be a few more involved in this. I've just found more similar web size computer images uploaded by a few other accounts. Could be a "class" type thing or not. Worth watching out for. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic User (spam)

User Cable master has uploaded a number of images including a link to a company (turbosquid.com), either in the image itself or in the name of the image. I have removed a couple of these images on Wikipedia (e.g. Coaxial cable), but I guess a better solution is to rename or delete images here. Does somebody know how to do this? GyroMagician (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted them. Promotional content is a valid speedy reason. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why so hasty, though? If the images are in scope and the licensing is valid (which seems plausible at a glance, but I can't be sure), then the links could be easily removed and the files reuploaded under better names. (Also, some of the filenames do seem at least borderline acceptable to me: the mere presence of "turbosquid" in a file name is hardly worse than me uploading my own photos as e.g. File:Earthshine Karonen.jpg.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of Cable master's pictures have already been nominated for deletion before (see Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06/14#File:Buy_on_turbosquid_optical.jpg and following) and have been replaced by ad-less versions such as File:Optical fiber cable.jpg. This seems the best course to me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And now the source/attribution path is broken. I think it would be best to just change the filenames and keep the files, and for those with watermarks, upload cropped/corrected versions over the old ones. These images were probably uploaded as a promotion tool, but it doesn't mean we cannot turn them into something useful. –Tryphon☂ 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, not really, at least not for File:Optical fiber cable.jpg. DerivativeFX seems to have done a reasonable job of preserving the attribution there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok they are "in scope" however we have managed to preserve the spamming via the source on that one. Kind of means they got their way & used us to spam? --Herby talk thyme 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately. But we put up with a little bit of self-promotion/advertising here and there if it helps up improve our image collection. I think the file name should have been kept the same (renamed first of course), which is the usual practice when removing watermarks. Rocket000 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, it looks to me like we got a useful educational image and they got their company name on the description page. Sounds like a fair deal to me. (Anyway, we can't really avoid that kind of low-key "advertising" anyway: contributors are free to e.g. designate their company as an Attribution Party to a CC license.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sock-puppets?

I have a rather strong suspicion that Fandecrepusculo (talk · contribs) and Crepusculo Personajes de la pelicula (talk · contribs) is the same person. Both uploaded copyrighted images of actors from the same film. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons overload

Why has "DcoetzeeBot" been allowed to take over Commons with hundreds/(thousands?) of photos? It would be very helpful if there were a 'filter function' in Commons Latest Files, so that one would not have to scroll through all these pictures.

Why not? The Special:NewFiles is not a Special:NewFiles except DcoetzeeBot ;) - also this files need categorization and may be of interest. Of course every help with reviewing newly uploaded files is appreciated, but It should be no problem for the reviewers to ignore files if they are not interesting for a review. Every user is allowed to upload as much free images as possible as long as they are inside our scope regarding content and legal status. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If there's complaints about flooding, the bot flag might be an idea.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I already applied for a bot flag and User:EugeneZelenko recommended that it be left without one "so they may be noticed in recent changes for additional human processing." Dcoetzee (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User with copyvio images

After many warnings and prior blocks, User:Coolguyhunksmart continues to upload images that most likely are non-free images with PD-self. Suggest indef block and deletion of all his uploads as presumed copyvios - notice the heterogenity in camera data between all his images (I see Olympus, Canon, Fujifilm, etc). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. His/her extant contributions cannot be trusted, in my opinion. S/he has no contributions to Talk or User talk namespaces. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I would block it, but I don't have a really good consensus to do such.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

deleted all uploads deleted, the aren't trusted. Huib talk 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 (talk · contribs) - personal attacks

Erik9 (talk · contribs) has started a spree of unjustified accusations against Lar, after Lar asked him on his en-talkpage for clarification of some issues of File:Topless Swimmer at Devon Beach cropped.png uploaded by Erik9.

  • On :en Erik9 accused Lar in a strong-worded warning of “blatantly retaliatory Wikihounding”[1] on Lars en-talkpage and on his talkpage indirectly of retaliatory action for a disagreement between the two in a totally unrelated rfd on :en. [2]
  • On Commons Erik9 himself then issued a rfd for the image in question and its uncropped version, in which he again accuses Lar being “blatantly retaliatory” [3].
  • In addition, on User talk:Max Rebo Band Erik9 accuses Lar as being "blatantly retaliatory"[4].
  • Finally, in the edit summary of this edit he wrote “if you don't want the Spanish Inquisition, then Don't Mess With Lar”.

Even if we don’t have a formal policy against personal attacks, such a behaviour shouldn’t be tolerated IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The last soft pa is made two hours before your warning, I would suggest to keep watching and don't do anything before it continues.
Please not that the last (“if you don't want the Spanish Inquisition, then Don't Mess With Lar”.) was followed by LOL so it could be a joke, but I don't see something we could do right now.. First wait if it continues. Huib talk 10:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If they were directed at me (actually at other people about me) I wouldn't take them as personal attacks. Maybe I was being "blatantly retaliatory". Either way, it was his opinion and he's entitled to. But I know not everyone has that kind of US 1st Amendment mentality. See, that's the problem with baby-sitting policies like that is it caters to the most sensitive and others are afraid to speak and be themselves. A little tolerance can go a long ways. Rocket000 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rocket, if this kind of stuff would go on for ever (or a little longer time) we could take actions, but as far as I see it now there is nothing we should do, we are all users from different countries, I can make a joke and somebody from a other country could see it as pa, or I could make a pa and somebody would see it as a joke.
The users received a note that his behaviour isn't liked by some users and its stopped so it solved itself.
Respect to all users is needed, respect is different in all countries so we need to find a middle way, but the Administrators aren't cops to handle on every request I'm sure this message weren't mend as PA and if the where, I'm sure the user will stop now..Huib talk 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I thought you were using a Latin phrase or something with the italicized soft pa. It wasn't until you capitalized it I realized it stood for personal attack. ;) And yes, respect is always important. Instead of punishing for a lack or it, we need to help others know how to be respectful in this multi-cultural world we call the Internet. Rocket000 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A soft faux pas? :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Pourquoi pas? It would have been appropriate too. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Arthus-Bertrand

Hi

This user uploaded 2 pics (the same) probably from a indefinite web site.

Pics are not the probleme here, deletions requests are for that. The problem is the name of this user clearly an identity usurpation. What process about that? Sorry I have not interest usually for this sort of problems. Oxam Hartog 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if he is really Yann Arthus-Bertrand, we are delighted that he uploads images on Commons. But we need some proof. Yann (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote him, asking for confirmation. Yann (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with a user

User:KEIM reworks several Korea/China/Japan related maps but often uses a low resolution version of the map for these changes. Also these changes seem to be controversal as they get instantly reverted by other users. KEIM does not seem to react to notices and warnings placed by other users. An Admin with specific language skills is needed here to intervene and to semi-block the affected maps. --Denniss (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would interfere to stop this revert/upload war between this user and others. Even if nobody is capable to speak their language the affected images should temporarily been reverted to the last good state and locked. --Denniss (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The user seems to be getting the hang of editing images: most of their recent uploads have been full-sized. At this point, what seems to remain is essentially a content dispute, which would be best resolved by discussion. That said, there does seem to have been some significant revert warring on some of those images — if it continues, and unless someone can come up with a better solution, I'm minded to just protect them at a random version and slap {{Doubt}} tags on them until some consensus has been reached. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And the edit war happily goes on.... Would please someone revert those images to a pre-KEIM version and protect them? The discussion about the validity of his changes should be made on his discussion page but not in forcing his versions. Look what happened to File:Bohai Sea map.png and File:Three Kingdoms of Korea Map-zh.png. --Denniss (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like KEIM was previously known as User:KEIMS (probably just lost the password). In this incarnation he/she/it also made several controversial changes to maps. --Denniss (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy editwar still going on. Please revert changes by KEIM and protect this and this image. Thank you. --Denniss (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Both images protected for a month. –Tryphon☂ 13:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
And again.... File:Bohai_Sea_map.png He/She/It is still immune to talk pages or suggestions by other users. --Denniss (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Simonpettersen & copyvios

User Simonpettersen has uploaded several album covers under Creative Commons with the claim that he is the copyright holder, which is highly unlikely. I've left a message on his talk page on the en Wikipedia where he is active but so far no response (I will wait longer before taking it further). I'm not too familiar with Commons procedure and was wondering what the next step should be, tagging the images with Template:no permission perhaps? Cheers Rehevkor ✉ 15:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
Thank you very much for your note here, Commons doesn't accept fair use material and I deleted the Covers, if the he owns the copyright he should send a email to OTRS. I give him some information on his talkpage that he can upload covers on En.wiki.
You could use the {{No permission}} but with this kind of things it would be smarter to use {{Cover}} or {{Copyvio}} because this is a very small chance that he is the copyright owner and images tagged for no permission can stay for months on Commons where I prefer to see Fair use to get deleted asap.
Best regards,
Huib talk 16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment deletion; hostility.

1)CONDUCT

Is this a reasonable way to proceed?

I feel "It seems you can't read" to be a rather hostile comment as well. (see above diff). Can someone warn the user?

My comments, which were removed, were somewhat duplicative, but relevant to each situation where I placed them; the comments I was responding to were somewhat duplicative too, but deleting either isn't appropriate, AFAIK.

This comment was completely removed. (see above diff): The current note needs a source. {{fact}}, in other words.--Elvey (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--Elvey (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(2)CONTENT: (comments which would go on the talk page, except that my comments there are being deleted...)

I understand perfectly well the point made with the statement "if the work is a cooperation of NASA with other organisations the standard copyright regulation does not apply." and think it's basically correct. The following comment, "It's the same if NASA host images from other institutions on their site." is, well, wrong, IMO. It's wrong becasue any law or case law on copyright of collaborative works of the federal gov't and other organizations, should be cited, and, well, it will be different from that which is relevant when NASA hosts images from other institutions on their site.--Elvey (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, removing user comments is never ok, but multiple posting like that isn't really acceptable either. You shouldn't edit old templates others posted for history's sake (as you did by adding {{disputed}}; it's a talk page, it doesn't need that anyway). --Rocket000
Thanks for the feedback. I did use {{disputed}} once on a talk page and am no longer doing so. I made my point w/o {{disputed}}, because it looked odd. (The tag here is very different from the on on en., IIRC.) Note: I don't think I did actually "edit old templates others posted" or "edit old templates others posted for history's sake", as you claim. --Elvey (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, you did, but then fixed it. Rocket000 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no I didn't; Template_talk:PD-USGov-NASA is not "a template," "an old template," or "an old template others posted for history's sake". It's a talk page. I pointed this out at the start of my last comment when I wrote, "I did use {{disputed}} once on a talk page". I don't know what "an old template others posted for history's sake" would be; I presume you were trying to describe a template, or the edit I did, or someone else's edit, but misspoke. --Elvey (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Semantics. It was someone else's comment you edited. But this is not something worth arguing over, so you win. I'm sorry for accusing you of something you didn't do. Rocket000 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The content part of the dispute should stay there, but I don't mind stating that license tags should never need a {{fact}} (which we don't even have here). Rocket000 (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I said "The current note needs a source. {{fact}}, in other words"; I was not implying that the license tag itself should bear a {{fact}}. I was making the claim that use of {{fact}} implies: a source is needed; if one can't be found, the info should be removed.--Elvey (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
User warned. --Elvey (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The essay, COM:MELLOW may provide helpful guidance in matters of this sort. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Elvey (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Attis1979

Hi! At present, I have no time for Wikimedia Commons but I want to direct your attention to User:Attis1979, a Hungarian user who doesn’t speak English at all, uploads „own works“ as „Amanda Barkley“ for years now and whose uploads were deleted again and again. I think it’s time to stop this practice by deleting all problematic images if the user doesn’t use the block of one week to explain his actions. Please see User_talk:Attis1979#Stop_right_now. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I look at User_talk:Attis1979#Stop_right_now and see a file whose original uploader was Jayanthsharma at en.wikipedia. Likewise i see a complaint claiming that he uploaded content that http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lemur_catta.jpg&action=history says he didn't upload. What am I missing? --Elvey (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In both cases Attis' uploads had already been deleted and then new files have been uploaded at the Commons under these exact names. In the first case, Jayanthsharma's file was properly transwiki'd to the Commons (maintaining correct author attribution and uploading the full 850px version instead of the 800px thumbnail Attis had uploaded. In the second case, Attis' upload was deleted (no source), and then someone else uploaded another image under that name. Lupo 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Users inappropriately changing capitalization of category names, other issues

T2 (talk · contribs) is changing the name of the "Interstate Highways in <state>" categories to "Interstate highways in <state>" (see [5]). This is wrong; the system is called the "Interstate Highway System) and the routes in that system are called "Interstate Highways". "Interstate highway" is a general term that can easily be interpreted to mean any highway that goes through multiple states, such as a U.S. Numbered Highway. An attempt to contact this user was reverted by the user. Here, the user has modified the licensing of an image, and I'm not sure if this is allowed given the terms of the original version's licensing. Perhaps someone with more experience in that department can advise on that issue.

In what might be a related issue, there are at least two ([6], [7]) IPs that have created Category:California Interstate Highway shields, which is fine, but they've turned it into a gallery (and the above user has removed this category from at least one image). The IPs always leave an edit summary of "Categories have been checked" even though the category checking tool is not present anywhere on the pages they edit. I've seen this IP make problematic edits before under other addresses but I can't find them at the moment.

I'd attempt to contact the above parties directly again, but I doubt I'd receive a response based on my prior experience with both IPs and the user in question. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First issue brought to COM:CFD. Is anyone around here to look at the second issue (possible sock/meatpuppetry)? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the user could be just confused about how the category system works. Anyway, I've fixed Category:California Interstate Highway shields for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the odd edits continue, though, through several new IPs: [8], [9]. I've set up an abuse filter rule to try and keep track of them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Whoever's behind all of this has apparently moved on to making unnecessary categories - here unnecessary because only one I-905 exists. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm at a loss of what to do. The CFD that I filed regarding the first category changes has gone nowhere (no comments), and if this user continues unimpeded the category structure for U.S. road-related items is going to be a mess, with incorrect capitalization, flawed names (after thinking about it, "Interstate 905 in California" makes absolutely no sense because California is the only state it enters) and redundancy running rampant. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we now have a username behind the "categories have been checked" IP business: Rukshanawahab (talk · contribs). The contribs seem to match exactly, from the edit summary to the addition of galleries to category pages. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
And now that user and T2 (talk · contribs) are revert-warring: [10]. Can someone please look into this situation? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for category redirects. --NE2 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Stefenelli

User:Stefenelli was blocked in de after several copyright violations. He got the chance for explanations. His uploads should be checked carefully. --Textkorrektur (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shizhao (talk · contribs) (admin) deleting images with legitimate licensing, frivolous tagging

I've been looking through this admin's edits and behavior. First off, he/she has run a bot for months with a broken copyright detection feature without stopping it to make fixes, despite the numerous complaints by editors about the bot repeatedly spamming the copyvio template. Secondly, Shizhao appears to be abusing his/her admin powers by tagging perfectly licensed images as copyright violations only because his/her bot found some vague matches to other images, and then deletes them without any proper reason or justification.

I think that until this admin learns what is proper use of admin powers (as in deletion) and what's not, that he/she should be desysopped. Just look at Shizhao's talk page; there's been a ton of complaints regarding his random bouts of image deletion. I've also seen some of the admin's own uploads, which all don't have proof that the image is his own nor does he know the actual licensing/permission for the images. GraYoshi2x (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed User talk:Shizhao#Kassaiemlekvertanuk.gif. The image was deleted as no license, but it got a license. Judging from his deletion log (notice the speed) and his contributions I can't help but thinking that he just blindly empties out the unknown category without even checking the images. Multichill (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross-linking for reference: COM:AN#Serious_problems_with_bot_User:Sz-iwbot. Rocket000 (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here? Shizhao is yet again on another editing spree tagging and nominating perfectly legitimate files for deletion. The way I see it he should be desysopped and warned/blocked ASAP to prevent any more "damage" from occurring. GraYoshi2x (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look thru Shizhao's last batch of deletions, some are questionable(2/15) in that the info-box had source & permission information but there isnt a license tag as such. These images were tagged as no license June 19 2009, suggest that you drop a note on Shizhao talk page to get clarification rather than just call for de-sysopping. Gnangarra 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
and are there any particular images you need to have retored because you have licensing information? Gnangarra 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Second that: try talking to him directly, he has a talk page :-). BTW, I've re-tagged File:Marco Lupis at Port Lockroy.jpg as "no permission". Previously published photos need an OTRS confirmation. Lupo 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
我不知道GraYoshi2x的问题是什么？我发现图片有版权方面的问题，并按照规则提交，和我的sysop权限有什么关系？--shizhao (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please translate this ^^? Multichill (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Simple Chinese to English translation as given by Yahoo translate: "I did not know that what GraYoshi2x the question is? I discovered that the picture has the copyright aspect question, and defers to the rule submission, has any relations with mine sysop jurisdiction." Snowmanradio (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
And translate.google: "GraYoshi2x I do not know what the problem is? I found that picture of copyright issues, and submitted in accordance with the rules, and I have anything to do with sysop permissions". I am not sure i undertsnad what that boils down to and i think caution in relying on the autotranslations should be taken... --Slaunger (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
manual translation translator.en to en GraYoshi2x, I dont understand your concerns, the picture has copyright issues and inaccordance with Commons policy i tagged the image as such, this has nothing to do with any sysop/admin actions anyway thats what I'm reading, oh the joys of translators. Presuming a bit in my translation, I think its sufficiently clear that Shizhao hasnt done anything to abuse the sysop tools as such there no reason to continue this discussion. Gnangarra 12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite odd that you insist "there [is] no reason to continue this discussion". This venue is not merely for discussing the misuse of admin rights so your conclusion that this user hasn't misused their admin rights doesn't mean the discussion no longer has any relevance. It seems the concerns raised extend beyond the suggested inappropriate use of admin rights.Adambro (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is a call for de-sysoping because of abuse of tools and that clearly isnt the issue. IMHO I think it'd be more appropriate to close this discussion about de-sysopping then start a fresh discussion on whether an image without a license tag should be tagged as such.... Gnangarra 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
GraYoshi2x remove some images tag of no source or no permission, like File:EN004 Moon with a Past.jpg and File:濰坊市徽.jpg, Why? --shizhao (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Procedure for files tagged with {{No license}}

OK, let's do as Gnangarra suggests above. For some context, let me first summarize what happened to File:Kassaiemlekvertanuk.gif:

  1. The file was initially transferred from hu.wikipedia (using CommonsHelper) without a license template, but with the text "This image is in the public domain." in the permission field. [11]
  2. Nikbot, seeing no license template, automatically marked the file with {{No license}}. [12]
  3. The uploader, presumably upon having been notified by the bot, replaced the text-only permission with a {{PD-user-w}} template but did not remove the {{No license}} template. [13]
  4. The file stayed that way, tagged with both {{PD-user-w}} and {{No license}}, until Shizao deleted it a few months later. [14]
  5. The uploader asked about the deletion on Shizao's talk page, where Multichill noticed it and restored the file. The rest can be read above.

Now, I would say the first problem here is with CommonsHelper: it's not very helpful to let a file be transferred without a license template. Now, I'm not an admin on hu.wikipedia, and thus can't see what the original file description page there may have looked like, nor have I really used CommonsHelper very recently myself. That said, I can't help but observe that it seems to be messing things up in various ways lately, and that its bug tracker seems to be rather badly backlogged. I notice that Magnus seems to have a rewritten "CommonsHelper 2" in beta; has anyone tested it to see if it works better?

Anyway, one can't really fault Nikbot here: it's just a bot, not a human-level AI, and one can't reasonably expect it to understand English. Nor can I really blame the uploader for not removing the {{No license}} tag, given that it doesn't actually say you should do it, and in any case contributors tend to be reluctant to just remove deletion tags all by themselves, given that with most such tags all they earn by removing them is a revert and a warning that they may be blocked if they do it again.

Indeed, {{No license}} currently says that (emphasis mine) "Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added." To me at least, this strongly implies that simply adding a valid license template should be enough to keep the file from being deleted, and that, by implication, one should not remove the "no license" tag oneself, but rather wait for an admin to review it. Perhaps the template should be changed to explicitly say that one should remove it after adding a license. Perhaps, also, the bots that automatically add these tags should also remove them if a license has been added. Or perhaps we should just make it clear that admins need to actually look at each file in Category:Unknown before they delete it.

In fact, let me explicitly ask the community's opinion on these suggestions:

  • Should the {{No license}} template be changed to say that it can and should be removed after a license template has been added?
  • Should there be a bot that removes {{No license}} from files that have had a license template added? (I could write such a bot fairly easily, but the best solution IMHO would be to integrate this feature into the same bots that add the template in the first place.)
  • Should we explicitly forbid admins from deleting files in Category:Unknown without checking that the reason they'd been tagged for deletion is (still) valid?

Personally, I'd be inclined to say "yes", "yes" and "yes" to all three, but I'm curious to hear what others may think. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know Gnangarra doesn't think the Shizhao's behavior is what we should be talking about, but that is the problem. Nothing else needs to change. He simply needs to start reviewing files before deleting them straight from a category. So I agree with #3, even though nearly all of us already knew that. #1 and #2 would make deleting without checking even easier (although I'm not against them, I just don't think they are solutions to this problem). Rocket000 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I use This tool delete images of no license. This tool may lag? --shizhao (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Blindly using a tool like that is irresponsible. Carefully CHECK images for licensing information and use common sense before proceeding to delete. Telling everyone to send an OTRS form despite clear evidence of PD/self-made is both annoying to the users and doesn't help Commons. GraYoshi2x (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And yet another booboo. But that's probably only one of many errors because shizhao blindly trusts a tool. Multichill (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, re-tagging (I repeat: re-tagging; reverting my edits without a care as to what I said) lots of clearly NASA-originated images as "no source", as well as tagging an expired copyright image and creating what seems to be the most ridiculous deletion request I've ever seen. GraYoshi2x►talk 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

@GraYoshi2x, providing "Website" (without any URL) as source is not "source clearly given" as you claim in the edit summary[15]. So, the tagging of File:BoriS-Berufswahlsiegel.jpg with "no source" was justified and is not an "extremely bad faith reversion" as you claim[16]. And considering this "there is no excuse for this nonsensical tagging; search and review before you spam a tag" edit summary of yours[17], I strongly recommend more civility in your commenting. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The source is already clear just by searching the image name: http://www.berufswahlsiegel-bw.de/. Maybe we have different definitions of clear, I don't know. And more civility means? From my perspective the summary is no less civil than pretty much every other edit summary/message made here, and the fact that an admin is doing such a thing should deserve a stern warning IMO. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, "clear source" means that I can find the original image and verify the copyright holder and license status in no more than three clicks. "Website", as seen on this version of the image, is not an adequate source: I'm not about to search through every website in the world to try to find the image. If this had been the English Wikipedia, I would have deleted the image based on your obstinate refusal to provide a clear source. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Obstinate refusal? Keep in mind that none of these images were my uploads. If anything I would consider that an insult. GraYoshi2x►talk 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the no source tagging was correct. "Website" is not what we consider a valid source. Keep in mind that we do require a source for *all* files, regardless of copyright status (the only possible exception is for work too trivial for copyright, but even then you should add the source when possible). Rocket000 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolling from Caspian blue (talk · contribs)

See User talk:Kwj2772

Caspian blue is continuously making troll to me with insensible logic. He attacked me that "For that reason, your edit summaries are left in English instead of Korean, didn't you?" So I responded in Korean as he wanted. :D After I responded in Korean, he attacked me "You don't use English". I suggested oppositional argument with example, Osaka, but he insisting "The Japanese convention would be based on a consensus by people working on the Japanese topics. Korean subjects do not follow their convention, so that's why Korean related categories and galleries are different from their naming and conventions." Also. I gave a link to COM:VP He still ignoring discussion on that place. I am being more frustrated as discussion goes. Kwj2772 (msg) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kwj2772 - Incivility, personal attacks, POV pushing and forum shopping

See also: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Kwj2772 - Incivility, POV pushing and lack of communication. Rocket000 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kwj2772, don't continue lying. When did I ask you to write your answer in Korea as I wanted? All I've got from you is "insults, harassment, and personal attacks and false accusations in Korean". You did not provide any COM:VP link, please do not continue lying and harassment campaign everywhere. You instead of calmly discusses with me and gives a valid rationale for your edits, you quickly resorting to personal attacks which should not be done for admins.. Editors who may see what and how Kwj2772 behaves to me, see the administrative board. Thanks--Caspian blue 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To Caspian blue, You attacked me I didn't leave editsummary in Korean. It sounds like requesting discussion in Korean. I also provided link to VP. Therefore, Your comment has logical fallacy. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, do not distort my comment. Even after I requested you to write your argument in English, you've ignored me and maliciously attacked me. You've poured a lot of nonsense instead of responding to me in a civil way. As you said on WP, you did not consider my initial questions and requests offensive and those were okay to you, then you thought I attacked you just because you're not writing your edit summaries in Korean? Please do not lie to me and to people. You did not provide the link where your bashing campaign against me is directed, and the monologue to yourself is not a suggestion for me to go over to VP. Please do familiar with the meaning of logical fallacies instead of engaging in smearing my reputation with your harassment. Since you're restoring to "straw man fallacy", I do not waste of my time for explaining what that means. Moreover, why did you move the gallery pages of Buan and Jinhae to incorrect titles in Korean before the issue is settled? You're an admin to assist to resolve issues. If I were self-righteous as you accuse, why do you think that I did not revert your reverts of 경주, 김치 and 대구 and suggest you to inform me a place for discussion? Since you have your POV, and face a contest, discussion is a valid and normal course to resolve the dispute, but you shelved my request with the personal attacks and forum shopping to wrongly smear my name.--Caspian blue 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't en:wp... We do not want disputes imported from elsewhere, we expect these to be left behind. Please remain civil. Can you both please state succinctly and neutrally what the issue or issues you see as needing resolution are? ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I want to appreciate your input, but I've never met him on English Wikipedia, but on Korean Wikipedia and Meta in which I have no direct interaction with him and I've acknowledged his failed adminship on the former has something to do with his lack of communication skills in even his mother tongue and for the latter, he solely uses Korean instead of English among all editors. So your assumption on that this matter would be imported is not adequate. The issue occurs only on Commons, not elsewhere. If you want to know what is a problem with the dispute, please read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Kwj2772 - Incivility, POV pushing and lack of communication. That is a summary of the dispute. That was written pretty calmly I guess. The posting here is after I found out his forum shopping to two places to harass me with lies.--Caspian blue 23:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. Saw the prior thread, suppose I could have hung my request there only, or there too, but this one is newer. Got your mail as well. I'm not taking sides or trying to find out who is right. I'm just asking for mellowness... Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 99.226.115.81 (talk · contribs)

There are numerous bogus deletion requests for nearly every user created map by an editor using this IP address. I propose an indefinite block on him. Sv1xv (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a topic about this nice fellow at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Spanish maps. Multichill (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked him to stop, but didn't get a response. These nominations are disruptive. He doesn't seem to under our Commons:Project scope. Multichill (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I know it was discused elsewhere (I was the only one who bothered to answer). The issue is getting serious and there is no input ny the community. As there are no objections, I shall block this address. Sv1xv (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely If you believe the block should be lifted, please post your comments here. Sv1xv (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block to IP is too high. Considering this address can be dynamic, I changed setting to one month. Kwj2772 (msg) 05:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not dynamic. He is using this IP address for months (since May 23) for the same purpose. Sv1xv (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1 year would be ok? Kwj2772 (msg) 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother to change it again. If he shows up again, we can extend the block. Now, who cleans the mess he left behind? Sv1xv (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Never ever indef block an IP. One, maybe two, years maximum. Static IPs can change too. The person can change ISPs or move or who knows what. Rocket000 (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking request This user requested to be unblocked. See his talk page: User_talk:99.226.115.81 Sv1xv (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust it because of this edit. Multichill (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A situation to keep an eye on

I think this matter is well in hand, so this is more of a heads up, but see User_talk:Amsaim as well as reviewing the contribs of this user. User uploaded a pic of a Nigerian actress (File:Genevieve30.jpg), and after some questions about the permissions, an OTRS was processed to record that permission was received. In doing so, the {{Personality rights}} tag was added to the image, and ever since, the user has been strenuously arguing that the tag should not be applied. I think they may still be confused about what the tag conveys, that we're cautioning reusers that they can't use the image for anything they want, rather than that we are restricting use in articles and the like within WMF.

The user has had the matter explained by many helpful admins, but has done a bit of edit warring to remove it from the image, repeatedly. They've been warned about that just now by me. Another argument they are advancing is that every picture of a living, identifiable person should have the tag (in my view they're right!) or none should have it (in my view they're wrong... that some don't have it but should is not a reason to remove it from other images that also should have it, and already do). I've semiprotected the picture as there were IPs participating in the edit warring. The same IPs were also ADDING the tag to other, unrelated pictures that didn't have it. That's goodness and is to be encouraged (would that more folk would make points that usefully! ) More eyes on this situation are helpful. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


The above text does not state the complete facts, but is an incomplete and biased version of the issue at hand.
Fact is, that the OTRS user Trixt confirmed the permission/license of the picture on 14.August 2009 7:07 pm (UTC). He didn't add the personality tag on that day. He added it the next day at 12:56 pm (UTC). Fact is also that I do not care if the tag is on the picture or not. All I am saying is that if there is a rule in wikemedia-commons by which pictures of identifiable persons have to be tagged with the personality rights tag, then all such pictures must be tagged accordingly. Any other arrangement is a double standard. If there was any rule to place this tag on pictures of identifiable persons, then all admins would adhere to that rule. All rules must be applicable to all pictures. No favouritism pls. If this personality tag is a must-have for all pictures of identifiable persons, then why not incorporate it into the license/permission, so that only OTRS/wikimedia admins can change/edit it?
Many pictures of identifiable persons do not have the personality tag. I contacted three wikimedia admins for assistance in this issue. From their replies it is clear that wikimedia does not have clear rules & regulations when it comes to adding the personality rights tag unto pictures of identifiable persons. This is evident in the loads of pictures that do not have the tag. These tagged and untagged pictures of identifiable persons suggest that the decision to place the personality tag is left to the mood and the whim of the OTRS/wikimedia admins. There seems to be a double standard when it comes to tagging pictures. The bottom line here is this: one honest admin admitted on my talk page that there is a flaw in the system. The main issue here thusly is not editwars (you can't hardly talk of edit war with me removing the tag twice). The main issue is this: is there a main, central rule guiding OTRS/wikimedia admins in tagging pictures of identifiable persons with the personality right? It's either yes or no.
Apart from all this, the personality tag reduces the quality of the picture:

1. The "Personality rights warning" tag on the picture page creates the impression, that something is not right with that picture and that the uploader of the picture didn't do a proper job with the picture.
2. In some wikimedia-commons languages the tag consists of several hundreds of words, and thusly further increases the impression that something is not right with the picture.
3. The exclamation mark symbol and the word "warning" again further strongly creates the impression that there must be something wrong with that picture.
4. These 3 issues lead to a quality reduction of the tagged picture. Thusly a situation is created whereby some pictures are discriminated against by adding the tag, and some are favoured, because they do not have negative words like "warning" or a huge exclamation mark symbol and a long warning text on their picture page.
Internet users will leave the wikimedia picture page with the impression that there's something not right with that picture. Thus, if this is what wikimedia-commons intends to create in the minds of wikipedia users, then that's no problem. The problem begins when the personality tag is not placed on all pictures of identifiable persons. That's all I'm saying.

Lastly, there should be repercussions for wikipedia admins who act aggressively towards non-admin users. Admins whose idea of "explaining a matter" consists of issuing out warnings and other ban/blocking threats. Just because an admin has a different point of view on a topic than a non-admin user does not and should not permit that admin to misuse her/his administrator's rights (example: admin blocking page indefinitely, had to be cautioned by different admin). Amsaim (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You edit warred. Not just twice, either. Remember, I'm a checkuser... and I checked you after I saw the IPs doing the same reverts you were doing. They were you.
This was all calmly explained to you, and you were invited to raise the matter at a discussion forum but instead you've gotten increasingly belligerent with all and sundry, and continued to edit war. My warning, which was issued after much discussion happened, between you, myself, and many others, all patiently explaining this to you, stands (removing it from your page does nothing to remove the fact that you were warned). Revert that tag again, whether done with the userID, or with one of your IPs, and you will be blocked indefinitely, that is, you will be blocked until it is clear that there is no longer any chance that you will revert it again. Spend your time going around adding the tag to other pics instead of being belligerent and things will go much more collegially. ++Lar: t/c 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • While I agree that the page needed protection to stop the edit war, and continuing to revert, as an IP and a logged in user, was wrong. I would like to suggest that the process wasn't very good. I expect that when there is a dispute over an edit, it would be normal to revert it to the original (ie without personality tag) while the matter was discussed. I think the user is misguided as to the meaning/affect of the tag, and needs to realise that adding such a tag is the least of the changes people can make to 'their' images once releaased on a free license. But in this case the tag is not demanded by policy. The user has as much right to edit (and revert) as any admin. In short, the user does have valid points, and it takes two to edit war. Enforcing non-policy edits by using admin tools is not a good look. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to review the page history, and note the number of different people who reverted the tag removal, vs. only one person removing it. It's pretty clear the user was acting against consensus. Further, this matter was discussed on the user's page and on the pages of other users, extensively, prior to the first protection. Edit warring is not allowed, and, fundamentally, that was what was being enforced. ++Lar: t/c 09:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes the edit war needed to stop, protection was a simple way to do that. But I question which version was protected. I suggest that there was no obvious concensus - there were two people tagging, one person and an IP (I think the same person as it turns out) reverting. 2:2 or 2:1 is not a concensus, no more than a simple majority. The image was tagged then protected by the admin, rather than just protected - this seems wrong. I suggest the normal action is to protect the page as it existed before warring started, and get a concensus for the change (ie tag). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, use of Personality Rights is within policy... If an image is of a living person, and is identifiable, it's eligible for the PR tag. That's not really a debatable point, so consensus isn't really applicable (although it existed, with those on the side arguing for policy consisting of admins and very experienced users). Adding it is allowed, (in this case, it was added by an OTRS worker, who is someone the Foundation trusts to act correctly in these areas) and removing it, if the facts are not in question, which they are not, is not allowed. It is not edit warring to enforce policy here at Commons, so your argument doesn't apply. Further, even if it did, please remember this isn't en:wp, where edit warring is a formalized ritual dance and where "the forms must be obeyed" in order for a cop to stick. This user was edit warring, and edit warring to remove something that policy allowed. He was reverted, and the page semi protected to force him from discontinuing use of his IP... that semi forced him to use his ID instead of hiding behind the IP (which did not fool me anyway, CU confirms it was him) and the edit warring stopped. Successful intervention. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition to Trixt and Andrew c who both reverted, Dcoetzee said, "Please do not remove it - it will affect nothing about how the image is used here on Wikimedia Foundation projects."[18] Then, over an hour later, Amsaim (as 95.90.71.131) removed it.[19] Moreover, the IP edits have the appearance of abusive sock puppetry, whether or not it was intentional. While the matter might have been brought to COM:AN/U before page protection, rather than 1/2 hour afterward, I don't think that would have changed the result or mollified Amsaim. In light of this incident, guidance on personality tags should be clarified at Photographs of identifiable people.[20] Such a discussion would be more fruitful than edit warring on a specific file. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Walter... For reference.. The IP edits were abusive sock puppetry. I checked, they are the same user. I don't think we actually need to debate whether putting personality rights tagging on things is a good idea or not, rather we need to figure out how to get all the images that need it actually tagged. But, good policy clarification (of something I've believed has always been true)... thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:A22ount

Resolved

We've found a number of blatant copyvio images on en-wiki uploaded by this editor. I've found at least one logo he uploaded here under a public domain license. He's uploaded a pretty fair amount of images and I suspect most, if not all, will be copyvios. Rather than me tagging each one for deletion, I'm asking for someone with tools to check his contributions and delete as necessary. [21] Multixfer (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, according to their size most images are taken from panoramio/Google Earth and Flickr. I will check this sources. File:Callerealiloilo2.jpg even contains a watermark. Will ckeck it. --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ibsf2009

Resolved

Ibsf2009 (talk · contribs) created at least 15 spam pages within a matter of minutes. I am asking this account be blocked as a advert/spam-only account. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 08:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed & ✓ Done. We do take a lighter view here than en wp though so I've just blocked for a week. Past experience suggests that they will not come back but if they do it certainly should be indef next. Thanks for the info. --Herby talk thyme 08:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for the fast response. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 08:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please block Popol90 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Serial copyright violator. Continues in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done already by Martin H. --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Hansika wiki.jpg

User:Blackmagicintegrated sent me e-mail claiming this image File:Hansika wiki.jpg is really his own work. I undeleted it temporarily, assuming good faith, but I would like to read your views. Sv1xv (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hansika wiki.jpg on August 14; deleted within 15 minutes by Eusebius. For admins that want to do something, there is a huge backlog in category:Deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say accept nothing less than an assertion from a business e-mail address under their real name to OTRS. A higher-resolution version with watermarks can be found at ragalahari.com. An understanding of the credibility of the uploader will also be aided by a review of their contributions on the English Wikipedia, where their edits were limited to insertions of this image and persistent link spam in spite of warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the evidence you presented, I agree with your proposal. I informed the uploader on his talk page. I shall also tag the image as "no permission". Sv1xv (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No action taken by the uploader, I deleted the image. Sv1xv (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

sock-puppet

I suspect that Rogillando (talk · contribs) is a sock-puppet of Rogiller (talk · contribs) to evade the 1-day-block for uploading copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Which in turn would be a sockpuppet of Rogillander (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . —LX (talk, contribs) 08:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - all three now indef blocked - blatant puppetry. --Herby talk thyme 09:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

AlipioPilipino

Resolved

Please block AlipioPilipino (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who has been previously blocked for uploading copyright violations and is now using multiple Flickr accounts for the purpose of Flickrwashing. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickrwashed photos include File:Chorale roanne.jpg, which is correctly described as "non-free" but then slapped with a CC-by-sa, and File:Jimmy 3 point warm up.jpg, which is taken from this non-free Flickr photo (which, unlike the ripoff, still has the Exif data intact). Looks like multiple other sources are also used, including some aerial photos. I've also added a request for addition at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Stosso

User:Stosso insists in uploading a copyrighted poster of a modern movie, although it is always deleted as copyvio. He received a warning by User:Martin H.. I blocked him for 3 days, hoping he received the message. If he does it again, I propose a permanent block. Sv1xv (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor appears to be a non-native English speaker who misunderstands project scope.[22] Perhaps attempting to determine the editor's native language and locating someone who could explain it it would be helpful? Durova (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Indonesian, anyone? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
After he was blocked, he contacted User:Martin H. in English. Sv1xv (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, broken English. Might help to have an Indonesian speaker explain and answer questions. His proficiency might not be good enough to understand the pages where these things are explained. Durova (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ori is removing deletion templates

Ori~ (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the deletion templates on files mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:HaMakhtesh HaGadol IMG 5985.jpg. I have reverted him once. Can a rollbacker put those templates back? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I urge administrators to read the conversation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HaMakhtesh HaGadol IMG 5985.jpg. Cheers, Ori~ (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's up to the closing Admin to remove the deletion tags if the image(s) are kept. Please do not remove the templates unless the Deletion request is closed by an Admin as kept (sometimes the deletion tags will double up) however for current discussions please leave it up the the closing Admin. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
OK then. And when does this happen? Ori~ (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Note/comment left on Ori~'s talk page. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Persian user uploading book scans

Hello, This user has uploaded several hundreds of images of dubvious copyright status, most probably book scans. It is quite possible than he doesn't understand English, and has not understood the warnings on his talk page. Yann (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if he does understand English, he has presumably set the interface in Arabic, in which case he will be seeing {{Image source/ar}} instead of {{Image source}}. I don't understand Arabic, but it seems to me that the Arabic translation of the template is very incomplete and doesn't explain what the issue is. Pruneautalk 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The automatic translation looks like a fairly accurate reflection of the way the English version looked just three weeks ago, before I changed it. Of course, the reason I changed it was that it was incomplete and didn't explain what the issue was, but I think it's pretty understandable that not all translations have been updated yet. It would be good if we had a central place where translations and translation updates could be requested. The closest I've found is User:Slomox/Translators' hub, which is a good initiative, but it's in user space and not widely advertised. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Ignore my comment above: there must have been some kind of bug, and only the first line of the template loaded when I looked at it earlier. Pruneautalk 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's Persian, not Arabic. Since he removed the warning, didn't answer, but continue to upload more files, I blocked him for one day. Yann (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say He/She is Persian, User:سبأ mainly speaks Arabic Language, I just said some of images descriptions and captions are in Persian, so maybe he/she also understand Persian. I believe He/She completely understand what dose warnings mean, see here, the user added this line to my talk page and to the image pages after removing the warnings, it is in Arabic and it says: "I have personally photographed these images. Regards." so the user understood that I am saying he/she didn't take the photos. As I founded real source of some of images (1,2,3 are from this website http://www.kookherd.net/abadani_album01.htm) and many other images also comes from same website. I think we should continue blocking this user until we find out source of all images and remove them.   ■ MMXXtalk  03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've asked at Village pump for translating our concerns to Arabic for the user.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The user certainly is not the photographer for most of images, they all have different qualities and some of them are very old.   ■ MMXXtalk  04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:سبأ have posted a comment on my talk page, He/She says: "There is no violation, I took the pictures from my personal website." he/she also provided a link to source website about page, there is a line in about page which says (in Persian):
استفاده از مطالب و محتویات وب سایت کوخرد با ذکر منبع بلامانع می باشد
I would translate it: "Using of contents of kookherd website is permitted if the website is attributed"
Maybe {{Attribution}} license applies to the images which I tagged them as copyvio but it is still unclear that how many of User:سبأ images are from this website, besides all the images in mentioned website are posted by different people to the website, and we can not say those people are creators of this images or not. also it appears many of this user's images are scans from books or something else.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Beat 768 (talk · contribs)

Beat 768 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is due for a block for reapeated copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Yann (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ta muchly! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mggeyson (talk · contribs)

Mggeyson (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  needs a block immediately to stop the tidal wave of copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved
Blocked for one week. Sv1xv (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fredy.00 (talk · contribs)

User has crucial unfamiliarity of copyright act (also on Czech Wikipedia), many of his uploads (IYRC, I'm not admin, so I can't see list of his deleted edits) must have been deleted as imagevio, he wrote incorrect license information many times, even once he falsified authorship of Reuters photo.

Fredy.00 was noticed multiple times (see his talk page and block log), but he continues with his controversial activity: reverts of "no source" or "no licence" template although he didn't supply required information, together with threat of my ban.

I'm requesting forcible warning of Fredy.00 by admin's authority. --Milda (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I added him a final warning and reverted his removal of tags. I will block him (or some other admins) if he continues. Yann (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can a Czech-speaking admin look into this? Someone should explain to him how OTRS works. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


I've now blocked him for 3 days. After he yet again removed a problem tag from one of his images, I reverted his edit and gave him a final warning; he then wrote on my talk page that the issue was "kaput", but then once again removed the delete tag from the image. This is just another notch in the long line of what is essentially edit warring between him and admins and other users; they add problem tags and he removes them or replaces them with a little rant about Czech copyright and German men (Yann, apparently). like Milda said above, he even threatened to have her banned for "vandalism" when she replaced the {{No license}} tag on his image.

Throughout all these warnings and deletion requests and edit warring he continued to upload questionably-sourced/licensed material. Now, today, has engaged in what I'm sure others will agree is a clear case of flickrwashing; several images were added to flickr today, and subsequently uploaded on Commons, such as here. Just five images uploaded to a new flickr account, which he then uploaded to Commons only hours after?

He's only been blocked for three days now, I suppose because I have some hope of getting a Czech admin to try to explain what he's been doing wrong and how copyright and licensing works around here. However, if others agree that a longer block or even long-term ban is appropriate - considering his history of evading Commons policies and unwillingness to learn, understand, or cooperate - I would support that. -- Editor at Large • talk 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yann (talk · contribs)

Would someone take the time to remind Yann when he can use the rollback function and when not. Using it for edits like this one seems clearly not. -- User:Docu at 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Docu,
I don't think this is really something where administrator input for is needed, you have found your way to his talkpage and I'm sure you can handle it without any help, thereby I don't think its nice to use rollback because there isn't a summary but I don't see a clear cut policy saying that it was wrong.
I also see you placing a link on the talk page about revoking rollback by Yann, I would like to inform you that the rollback by Yann cant be revoked. Administrators have rollback and that can't be revoked.
Secondly when you are in dispute with someone it could be nice to use more word instead of linking about revoking rollback, lets stay mellow and assume good faith.
Huib talk 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Docu removed 3 times the internationalized headers in File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg‎. The first time, I said nothing, I thought that was a mistake. The second time, I warned him. The third time, I reverted him. Yann (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I always remove those too. :) Rocket000 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abigor, thank you for your input. I didn't write the policy page on rollback, but it happens that it's more detailed at Commons:Rollback than on the page for admins. For some reason the most explicit sections are at Commons:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback and Commons:Rollback#Revocation_of_rollback_permission. The page as such is marked a "guideline". I don't think one would argue it doesn't apply to administrators, but Yann seems to insist that it doesn't apply. Besides, he doesn't want to explain his edits and seems to have problems reading diffs. -- User:Docu at 22:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
I have to say that the revoking of rollback doesn't count for administrators, because rollback is a right that comes inside the admin package, what would mean we need to remove the complete administratorbit before we could revoke rollback for Yann.
But I see a dispute between 2 users, I'm sure you can handle it on your talkpages, or start with trying to solve it on the talkpages before coming here for administrator attention, both parties needs to assume good faith and stay mellow, would a good talk about the internationalized headers help? Huib talk 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who likes the convenience of rollback, but would sometimes like to give a more informative edit summary, here's a simple user script that can help. Just add: 

    importScript('User:Ilmari Karonen/rollbacksummary.js');

to your monobook.js (or vector.js etc.) and remember to clear your cache. The next time you click a rollback link, a dialog box will pop up asking you to enter an edit summary (or leave it as "default" to use the default summary). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

118.98.232.202 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

It seems a German-speaking user behind this Indonesian open proxy failed to read the instructions in {{BArch-description}} ("Factual corrections and alternative descriptions are encouraged separately from the original description") and instead chose to remove content from what is supposed to be the original description for a bunch of images. I see they've already been warned about the abrasive edit comment, but I'm guessing the edits should all be rolled back and the open proxy blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone lacks context: The proxy is editing images from the German archive, and is removing portions of the official descriptions. His/her actions seem consistent with being a fascist or Nazi apologist, though of course that could be an odd coincidence, since much of the POV material in the official annotations of the German archive is, precisely, anti-Nazi. But these removals of information should certainly be reversed, and the open proxy blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done, edits rolled back and proxy blocked. The user is free to continue contributing to Commons as long as they can remain civil, don't abuse open proxies and follow the instructions not to modify the original Bundesarchiv descriptions retained for historical purposes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Ainaud

I looked at several contributions of User:Ainaud, and they look very suspicious to me. For source he says "This archive belongs to the family and it has not been published" without further explanation, but they all look like they are cut from aerial shots with a thin computer-generated overlay of street information. They don't look like something that would be in someone's family. They look similar to Google Maps when it shows satellite image + streets, but they are aerial, not satellite so that's not it.

Here are some typical examples:

User talk:Ainaud suggests that there have been a lot of issues already with this user's uploads.

I think someone should look into this. I haven't followed up myself because frankly I don't feel like having to get confrontational with Commons users: it's why I've chosen not to ask to be an admin here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, those are taken from Bing (or some other service that uses the same non-free data). See this and compare it to the first one. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So can I presume someone else will follow up on this, and I don't have to do anything further? - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the most obvious copyvios from bing.com and others where I could find the source, and have nominated the rest of the user's uploads for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ainaud. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez (talk · contribs)

This user is determined to have all his uploads removed from Commons, because - if I understand him correctly - be was blocked on :en[23]. His declared reason for deletion in all cases was "I, the copyright holder of this image demand that it be purged/deleted". Beyond the question of the legitimacy of his requests, he resorted to vandalism by removing the license and description from his uploads (examples: [24], [25]). After recognizing this, I converted some of his illegitimate speedy-tags into rfd[26] and restored the original description and licensing. He then again removed the license[27] and in rfd discussions he even went so far to change the "votes" of other users from Keep to Delete [28], [29].
IMHO, a user showing such behaviour should be banned from Commons, independent of what happens to his files. But as he will likely resort to IP vandalism after being banned, his files should be removed eventually for the health of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:WilsonVersailles.jpg
Negotiation – we don't do it with vandals
Ban if they persist. Keep the files if that's the consensus of the discussions. Don't delete files against consensus for fear of vandalism. Appeasement is not an effective protection against vandals. Instead, watchlist the images and protect them if it becomes necessary. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If have left a message on his user talk page, in this case I think that some latitude should be given initially as it clear the person has issues over on en. That said I think that such latitude shouldnt be given for an extended period but let the user digest the warnings and see what happen in a day or two before blocking. It would have been better to have all the images in one discussion rather then individually, I recommend that they be link so that the closing admin can adress all at the same time. Gnangarra 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I restored some the files which were tagged as speedy by the uploader, and deleted as "copyright violation". We need at least a proper discussion, which might lead to keep them or not. It is not proper that the files are speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like he tricked an admin into deleting some of his uploads. These files where in use (checked delinker log) and should all be restored. If the user doesn't want to understand that these licenses are irrevocable he should be blocked. Multichill (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't come to Commons sooner but the way things have been going makes me kind of wonder.

I see a user tagging his uploads for deletion on some files that weren't in use, or only use in a talkpage archive and some images that where in use on multiple articles on multiple wiki's. I have deleted the files that weren't in use or only in use in talkpage (per checkusage) archives because I think we should be thankful that people upload there stuff on Wikimedia and showing good will to users that wants there stuff deleted will be better that people complaining about Commons.

I also told the user in the edit summary that he should use a deletion request for all the other files that where in use, because when it is in use it cant be deleted just like that. I tried to be nice to a user because Commons isn't just policies, its also showing good will.

I got back back and all the files have been restored and are now running for deletion, or placed back and where reverted... I guess people couldn't wait untill I responded and I guess we want to keep unused pictures even when the user ask for deletion, this isn't the way Commons will get big this is the way it will end. Huib talk 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Commons stands or falls based on treatment of this specific type of issue. That's not to say there aren't good ways and bad ways to deal with it. I don't have a problem with unused files being deleted by user request, but it's not a case for speedy deletion – they should go through a regular deletion discussion. It's not good to have admins wheel warring, but if you speedy delete things that don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion without discussion (if that's what actually happened), it's not too surprising, in my view, if that's also undone without prior discussion.
By the way, please have a look at the uploader's recent contributions (including this). They seem to have changed their story after someone explained that a possible reason to delete may have been that they're taken by another person. And what do you know, the photos are now taken by another person! And they're back to speedy tagging files that are undergoing regular deletion discussion. Again. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked GabrielVelasquez (talk · contribs) for 2 hours after he severely insulted other users[30] and [31] who didn't attack or insult him before. I'm rather pessimistic than anything good will come from this user. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now he's making up stories (example). Multichill (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To make things worse, User:GabrielVelasquez now makes disruptive comments in unrelated RFDs such as here, here and here. Even if we don't have a formal do not disrupt to illustrate a point policy, this is disruptive and clearly showing that this user wants to go. --Túrelio (talk)

Just like the "vandalism" accusation, what is so terribly "disruptive" about those comments? Oh yes, GabrielVelasquez isn't a happy puppy right now, but what exactly is disruptive? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If being called "asshole" is fine for you, so be it, for most here it is not. --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am (or, rather, my father is) threatened with the gallows. That isn't fine with me, but it only disrupts commons because that map is now harder to find; it doesn't disrupt commons because I don't like it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez also changed my nomination statements in several RFDs[32], [33], [34], [35], but Erik will likely again question how this could be called "vandalism" or even "disruptive". --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Out of his uploads I have deleted so far:

--Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't indent and did put two blank lines after my comment. Nevertheless, I saw it as a reaction to my comment, and as I said before, I can not react, because you refer to pages which you deleted, so peons can not check them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"did put two blank lines" - how terrible; now this is really vandalism, isn't it? By the way, this listing wasn't put there for you, but as an update for the other admins. However, you should be glad about these deletion, as this was your "client's" will. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
GabrielVelasquez isn't my client. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Westmc9th (talk · contribs)

Contribs of this user seem to be copyvio's, with everything generally tagged as "source/permission: me/mine". A couple of obvious ones include: A/A and B/B]. The rest all look fishy as well, and the user has a few previous copyvio deletions. A little sensitivity may be needed what with some of this being WTC content, but these images are linked through to the wikipedia page and so their "free" visibility is quite high, which AP etc. may not be so ok with. SFC9394 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lulu989 (talk · contribs)

I just blocked this user for 1 day. He was going through GabrielVelasquez's deletion requests (even one which is already closed as deleted), adding delete votes. The account has been created today and it was his only edits, so I think it's quite an obvious sockpuppet. The block should probably be extended to indef, but I wanted to get more opinions first (is a CU necessary?). –Tryphon☂ 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see my talk page for GabrielVelasquez's quick reaction. –Tryphon☂ 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Adding to this: I would concider the form of GVs latest reaction to be a blockingreason in it self. Apart from that, I think a CU should be done on this one, if we can't prove that Lulu989 is the same as GabrielVelasquez then acting like a Single Purpose Account isn't a blocking reason in itself. Since the user has formally requested unblock it would be good if anoither admin took a look at the matter. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Here you go: Commons:Requests for checkuser. --Túrelio (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks Túrelio, wouldn't have known where to find that link ;) I'm not going to request any CU over this, but some general points. First of all, I think that if a blocked user uses {{Unblock}} then another admin should look into the matter (as well as the blocking admin.), in most cases the result would be that another admin publicly endorses the block and thereby makes it clear that the blocking admin. has handled this according to our guidelines. Secondly, in my opinion SPA-accounts voting on DR should be handled mainly by simply disregarding their "votes", our Deletion Requests are not majoritydecissions after all. And thirdly, we should - for the sake of avvoiding tedious arguments, if nothing else - be careful naming users "sockpuppets" if we don't have evidence for it. I'm rather enjoying commenting on what admins should do now that I've handed in my own broom and noone can reply by saying so fix it :P Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Seeing the above I made a CU. First evidence suggests that Lulu989 is a different user than GV. Yann (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Users inappropriately changing capitalization of category names, other issues

T2 (talk · contribs) is changing the name of the "Interstate Highways in <state>" categories to "Interstate highways in <state>" (see [39]). This is wrong; the system is called the "Interstate Highway System) and the routes in that system are called "Interstate Highways". "Interstate highway" is a general term that can easily be interpreted to mean any highway that goes through multiple states, such as a U.S. Numbered Highway. An attempt to contact this user was reverted by the user. Here, the user has modified the licensing of an image, and I'm not sure if this is allowed given the terms of the original version's licensing. Perhaps someone with more experience in that department can advise on that issue.

In what might be a related issue, there are at least two ([40], [41]) IPs that have created Category:California Interstate Highway shields, which is fine, but they've turned it into a gallery (and the above user has removed this category from at least one image). The IPs always leave an edit summary of "Categories have been checked" even though the category checking tool is not present anywhere on the pages they edit. I've seen this IP make problematic edits before under other addresses but I can't find them at the moment.

I'd attempt to contact the above parties directly again, but I doubt I'd receive a response based on my prior experience with both IPs and the user in question. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First issue brought to COM:CFD. Is anyone around here to look at the second issue (possible sock/meatpuppetry)? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the user could be just confused about how the category system works. Anyway, I've fixed Category:California Interstate Highway shields for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the odd edits continue, though, through several new IPs: [42], [43]. I've set up an abuse filter rule to try and keep track of them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Whoever's behind all of this has apparently moved on to making unnecessary categories - here unnecessary because only one I-905 exists. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm at a loss of what to do. The CFD that I filed regarding the first category changes has gone nowhere (no comments), and if this user continues unimpeded the category structure for U.S. road-related items is going to be a mess, with incorrect capitalization, flawed names (after thinking about it, "Interstate 905 in California" makes absolutely no sense because California is the only state it enters) and redundancy running rampant. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we now have a username behind the "categories have been checked" IP business: Rukshanawahab (talk · contribs). The contribs seem to match exactly, from the edit summary to the addition of galleries to category pages. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
And now that user and T2 (talk · contribs) are revert-warring: [44]. Can someone please look into this situation? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for category redirects. --NE2 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reposted this thread, being I am a roads editor and an admin myself. Something needs to be done, the Rushawab (or however its spelled is still causing problems, as noticed on File:Circle sign 157.svg for example. This should've been discussed further and discussing it with the person who levied the original complaint, this wasn't solved totally correct.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will somebody please look into Rukshanawahab (talk · contribs)? He's been uploading PNGs of SVG images that are already on Commons and also useless crops of pictures; see [45]. I find it incredibly disheartening that no one here cares enough to even comment on the situation. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked Rukshanawahab for 1 week. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The block has expired and the user is continuing to upload images with no license tag. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Grzegorz Wysocki (talk · contribs)

This user has revoked licenses for his uploads. He is a Polish speaker (and en-1) and I'm not sure of my ability to communicate with him effectively - obviously the situation needs looking into as soon as possible.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this is a bit like #GabrielVelasquez above. The user can't revoke the license in the legal sense, they can revoke it in the moral sense. It is, was, and will be legal to use the files under the original license, but it isn't nice anymore to use the files (for varying, culturally defined values of nice).
It's easy to forbid to change the license and block. Blocking is always easy, after a block one can even block others with the same opinions as "sock puppets" (and some of those others will then use sock puppets; if one has been sentenced as a thief without being a thief, one can just as well steal).
It is only slightly harder to think about a way how people could express their displeasure about using their pictures. Perhaps we should think about it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think a Polish speaker on this could be very useful,
Erik Warmelink thank you for your comment but I don't see what extra value it has for this case, nobody is speaking about blocking, nor speaking about socks.
Huib talk 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, people are blocked before anyone speaks about blocking, GabrielVelasquez was blocked (and blocking someone who was angry because they were blocked elsewhere didn't exactly help). Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I would be very happy to discuss our blocking policy with you, but this is the administrator noticeboard and you comment aren't really helping with the cases here,
When you disagree with our policy or how its handled I would advice you to start a topic on this page, but placing comments that aren't true, nobody is talking about socks nor is this user blocking isn't really helping and only making it more difficult to view what is discussed by administrators or other helpful comments. Huib talk 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Which of my comments would be "untrue", sterkebak/abigor/huib? Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
An administrator on both Commons and plwiki, Ludmiła Pilecka (talk · contribs), seems to be handling this.[46] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Prosfilaes

This user is unhappy about the current "wait and see" attitude on Commons about images affected by the URAA treaty (see also {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}). Today he mildly vandalized the policy page COM:L in order to provoke a discussion. I contacted him on his talk page but I received a very angry response. A few days ago he tried to provoke me in doing so, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Mystic_Treatises. I am afraid we have to deal with another Iconoclast. Sv1xv (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hint: using the word "vandalized" tends to provoke a negative response. So does accusing me of trying to "provoke" you into doing something. It's also pretty hypocritical to say "Why should I get involved ? I have no strong personal views on the subject." and then make all this fuss about it; the clearest reading of that statement is that you would not get involved if I did make that change.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not much interested on the subject or URAA, however I am interested in maintaining the integrity of Commons policy files. Of course you already knew that the proper approach is discussion on the talk page. Please be civil and discuss the issue there. Sv1xv (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If the integrity of Commons policy files matters to you, why didn't you ask for them to be upheld at the Deletion Review?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I made my position clear enough. Please stop trolling. End of discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
To accuse another editor of trolling is a pretty serious accusation, and uncivil and completely uncalled for in the situation. Your behavior throughout this has almost been designed to antagonize.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Tryphon's response was correct one.[47][48] I don't see anything here that requires additional intervention by administrators. Please be civil and discuss the issues on the talk page. Try to avoid words like vandalism and trolling. Even when accurate, they are unhelpful, for the most part. COM:MELLOW may be helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no longer a need for admin intervention, because finally the issue is currently discussed in a very civilized atmosphere on the proper talk page. The COM:MELLOW approach works in most cases but not always. Sv1xv (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevmin

User:Kevmin recategorizes and populate categories, that are de facto over a month proposed for deletion at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Fossils vs. Fossil vs. Extinct. Although he states in the discussion that "there is no concenesus", and although he have send SPAM/requests for comments to other users, he systematically continue for a long time managing huge number of categories, that he made only from his own decision and although his edits are criticized for overcategorizing. (I am involved.) I am sure he should be blocked, but you will know what to do. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask anyone who looks into the request made by Snek01 to read through the discussion linked and to the my current edits which are in line the the general opinion of the discussion, that of merging the lower levels of the fossil category tree up into major taxons such as Cat:Fossil mammals, Cat:Fossil Hymenoptera, etc...--Kevmin (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This request is still valid and a block or something to do is needed. --Snek01 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your request may be valid. however, you failed to give a single example why a block would be needed. Kevmin doesn't edit a lot (a bit above 100 edits today, but nothing yesterday). The edits are not devestating IMHO, some articles/categories/redirects which almost noone would ever visit and which were not exactly correct, got changed to other articles/categories/redirects which almost noone would ever visit and which are not exactly correct. If such low level activity can threaten a proposal to delete, that proposal was daft. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I will not revert the edit, but would like to note that user:Snek01 is not ignoring the discussion of he linked and make edits [49] which were not agreed to. I do not want to continue the wheel war on that page, but am noting here that the edit make is not supported. The opinion was very mixed on how to handle Fossil images and Categories and no one action other then a reduction in in lower levels of the fossil cat structure. At no point was redirection of fossil to extinct agreed to.--Kevmin (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ebby Thust (talk · contribs)

This user's name belongs to the real person, Ebby Thust. Moreover, this user is doing a wrong retouch to the Gallery of the person, Ebby Thust. I think that his selection contradicts the policy. This user should change the account name. --Dxar (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account. Yann (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for promptly corresponding and noticing the copyright infringement of File:WFC Logo.gif. The article on World Fight Club has been deleted two times in German Wikipedia because of use outside the purpose and the copyright infringement. And Ebby Thust (talk · contribs)=Ebby Thust made the article secondarily several days ago. He seemed to have sent Wikimedia mail before the article was deleted. Arthur Müller (talk · contribs)=Arthur Müller edited the article on Ebby Thust in three countries. However, many of photographs related to the boxing that he up-loaded are the same as the one on the sites of [50] and [51]. He must be permitted from these sites.--Dxar (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this information. I couldn't find a copy of these images on the web, but I suspected that there are copyright violations. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebby Thust with Muhammad Ali.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will comment at the linked places. The articles on Ebby Thust which exists in three nations were created by user:Arthur Müller or 217.127.39.99 (talk · contribs)=217.127.39.99 of Spain. Both are concerned with all articles on Ebby Thust, and I consider user:Arthur Müller and this IP user are the same person. If there was not this user, I feel neither Ebby Thust nor three articles exist still now. If the photographs of such huge quantity are not applied to copyright infringement, we already may be having served the propaganda of the persons involved in Ebby Thust for several years.--Dxar (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Iconoclast (talk · contribs)

This user continues to be disruptive by nomintating images, under Greek FOB basis, for deletion while the wider Greek FOB issue is under discussion and legal review. The user has already been blocked twice already for the same actions and is beleived to have used anon IPs 77.49.171.8 (talk · contribs), 77.49.119.61 (talk · contribs) and 77.49.26.65 (talk · contribs) for the same actions in the past. The user have been asked numerous times to refrain from making deletion request for subject images but continues to do so. User shows no interest in changing their behaviour. Longer term ban requested. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Yann (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Need someone French-speaking to communicate with User:Sergerp75

Either Sergerp75 (talk · contribs) designs classical-music album jackets or doesn't understand the concept of "own work". I notice that a lot of his previously uploaded images have been deleted, so I suspect it is the latter. Someone with better written French than me should communicate with him to sort this out. We should not have to deal with this one image at a time. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I added him a message. Yann (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted photos not used by anyone

I recently posted a photo of very poor quality and I tried to follow the maze of instructions on how to delete this file. I was exhausted after I tried to determine how to get this file deleted.

I submitted this file for deletion and some genius named Pieter_Kuiper recommended to keep it as it is "not that bad".

If this file is not deleted I will no longer contribute files to your project.

I have 50,000 photos and can easily upload other versions of the exact same photos to other PD sites.

Whoever is running this website either has no functioning brain or should be shot.

Scott Meltzer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmeltzer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20. Sep. 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scott, please remain COM:MELLOW. You are probably talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Completed CCTV Tower.JPG, which is really not of very bad quality, we have much worse here. The deletion request has not yet been closed, so it has not yet been decided whether this file will be deleted. Please don't walk around threatening people to do stuff just to keep you here, this is not creating a good atmosphere. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How fortunate that I am not running this site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You are, though. As is Scott. And I. I'm hoping I'm in the no functioning brain category, because I rather dislike shots. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
In uploading the photo and selecting the {{PD-self}} tag, you released the file into the Public Domain. This means that you gave up any special rights to control the distribution and use of the image that you had as an author. See Commons:Ownership of pages and files for more details. Commons and the rest of the world are free to do what they want with it. If this is not what you wanted, then indeed, you shouldn't contribute to this project or any other site accepting PD content.
Feel free to contribute to other PD sites, but be aware that if you do release your works into the public domain on other sites, they can still be transferred here, so that's not much of a threat. Saying that other people should be shot (and for the record, this website is run by you, me and volunteers like us) is a pretty serious threat (and rather out of proportion considering the subject of the disagreement). If you keep that up, you will indeed contribute no more to this project – and don't expect further warnings. Sarcastically referring to your fellow contributors as "geniuses," blanking their comments and blanking valid source and licensing information is also not acceptable.
So: calm down and realize that you will receive more respect from the people you interact with here if you treat them with respect. That is, don't threaten them and don't insult them. Instead, explain why you think the image should be deleted with reference to applicable guidelines. Accept that people may exercise their right to disagree with you, try to understand their reasons, and work from there. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem deleting an image if uploader request a deletion shortly after upload. I agree the image is not bad but if user has some better. Normally the best way would be to upload a new one with the same name or upload a replacement. We chould not only collect free images but also happy users. --MGA73 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
But uploading new versions does not work since a few days. (Except for the admins running this site - there are differences.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out with this image (File:Completed_CCTV_Tower.JPG), the user uploaded File:Completed_CCTV_Tower .JPG shortly after - basically identical images. That plus uploader request makes a decent deletion rationale to me. However, Scottmeltzer's conduct is not acceptable ([52], [53]).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it was not the best way to start a debate. But I do not think we should let a bad start decide if we should keep an image or not. We all have pride and sometime we do not like the result and want to try again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sancp and Kool86

Resolved

Hello, Sancp (talk · contribs) and Kool86 (talk · contribs) are very likely socks. Created at the same time, uploading exactly the same content, with dubious copyright status. Opinions? Yann (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

images are all copyvio , i think we can nuke them and i would say both user are likely same --Mardetanha talk 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted all the images as copyvios, and blocked both of the accounts. Please feel free to reverse my actions should anyone feel they are too harsh. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agression from User:EyePhi

After I nominated this image for deletion, the user posted an objection on my talk page (and e-mailed me an identical message), I responded on my talk page, clarifying my problem with the image.

Later, on the deletion request page I was accused of not responding, along with accusations of dishonesty [54] to which I responded, trying to assume good faith and allowing for the posibility that the user simply didn't understand my reasons for nominating the image. However, the EyePhi has continued to make accusations towards me, both of dishonesty and rudeness

I would appreciate some third party mediation. I don't believe that EyePhi's intentions are malicious but my patience is being tested here.

Thankyou for your input. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is deleted, because it is out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Karelj (talk · contribs)

  • He repeatedly inserted {{Duplicate}} into images which aren't duplicates ([55] [56] [57] [58])
  • He repeatedly deleted a relevant location category ([59] and many similar case in the past).

--ŠJů (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Seems as no one noticed this? I checked the "dupes" and one could be ok but the others are not dupes. Have you told Karelj that {{Duplicate}} is only for images that is excatly the same or scaled down? I noticed on users talkpage and it seems that Karelj listens to good arguments. --MGA73 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I explained it to him in Czech in July. See User talk:Karelj#Pár připomínek, the 4-th note ("Jako duplikáty se označují pouze fotky...") and the 3-rd note ("Kategorie obcí či čtvrtí..."). But my explain attempts was wasted. Fortunately, usually he reverts only some few pages over and over. --ŠJů (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for telling. As you might have guessed I do not understand Czech. As you can see from the talk page I informed him of this notice + gave some tips on dupes and edit summary so lets hope this will work. If not you are welcome to inform us again. --MGA73 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

HighContrast

Admin High Contrast (talk · contribs) blocked Liftarn (talk · contribs) for three days, apparently because Liftarn told HighContrast not to be silly. Again: admins must not use their buttons for their own purposes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Liftarm uploads File:BB25.APA4.jpg, but forgets to fill out the information template. High Contrast nominates the image as no source and informs liftarm. Liftarm adds information with as edit summary Don't be silly. High Contrast demands an excuse, twice. Liftarm removes the notice from his talk page, twice. High Contrast blocks Liftarm. That is silly. Support unblock, but I would like to see what HighContrast has to say about this. Multichill (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I note that Liftarn has now been unblocked by Abigor. I am equally puzzled as to the justification for this block and would welcome any assistance High Contrast can provide to understand this. Adambro (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the block right away, I see two reasons why I have removed it.

  • There is no valid reason for the block, the reason for block is harrasment but the diff point to the text don't be silly I don't think its a big deal to say that atleast not big enough for a block for 72 hours.
  • The block has been given by the user that was also the target for the self called harrasment a admin that is involved in a dispute or in a discussion should never use the block button.

I think it would be even nice to give a sorry to Liftarm. Huib talk 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But Liftarn as well might sort of apologize for his behaviour, as described above by Multichill. From the course of events it was obvious that he had angered or hurt High Contrast by this "don't be silly", so a small "sorry, wasn't meant so" might have prevented all this. --Túrelio (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It was clear from {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} that this was Liftarns own work. Then the template says: "is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted." This is the kind of messages that also annoys newbies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
{{Self}}, contrary to popular belief, is not a source. The phrase "I, the copyright holder" says nothing about the origin of the work; one could be the copyright holder of a work because one authored it, because one commissioned it or because one inherited the copyright. We also have droves of uploaders who claim to be the copyright holders of other people's work, and requiring a more affirmative statement is useful to sort the ignorant from the malevolent. The source field is part of the {{Information}} template for a reason. Tagging the image as missing source was appropriate and not silly. Calling the tagging silly and blanking other users' talk page messages was silly, though, as was the block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the unblock. Blocking over a "don't be silly" comment is way over the top. --Kjetil_r 23:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the tagging was made by a robot and not a human. Then I got templated with a "final notice" as a first message. // Liftarn (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  •  Info It is interesting to know that for example in Russian both "stupid" and "silly" have the same meaning and are translating to word "глупый", which might be considered an offence. IMO the meaning of the word "silly" which might have been lost in translation could have been the reason High Contrast posted the block.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
While that may be the case, I also support the unblock. That said, I would be interested to hear what High Contrast has to say. Tiptoety talk 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I strongly support the unblock! Self might not be a "source" but AGF tells me that user took the image self unless somthing suggest that is not the case. Please notice that "self" is added during upload if you chooses "Upload your own work"[60]. Notice "OWN WORK"! --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You may also notice that the images in the same series like File:BB25.APA3.jpg and File:BB25.APA5.jpg had all fields filled in. I just missed it in one image in the series. // Liftarn (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jordan Bailey Mugg

For three days now, this user has been uploading nothing but copyright violations. He's now up to 12 copyright violations. Would an administrator please look into this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll be watching his future contribs. --Eusebius (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

Moved out of archive. Will reappear in this or a newer archive.

User talk:Wasimawan

Has been uploading copyvios for a while now. S/he has also used the account Dawoodabro (talk · contribs) earlier; likely there are copyvios associated with that account's uploads too. --SpaceFlight89 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for a month. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello dear admins,

I would like to request a block for this user for disrupting behaviour here on Commons, this user continues attacking me and making Allegations of socking and about me stalking him, and the last one is a very big thing and there should be proof before saying things like this.

  • It started with his first responds where he attacks a other user that is coming to my talkpage for advice, this user didn't come back and didn't respond to emails so I guess that user is scared away. his edit, In this edit he says I use 8 socks without proof.
  • here the edit comment can be counted as a clear personal attack.
  • Again he is saying I use Socks without any proof [61]
    • Lar give him a warning to stop. [62]
  • As reaction he is saying I use socks and that I stalk him [63]
  • As reaction he says again I use socks [65]

I would find it very strange if a users can get a lot of warnings and do it again, get a warning and do it again. As far as I can see this user is trying to damage my name and saying all kind of things that aren't true.

The most strange thing is that this user is saying I use socks but is indeff blocked on two wiki's for socking, I do not believe this kind of behavior is accepted here on Commons and I think some admin should take some action against this user because warnings doesn't seem to work.

Best regards, Huib talk 16:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one that is accused of stalking, he did the same for Wutsje (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erik_Warmelink#Stad), According to the U.S law (18 U.S.C. §2261 A) all kinds of stalking are a crime, we should think can we let users work on Commons when thay say that other user break the law, even a google index of a message like you are stalking me can be dangerous. Huib talk 16:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 Comment I did not accuse Wutsje of stalking in User talk:Erik Warmelink#Stad, I did say that I was stalked, but I definitely and intentionally did not say that Wutsje did the stalking. The time differences between Wutsjes edits and the stalking mails was too large for that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment No matter who is in the line of fire it is sad and should not be tolerated. No matter what Erik might have done he should not be stalked via e-mail if he has been. It should be stopped. No doubt about that.
But it has been explained to Erik, that the correct way to handle this is either to ignore it or to make a formal complaint at a proper place. Sadly I can't read Dutch and Google translator is only of little help. After what I can make of the text Erik keeps saying that Huib has socks and it also seems to me that he does not speak nice of the admins and/or users that have told him to behave. We can all get upset but a warning should be enough to stop reasonable users. What I have seen leave with little or no doubt that this user does not react in an acceptable manner.
Unless I translated wrong I fully support a block.
And regarding the comment made by Pieter Kuiper this is not very informative since it does not tell which comments are true. But I take it that Pieter Kuiper agrees thate some comments are NOT true. --MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know the details, I have not really followed the incredible turbulence on the Dutch wikipedia - it is not a friendly place. But I believe that some of the things that Huib has denied are probably true. However, that does not mean that it is necessary to go on and on about it here on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would be a good thing when Pieter or Erik makes a request for a checkuser here on Commons, or on the Dutch Wikipedia or even a cross wikicheck, but making this kind of accusations here on Commons or on a other wiki is only damaging my name. Huib talk 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest i also find Erik Warmelink edits disruptive (per google translate of course) and i was even going to block him but since he opposed me in my RFCU i didn't put the block (i didn't want make him sad to think that i blocked him cause of that) . peter if your words back to nlwiki , it is another story , might be true or not , but in commons huib was a great user --Mardetanha talk 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a battle on Dutch Wikipedia should not continue here. That is the whole issue. Stop the war or go to the proper place. That has been explained to Erik several times. The issue is that Erik does not stop or does not go to the proper place. That is what this discussion is about.
If Erik or you (Pieter Kuiper) think Hiub does not behave properly then you should know the right place to discuss this matter. I'm sure complaints made in the right place would be taken very serious. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise this was still rumbling on. I have had interaction with Erik. I have rarely encountered such aggressive & unpleasant behaviour here on Commons, however, for me, ultimately there was an apology.
There were accusations of puppetry in that (which I misunderstood).
Huib is one of the few active admin here on Commons who I trust, I have commented on Erik already.
This must stop however despite a longer block log than any admin on Commons blocking real users should always be a very last resort (& Erik is a real user). --Herby talk thyme 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you thought about blocking (as an admin) me because I opposed you in your RFCU, I assume that it might be possible that in extreme cases you could think about linking me with any other IP than User:129.125.102.126 or any other user than User:ErikWarmelink (without that space). Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
@Erik, you are really twisting the words of Mardetanha. This is totally unacceptable! He said just the opposite of what you claim him to have done. He clearly said that he wanted to block you for your disruptive edits, but then didn't block you when you opposed his RFCU, in order to avoid the impression that you now try to give us. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not bring the battle on nl.wikipedia.org here. sterkebak/sterkeBak/abigor/Huib talk accused me of lying on commons, I asked (OK, that's not really asking) what would be untrue, s/s/a/h removed it, I asked again (without some of the vitriol, but noting that my previous request was deleted), User:Marcelo Salvioli makes his only edit "i send you a email please answer that !" (which I stupidly assume to be the edit of a sock puppet), I lash out and that is wrong, stupid, childish and much more, but it was not the start. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't care who started it. Please read COM:MELLOW and then, mellow out. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have just blocked the user 1 day for continuing attacks. A shame though - I'm sure he could do many good edits. But we should not tolerate that kind of behaviour. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Maybe it will do some good. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I tried asking him nicely, twice. In response he attacks me. Block raised to a week without the possibility of rambling on at his talk page. Multichill (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Saying that someone is rambling, is not very nice. And that "attack", was that so serious? Please try not to escalate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes "attacking" other users are serious and should not be tolerated. I think Commons and Wikipedia loose to many good users because of "battles". Battles are not good for anyone and should be stopped. As you can see Erik did not only kept on about Huib he started to make hints that users not using their own name must have something to hide.
He was warned several times with no luck and finally Multichill tried to say it loud and clear. I fear that supporting Erik and saying it’s ok for him to keep doing what he does will only make things worse. If you can do something others can't you are very welcome to do it now. --MGA73 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not "supporting Erik", and I have not criticized your block. But when Multichill uses his admin privileges to block someone for calling him a coward (and I agree, there is no reason for such insults), that is an escalation. Erik's language was mild in comparison with the section right above this one. And he was retracting what he had said about Mardetanha. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pieter Kuiper here. Whatever the background of this conflict may be, imo an admin should not use his privileges in a dispute he is himself involved in. Wutsje (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If you or any other "uninvolved" admin had stopped Erik then there was no reason for Multichill to do that and then there had been no case. In my view Erik was allowed to continue to long before he was blocked. I think we should all try to stop personal attack as soon as possible not just in this case but always. There was time for you to try to persuade Erik to stop or block him. When you chose not to do so you let others make the hard decision.
But I of course hope and trust that you both will do your very best to make Erik realize he can do much more good for Commons if he stops and if you fail to do that you will not put the responsibility on some other admin this time. Anyway why am I even writing this? I'm sure you will succeed in your mission. Thank you both for taking the job :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to become cynical here. EW was blocked for a week by an involved admin who felt a bit insulted. There are wikis where such behaviour would be considered abuse of privilege. Blaming someone else for such an action simply is uncalled for. By the way: I did try to talk to EW, as you might have noticed if you could read Dutch. Next time I looked at his talk page he was already blocked. Wutsje (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you both try to help - sorry I can't read Dutch. I too felt insulted but I did not reblock him mostly because I trusted that there were other admins that would do that. You see I'm used to that on dawiki. Well but I understand that you would have blocked Erik if Multichill had not done it? Hoping that we all agree that the important thing is that some users are not allowed to ruin a good project like Commons for others I plan to let this be my last comment here. I feel I wasted enough time on Erik. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur this was a good block and that Huib's reputation as an excellent Commons admin should not be tainted by this trolling. MBisanz talk 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Erik_Warmelink#Blocked_2 ... I leave it to Juliancolton to comment if he wishes but I speculate it's at least in part due to Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Abigor. Erik needs to give up his harassment of Abigor. Tentatively endorse the block. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I hadn't thought to comment here. Indeed, I'd been watching Erik's behavior for a while and felt that request for checkuser was the last straw, so to speak. Erik does however do quite a bit of good maintenance work, otherwise this block would have likely been much longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Endorse reblock. Agree about mitigating circumstances. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems -- also to me at least -- not been likely to much understanding nature to have going to reblocking again, isn't it ? ...
Though with most regards but reference too to more important and impressive works on Your Commons, e.g.:

This user is currently indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia for repeated copyright violations and sock puppetry (see en:User:BlueLankan). I've gone through his gallery here and found the origins on other websites of a number of pictures, but there are others that are almost certainly not his: File:SantoMap.jpg, for instance. Images are not my main thing on any project. Any chance an admin here can look at the other images in his gallery to see if they seem up-and-up? I'd be grateful, so I could get back to en-Wiki and do the things that I do usually do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

):, not this guy again. I only have to see File:Nalloor.jpg (the image itself... funny, sorry for non-admins) and File:Jaffna-street.jpg, File:Vallipuram.jpg (the image size indicates the source). With his texts on Wikipedia he holds it the same obviously. I will check if I can find any hints of non-copyright violations, I alredy fixed source and description for an old map, the texts are already marked as disputed. Indefblocked per en.wikipedia and serial copyright violation on Commons, also the socks --Martin H. (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

is it possible to block a user for not categorising his uploads?

Is it possible to block User:Acacia217 for not categorising his uploads? He/she was told to do so quite some time ago but does not show any effort to categorise his/her images. This causes a considerable amount of work for other people. On the other hand, the images uploaded by Acacia217 are of great use. So I am not sure what should be done. --ALE! ¿…? 06:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a case that I see more happening, I think blocking the user would be a bad step forward, because he uploads great images and that is the most important thing, yes files with no category are pretty hard to find so a category is better for finding a image but.. Commons want the files in a category there is no written rule or policy that a file should be in a category and if he uploads great files we should be very happy with it and don't scare them away. Commons have two kind of users, the uploaders and the mainteance people both type users are very important for Commons and we need to be very happy and proud with users like this.
On the other hand is a block our last tool to protect Commons, the content and the users on it, we should never block a users that is doing great work and is not a danger for Commons, the content or the users.
So its to bad that he doesn't put a category on his files, but if we block for a day and he would never come back... With this we have very little to win, but very much to lose. Huib talk 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
And it makes no sense; once blocked, how is he supposed to fix the problem (categorize his images)? Blocking makes sense for people who upload copyright violations, because it prevents them from doing it; but if you want to force someone to categorize their images, blocking will certainly not achieve that. –Tryphon☂ 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was think of it as an educational measure. But I agree that he/she is not really doing harm to the project but only generates work for others. So I agree that blocking is probably not a good thing. On the other hand, what other instruments do we have? --ALE! ¿…? 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually consider this an absurd question! The files appear to have filenames that reflect the art work titles, and descriptions that specify the painter. If you search for say "East point" Glackens, you will find exactly what you need, and not a category in sight. If you search for "William Glackens" you will find a bunch of painting by said painter, regardless of whether they have categories (including some bot uploads without categories). Much as I like categorizing things, I would be the first to admit that our category system is in serious need of work, is rather screwy in places and very odd at best :-). How about we leave each to do that at which they are best, those who like uploading images: upload images, those who like building galleries: build galleries, those who like categorizing images ... (you get the idea). Yes, tell new users about our systems, but please don't badger them with templated messages, let alone start hitting them about the head just because they can not see the sense of putting time into our category system. Remember that people are giving their time freely to this project, we need more participation, not less - if this project is to survive and thrive, people must enjoy what they are doing. So apart from when we are trying to get rid of someone who is giving nothing to the project, think "how do I encourage this person" rather than "how do I get this person to follow some rule". Now of course I do not want to discourage User:ALE! a hard working, long time contributor, so sorry for this outburst. I do consider categories important. But not-categorizing, when one has already given title, painter and source, is not a disruptive activity :-) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Tony: taking images, processing images, downloading them, documenting them, licensing them, categorising, building categories, building galleries: all those activities are basically a speciality and we can not expect that all people will cover/like/enjoy them all. We all try to find our little place in the chain, and I agree, some places can be a bit frustrating, but that's why it is called a community. --Foroa (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should look at the problem on the bright side: this user has already retrieved and uploaded 700 good images; that is a major time saving for us. --Foroa (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not an outburst, Mr. Wills, this is! The fact that a sysop even considers 'teaching someone a lesson' with an entrusted tool indicates that the widespread criticism of this community is partly justified. This is not a slight against ALE!, who at least thought to check with his colleagues, but I recently saw a request for tools to do exactly that. That user was two hours away from receiving them when it was sunk! 'Making work' for a community that contributes time and resources because they want to could only be a good thing. So how does this happen?

    It is inevitable in volunteer groups that some unpaid workers, ensconced in their home away from home, will seek a reward in swaggering about and driving off other contributors, online and in the RW, and these examples are sufficient cause for concern about the culture that has emerged here. If one continues the examples above of what users 'like doing', it would include seeking personal triumphs, making unilateral decisions, and deleting valuable content to the detriment of the community goals. There is a serious cultural problem here, I suggest that the 'us and them' mentality is partly to blame. Much of my time here is to check that someone hasn't screwed up my uploads, or found some wonky reason to delete it, protection of it should be assumed. Having the opportunity to frequent this site does not afford extra privileges, knowing your way around allows one the pleasure of helping and encouraging other users - not to step on their necks when one thinks they can get away with it.

    This message will not translate well from English, apologies for that, but the 'regulars' need to re-establish to purposes and scope of the site. cygnis insignis 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also recognize that one of the important tasks here is the janitorial jobs of removing un-free images and blocking disruptive users, and other jobs that are not pleasant for most of us. And the arguments and criticisms cause a high burn out rate in those who choose to take on that admin work. We must value that essential work. We must not make those tasks too difficult, not only because of the effect upon those contributors, but also out of self interest - because if there is a high turn over of people doing the admin work, then we have new people coming in all the time who will get things wrong (don't we all?), and repeat old mistakes.
Yes, some people think that there is a hierarchy, and that commons needs some sort of police force to control things. But I see no need for an "us and them" mentality", it is all "us", there is no "them". This is a community, people's interests and sense of responsibility find them working in different areas but everything is the whole communities responsibility. So don't denigrate others by inferring unworthy motives. If something is wrong it doesn't matter too much why it is wrong, just that we fix it. If we assume it is wrong because of a mistake, rather than some private motive, it will lower our blood pressure and also make correcting it easier. As I have said before, if we read "assume good faith" to mean "act as though every action was done with the best intentions (even when we are sure it was not ;-)" it makes things work much better, and after all we are not actually "saving the world" we are just building a library of photographs :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the uploads of Acacia217 and I also understand the "outburst" of some people here. However, it is not understandable for me why some people do a great job uploading images and at the same time refuse to do some minimal categorization work. File:An Officer of the Imperial Horse Guards Charging.jpg and File:Dance Class.jpg are clear examples of images that will never be found without categorization. And it would be the easiest if the uploader was also doing some basic categorization. If he/she needs help, the admins are here to help. But uploading massively images without categorization is in my view a lack of respect for others who then will have to do the dirty work. --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the user does not understand English and does not know what we all want from him/her.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe but I do not think so. Otherwise he/she would react in her own language, saying that he/she does not understand English. Besides, the descriptions of the images he/she uploaded are in English. --ALE! ¿…? 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The description's of the images is being copied directly from the the sources. If he/she does not know English, maybe she/he does not even know how to respond messages, how to edit talk pages--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
How did he/she then manage to upload an image? Please, get real. --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's see what happens, when he/she comes back, it is, if he/she comes back.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I will reiterate an important point: 'Making work' for a community that contributes time and resources because they want to could only be a good thing. The user wants to upload images, a good thing! - if you want to navigate a convoluted category system and add them, that is also good. Suggesting that someone doing good work is making you do 'dirty work' is simply nonsense. You are not a low-paid 'streetsweeper', and characterising a user as if they someone crapping on your 'street' is absolutely uncalled for. cygnis insignis 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we agreed already that blocking is not the tool to use to convince somebody. I think we can stop this part of the discussion. @Categorisation: I do not get the "dirty work" as I usually do not categorise images of others but some other people do. And IMHO the uploader knows usually best where to put the images. Also, it is not that we have all a whole lot of time to categorisation. Just have a look at the deletion requests. There are never enough people to work on these and the list of unclosed requests grows and grows and grows. --ALE! ¿…? 07:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The backlog of open DR's is growing because of several things: 1) it is much easier to press the delete-button than to put in a {{Bad name}} template or to make a mass DR request; many incomplete DR's are not on the log page; the current log page is not on many contributor's watch list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I really want users categorizing their own uploads. Convincing should imho always be done in a positve way. So asking the user to do so and helping the user. Blocking or threaten to block isn't a good strategy. The number of uncategorized file is stable and the total number of files of course grows, so I like to think this strategy works. Multichill (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Max Rebo Band (talk · contribs)

Vandalism here and here. --13:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually ask for the intention? He uploaded the images himself (from Flickr) and now say that he don't have the permission - maybe he is referring to to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people taken not in a public place and maybe published without the persons permission? You should ask him first what his intention was. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that does not really look like vandalism to me. Have a look at Commons:Vandalism. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, As stated in his speedy requests he doesn't want his name to show up on this file something that could have done very easy ;-) The things I have done:

  • Uploaded a new version and deleted the old version so my name is now for the uploader instead of his.
  • Cleaned the history so his name doesn't show up anymore.

I know it would have looked like vandalism when you see somebody blank a page like this but please, always assume good faith and stay mellow, this user wasn't trying to vandalize Commons, he was trying to remove his name out of Commons. Huib talk 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the model's age is questionable and the last thing I want is to be uploading images of under-aged naked people to Commons. Under Abigor's name it's fine, and I've sent an eMail to the photographer asking for OTRS permission for the model's age anyways. Max Rebo Band (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Snek01 (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a look at this user? He seems to be emptying (example) out fossil categories and nominating them for deletion (example). I also noticed several editwars and request to stop countered with an attack. Multichill (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed several edit wars between these users and this user did indeed many emptying, renames and redirects as can be seen on User:RussBot/category redirect log concerning fossiles. --Foroa (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#edit war. --Snek01 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Two uploads used for griefing on Wikipedia by now-blocked-there user Shdgdgdgd

Could Wikimedia please also block this account-created-today user Shdgdgdgd, and remove the two ugly images he has posted here? Betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Inappropriate images deleted and user blocked. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Patriote17

Hello,

Patriote17 is importing a lot of images under copyright that does not match Commons license as can be seen from his log (where imports has been deleted) and from his talk page where he seems to ignore the warnings that have been left. BTW, he is blocked at en and fr mainly for POV-pushing and multiple account abuse. Thanks, Nakor (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Contribs watched, I'll take actions if necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

sock-puppet/imposter

Rianna Scipio (talk · contribs) may be a sock-puppet of RiannaScipio (talk · contribs) as their usernames are nearly identical and as the first did now re-upload the same already deleted (File:Newshot.jpg) copyrighted image that the latter had uploaded about two week ago. In addition, both usernames very strongly resemble the name of actress Rianna Scipio and might be unfitting (unintended imposter). --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, for now, indefblock the second account and explain the user that it is not allowed. Are the contribs related to the actress? --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Both have uploaded only one image (the latter user did it twice) of the actress that was taken from imdb.com, thereby a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I blocked RiannaScipio (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet and left the sockmaster a message. Tiptoety talk 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked for modest use of renaming

Hello, User:Kintetsubuffalo has asked for renaming a large number of files, of which I think renaming is superfluous. I have put a message on his discussion page, but may-be it is more appropriate to have an administrator looking at it. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming a file is actually very easy if you have a script to assist you. I think it's perfectly acceptable to preform renames for minor corrections or additions, since the title of an image should be as descriptive as possible. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio and User:Pr3st0n

Hi, there's an ongoing discussion about copyright violations by this user at a sister wiki. Administrators are concluding that, when questioned, his answers have been deceptive and he has demonstrably violated copyright in several instances. Doubts are arising whether any of his uploads can be trusted. I have deleted File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg as a duplicate of this file. Possibly he should be blocked and his contributions nuked. Initiating local discussion before taking further action. Durova (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Engaging the Commons community directly may be more to your advantage, Pr3st0n, because you have been blocked indefinitely for copyright violations at that other site.[66] I would not object to applying the same solution here, but Commons culture is often more mellow. Durova (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is fairly straightforward. Uploads have been nuked (there weren't very many) and editor has been indeffed for copyvio. If he wishes to renew discussion locally I'd be open to that. Durova (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair (though it doesn't excuse anything), File:Tardy Gate Manufacturing Company.jpg was legit since it came from Geograph and was properly licensed, IIRC. I've reuploaded the image. Small-town hero (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No objection there. An offer that might result in unblock has been posted at en:wiki, and if that happens I'd be glad to revisit the matter here. Durova (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to some presumably-trolling IP edits, the indef block on WP will not be lifted any time soon. See w:Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping on top of that. Looks like it's wrapped up. Durova (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editwar by User:Cwbm

Babel user information
en-4
This user speaks English at a near-native level.
de-4
Dieser Benutzer hat mit einem Muttersprachler vergleichbare Deutschkenntnisse.
fr-2
Cette personne peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire de français.
VG-1
This user is able to contribute with a basic level on vector graphics.
This user is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
This user has file mover rights on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
Users by language

reverts my comment in Hexitol.png (link). He does not show any reliable source (book, PubChem,..) and tries to "fix" the running deletion request in his sense. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but before that, you reverted his edit[67]. About tries to "fix" the running ...: do you want to deprive him of his right to provide counter-arguments? Sorry, but this is far from needing admin intervention. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No, what I have done is to revert to the author's orginial description - so the deletion discussion is not altered AFTERWARDS. And what I have done is to ask for reliable sources. Both issues haven't been adressed. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. By correcting an image description that you yourself have declared to be wrong[68], the deletion discussion is not altered AFTERWARDS, as opposed to your claim, as your original rfd rationale was "not in use, too poor qual, superceded by one of those pics." If you think the description of an image is factually wrong, but cannot really correct it (due to missing source, for example), then put a {{Fact disputed}} on it.
Anyway, all that is no reason to come here. You will likely know from :de that you shall not take any content disputes to VM, the equivalent to where you are here. --Túrelio (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Esc.eliska (talk · contribs)

ResolvedPD issue dealt with, sock(s) blocked. Tiptoety talk 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Esc.eliska made 13 inadmissible changes of license today between 16:34 and 16:40. The author of those photos is Fredy.00, he is blocked for 2 weeks.

Also some new versions of archive photos from Bundesarchiv or other similar sources are suscipious. --ŠJů (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be that they saw those images were uploaded by Fredy.00 (talk · contribs) and assumed that they were the copyright holder, hence the addition of the templates. Or they are a sock of the currently blocked user. One option is a liberal application of AFG, while the latter is not. A second pair of eyes would be helpful here. Tiptoety talk 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
After a little more investigating, it is looking more like the user is a sock. Compare their upload logs Fredy.00, Esc.eliska. As such I indef blocked Esc.eliska, and extended the current block on Fredy.00. Tiptoety talk 22:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, Esc.eliska is a sock of Fredy.00. But the PD license is irrevocable: neither the author nor other user may take away the PD license. --ŠJů (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ŠJů is right, I've reverted those changes from PD-self to attribution. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are more attempts of Fredy.00 to evade the block. Both user accounts contribute the same way as Fredy does. See also [69] and [70]. I think it is time for an indefinite block... -- Mercy (☎|✍) 08:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the cs.wiki page, could you tell me what I am looking for there? Also, the other accounts don't seem to match the pattern of the others (at least not as blatantly as the last sock did). Could you provide me with a few specific diffs that drew you to the conclusion these accounts were socks? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 08:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It is the same as before. He uploads cropped images of politicians, uploads files without permission and focuses mainly on the Czech Wikipedia. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Socks blocked, indefblocked Fredy.00.
Besides this technical decision at the moment he claimed a recent REUTERS photograph to his father I lost my trust in him. I also have near zero confidence that it is possible to obtain written permission from official government sources as fast as he did. Also File:Alexander Dubček - portrét.jpg gives me some proof that he is simply inventing source names and sent emails to OTRS according to his fantasy sources. --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Losangeleslive (talk)

User:Losangeleslive (talk) appears to be uploading numerous images that they have downloaded from websites. When asked about this, they ignored the message and continued the trend. Is there a better place to post about users that do this? --Geniac (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've filed mass deletion request for files uploaded by this user --Leafnode 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted their uploads and left them a final warning on their talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Carlosenrique

User:Carlosenrique: could someone take this one under wing? It looks like he is an artist of museum quality uploading copies of his own work, which is fine, but someone really needs to "show him the ropes", especially about categories. I've done some cleaning up behind him, but there is doubtless much more to do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion Trojan/Trojanbackoncommons

In his file description of File:Sunriseinthemorning.JPG, user Trojanbackoncommons stated the following:

With this image, which I took in 2004, I want to symbolize my a new start on Commons. I want to apologize all administrators for all the things I did wrong on my account Trojan. At the moment (21st October 2009) I'm blocked for about 2 months and I really feel guilty for everything I did. If you don't know why I'm blocked now: I've uploaded TV-screenshots which is not allowed and I discovered it too late. Administators warned me, but I just thought they joked with me. On the English wiki's it's permitted to upload TV-screenshots, so why not on Commons? I already went to COM:AN, but they ignored me and now I'm still blocked. While I have really fine images I want to share with you. This image is one of them and I really want to upload more. Please give me that chance! Note from the psychiatrist. Trojan uploaded this image on my computer, because his own IP is blocked. I want you to tell this: Trojan has big troubles with communicating and sometimes it goes wrong. This time it has also gone wrong. He is blocked for over a month and that is not fair, I think what happened, was unavoidable. But Trojan is a very talented photographer and his biggest hobby is using Commons so that others can use it for pages on Wikipedia, Wikibooks and other wiki's. What he did in 2006, was vandalism, but after his 1 month block he never did it again and he really didn't understand why you blocked him. This is my proposition. Unblock Trojan, give him clear instructions about uploading images and if it goes wrong again and you want to tell it, be extra understandable, because he needs it. Yours faithfully, sig - PSYCHIATRIST

In this description this user shows both block evasion AND vandalism (the "psychiatrist's note"). Seems like a good reason to me for a block (and for file deletion as it's vandalism). Erik1980 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the userpage of Trojanbackoncommons as the user does not exist on commons. Image transwikied from nl.wp by Finavon, presumably in good faith. It is after all a nice picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder about this trouble about Trojan (talk · contribs), already the last time he was here on AN. This user is only a sock of an expirienced editor, not even difficult to see, who is still uploading to a local wiki and whos images are still transfered to Commons. He is not the only Wikipedian I noticed so far who abuses Commons with showing a frightening bad behaviour here or violate the licensing policy or do things he would never do on his "own" wiki :( --Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please block 121.97.74.130

121.97.74.130 continues to vandalise and insert irrelevant spam links into official guideline documents in spite of multiple warnings since July. Please apply the clue-by-four. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week and domain is added on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

Moved by Elvey from /Archives/User_problems_10 to respond to LX's claims that personal attack allegations against Pieter Kuiper were unfounded. Also, the conflict appears to be ongoing.
He seem to know better than the Israeli lawyers about the Freedom of Panorama in Israel, does he..? --Yuval Y § Chat § 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Deror avi has uploaded several copyright violations, see for example here. He has even uploaded bootleg video of a performance by Dana International, see the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Yuval Y, what's the problem exactly? How can we assist you? Multichill (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Gee... I thought that the Israeli copyright law is clear enough, and FOP also applies to 2D art which is permanently placed in a public place. I've learned the hard way that the PD-Old also applied to derivatives of old paintings... --Yuval Y § Chat § 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about!? If you just disagree with another user, it isn't a matter for the administrator noticeboard. If you want to report a misconduct that goes against policy, then state it clearly. Otherwise, I don't know what you expect from this thread. –Tryphon☂ 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing personal against Pieter, but for several month Pieter Kuiper personally attacks my images. with slanderous accusations, and no understand of the Law - even the segment of Dana Internationa's performance is allowed through a special section of the Law (there is a long list of criteria that must be checked, but the short file applies to all criteria - it is a segment of a a political ralley (not a performance) which took place in a public place, and in which photography and filming were allowed, and it is incidental to the filming of the event. When all criterai coenside, such images are allowed. Peter has been fighting projects of Israeli Wikimedia for a long time, and this is part of it. Deror avi (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
People may to take deletion requests personally, but Deror avi is one of the few who has accused me of acting out of malice. I looked into this in reaction to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Israel, in November last year. That template is applied to coats-of-arms, which is probably stretching it, but I can accept to regard CoA's as Gebrauchsgrafik and even applied art. But Deror avi and the Pikiwikisrael then take this to murals and even to framed paintings. Commons does not normally try to stretch the law of other countries, and it prefers to err on the side of caution. With repect to the accusation of being anti-Israel -- this is mostly about the copyright of Israeli artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It is OK to err on the side of caution - but once you are corrected - better learn what is correct. Israeli Law is somewhat different - very liberal in some matters and very dark in another. even copyright Law and performers rights are like this. Somethings are not allowed - but other are. Basicaly - you agree with me - for the past six month you refuse to accept that laws are different from one country to another, and continue to target my pictures especialy. (I do know that other users have given up on you and are just uploading pictures to Hebrew wikipedia, because of the behaviour here). Deror avi (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
another example of Pieter's harasment Deror avi (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Could I suggest that Deror avi and Pieter seek to avoid each other in future? Adambro (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, that seems to be impossible. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that Pieter would not touch pictures from Israel - and then we would have no contact whatsoever. Deror avi (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this list I wouldn't chew Pieter so easily out. On the other hand: if the laws in Israel don't protect artists that good, well, nice for us! --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The day after these images were deleted on commons, Deror avi uploaded them on enwp, see this gallery, because Deror avi is convinced that he has every right to do whatever he wants with his copies of works made by others. Copyright protection in Israel is not very strong, but the law was the same as in many countries of the Commonwealth. The new 2007 law added "fair use" to Israeli copyright, which is not good enough for commons. Also, there is an "I-never-knew-this was-copyrighted" defense, that is why Deror avi wants me to shut up about this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In short. The examples given does not make me conclude that Pieter Kuiper attacked you or disrupted your work. The solution must be to find out exactly what the rules are in Israel. Sorting out Israeli law or disagrement on some matter is not a matter for the Administrators' noticeboard as I see it. I vote we should close this matter here. --MGA73 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper is conducting a vicious attack on images from Israel. The fact is that he has no knowledge on Israeli Law, and many other countries for that matter. As for the list above - in fact i did not argue (not carring that much) but most images are free according to the Bern Convension on copyright, and good arguments could have been made to keep most of the photos deleted (yes, the US law does not apply to the UN building, even though it is in New York). The problem is that, as shown above, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Miriam_IMG_28071.JPG Pieter goes to great leangth tp haras]. And in my opinion his behaviour shows that his motives are unpure. Deror avi (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It is ok that Pieter nominate images for deletion if he thinks a file is a violation of copyrights. If Pieter has good arguments and an other admin after the debate chooses to delete then it is ok to keep nominating images with the same problem. If you do not agree with the conclusion you can request an undeletion and give all your good arguments there. I can't guarantee that the result always is legaly right since we are all human.
If the result is kept then he should respect the decision. If he keeps nominating images that keeps getting kept or if he has no arguments at all or he is absolutely wrong then I'm sure the closing admin would tell Pieter not to do that again.
As for the point he made that the creator of the work should be mentioned as author I agree with him. As for the way he said it it could have been said in a nicer way but I suggest we assume good faith this time. --MGA73 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And again a new unjustified harasment by Pieter. Deror avi (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploading that image and his response in the deletion request is another example of how inept Deror avi is at understanding laws. German Urheberrecht, this time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets see what the result of this DR will be. I guess the result will tell which one of you are correct. But please avoid personal comments in the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
IfDs can be appropriate, but Pieter Kuiper's repeated personal attacks on Deror avi are not acceptable. A ban or ban from Israeli pages would work. But I suggest a narrow response, so we can get constructive edits from both parties. I suggest Pieter Kuiper be banned from IfDs or other edits about Deror avi's work. That could get us all back to work. --Elvey (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What personal attacks? Allegations of personal attacks or harassment are quite a serious matter, and must be backed up by diffs. So far, Deror avi (talk · contribs) has failed to produce such diffs; instead, he has provided links to two pages, File talk:Miriam IMG 28071.JPG and File:Sahlechet P7160078.JPG, where, according to Deror avi (talk · contribs), Pieter's comments (in the first case, noting that the original artist was not credited as required by law and Commons policy and in the second case, consisting entirely of the two words "derivative work") constitute "unjustified harasment [sic]." Pieter's comments, in my mind, do not constitute harassment. I'll even go so far as to say that they do not meet the definition provided at en:Wikipedia:Harassment. However, I do find it appropriate at this time to draw attention to en:Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack." One may disagree with Pieter (and I frequently do), but playing victim and sprinkling accusations all around is not conducive to the collaborative goals of this project. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What personal attacks? I read the thread, and read the content that Deror avi referenced, and I felt there were personal attacks. I saw that he called him inept, above. That's a personal attack, IMO. My accusations certainly were not unfounded. Hence, I suggest Pieter Kuiper be banned from IfDs about Deror avi's work or other edits about Deror avi's work. Apologies for not providing diffs, per se; links to back the accusations had already been provided and made by others, respectively, IMO, so I didn't shoulder the burden of converting them to diffs. The legal issues here are subject to disagreement among reasonable people, and the topics politically delicate, so AGF is particularly important. Pieter's stating (above) "Deror avi is convinced that he has every right to do whatever he wants with his copies of works made by others" is not assuming good faith. --Elvey (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Deror avi continues posting reproductions of work by others, like for example File:Har Hatsofim IMG 7795.jpg, requiring attribution of himself, omitting the name of the author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure that both Deror avi and Pieter Kuiper has made some mistakes just like everyone else. And we should all be able to forget and forgive a few errors. So the question is if someone keeps making mistakes.

I can't see that it is a personal attack that Pieter made a deletion request when the result was delete. I also agree that reproductions of work by others should provide information about author and date or work (and death) whenever possible.

Has Pieter continuously done other "bad" things? If so I suggest that that 5-10 examples are made (please no ancient examples) and then we can have a look at them. If not I hope that we can agree that it is better to spend time doing other things :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[71] aditional personal attacks. In any other wikipedia he would have been blocked from editing. Deror avi (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop crying wolf. That's not a personal attack. And if it would be one, you would be blocked too because of similar edits in the same thread, so you might be careful with what you're asking for. Multichill (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter certainly could mellow out, he can be somewhat forceful and strident. But something actionable? I'm not seeing it at this time. As others say, make sure you're above reproach (at least in the referenced matter) before you complain about others (except in very egregious cases). ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to bring Erik Warmelink (talk · contribs)'s continued inappropriate behavior to attention. In spite of several warnings and blocks, including one that expired just last week, this user keeps making uncivil, rude, and unproductive attacks on other users. At this point, I believe that it is necessary to issue a lengthy block (possibly indefinite), but I'd like to hear the thoughts of other administrators. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "in spite", it's "as a result". Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Erik are you saying you will keep makeing edits like that? --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. I have blocked the user for a duration of 6 months, given that he has had two previous blocks for exactly that reason. There is a limit to AGF. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

6 months might be a little much, maybe 1 month was the next progression. But Erik hasn't internalised what we're telling him. If there was some sign of an intent to change I'd lift this but I'm not seeing it. Reluctant endorse. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what this edit means? Has he been threatened or something? Wknight94 talk 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on - threatened. Let's stay fair. Besides, I think one month would be enough. --High Contrast (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

High Contrast, you may have misunderstood Wknight94. It seems (or at least has been suggested by Erik more than once) that he or his father has been (or feels) threatened by some emails or whatsoever that, as of Erik, has some (unkown to me) connection with Commons or Wikipedia - at least that's how I understood his somewhat mysterious remarks. However, this perceived threat has nothing to do with the current block. Anyway, 1 month might be more appropriate if Erik consents to avoid the kind of behaviour that led to his last block. --Túrelio (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes if. I see no signs at all that Erik will change behaviour. Example: He likes to call users that does not use their full name "pseudonym" instead of user name and suggest that they must have somthing to hide. He has been told several times to focus on the work and not on the person or the names. He was also blocked. No result. So the block is ok with me. --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Olaffpomona

User:Olaffpomona seems to be placing dozens of irrelevant categories into Category:Kherson. When I asked him to stop, he replied "I will remove it later. I need it for my research." I responded "That makes no sense. You can't go messing up the Commons category hierarchy for your research," but he seems to be persisting. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is insane. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Left the user a warning, we'll see whether that stops him. Thanks for the note. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted most edits. --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are still related problems. For example File:Карта России 18 век.jpg is categorized in Category:Kherson (and no other); also, the claim of "own work" on this is absurd, as it is for File:Kravchenko V N.jpg.

I want to be clear: I think Olaffpomona has uploaded a lot of good photos, and I presume that they are mostly legitimately his own work & constitute a good contribution to the Commons. But it seems to me that someone needs to review his work in general, and see if there are other problems, and probably engage him in a discussion to make sure he understands what it means to attribute the source of an image, how categories work, etc., or he's liable to do a lot of damage. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Alliknow2

I noticed this user because File:Resdwarka.jpg looked to me like a pretty likely copyvio (small image with watermark from commercial real estate site). I marked that for speedy deletion & warned the user. While I was at it, I looked at some of the other images the user had uploaded. File:Picture 032 edited.jpg, File:Traffic Jam - Dwarka.jpg, and File:Dwarkasc1.jpg have EXIF data from three different cameras. There is the small possibility that the user is a professional or quasi-professional photographer uploading with no user page, and I what I see as the larger possibility that this user is uploading other people's photos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Worldenc (talk · contribs)

Thats allmost the same like Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Usgeowiki (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_17#Mass_image_and_linkspam_accounts) - this time it is not linkspam but I not see the scope of this uploads. What is the intention? Is there any ongoing cooperation noone told us and are this simple graphs realy useful? Is this only someone who abuses Commons as an imagehost for his project? --Martin H. (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Imaginably useful graphs, I'd think; they'd be more useful if "aging" were spelled correctly, though, and far more useful if the graphics were generally better. - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS received an e-mail complaint about File:Chogyal Namkahi Norbu.jpg. (OTRS Ticket:2009103010038369.) I've tagged it for speedy deletion, since there's no doubt it was on flickr before it was here, where all rights reserved, and the metadata confirms what the correspondent says. However, this and the contributor's talk page lead me to some concern that issues may be more extensive. This isn't my usual neighborhood (typically, I'm busy with the land of text). Can somebody here take a glance at his gallery to see if other images merit further investigation? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to update that the user has left a list of images he says he copied from elsewhere at his talk: here. Since I'm not a Commons Admin, can somebody else run with this one? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying. Taken care of the files. --Túrelio (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kikijaco (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what his intention is. Could a French-speaking user help him with his images (especially File:File0042.jpg)? (Commons:Bistro from August) -- Common Good (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw this already some times because with the replacement of the curly braces with (( )) he triggerd the template removal filter. My interpretion is, that with his edit he tries to "tag" his image with as.many.words.as.possible. Is it possible that the replacement of the braces {{}} with (()) comes from some external editor? This is not the first time I see this kind of edits, especially from french and catalan users. --Martin H. (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Терский берег

I am an admin of ruwiki and I've blocked this user's account on ruwiki for copyright violation and trolling. As a result he has been vandalising my userpage and its' discussion on Commons ever since. Reverting or ignoring doesn't help. Right now pages full of vandalism and Russian obscenities. Please, revert them and consider blocking this user at least temporarily. Thank you. Mstislavl (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Warned. If he continues, I will block him. Thanks. Kwj2772 (msg) 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Blocked indefinitely. Kwj2772 (msg) 08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Docu (talk · contribs) and Lar (talk · contribs) (Bureaucrat, Check user, oversight, Administrator)

In response to a request to be more specific in his questions, User:Lar calls me "being obstructive" diff and accuses me of "edit warring" diff. He even threatens to block me just for this type of editing [72]. I would attempt to discuss this with him, but given the threats he resorts to and the fact that he considers it a "waste of time" to provide an explanation for his accusations, I don't think he will attempt to listen.

It seems that he frequently joins discussions he hasn't taken time to read through and just requests people to provide him with a summary of what he didn't read and then seems to resent the fact that we don't take our time to do so. -- User:Docu at 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The diffs you provide give "404" errors. They seem to be missing the page name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Try this one, it'll get you started. [73] ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the diffs - sorry about that. (and the section header). -- User:Docu at 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I will point out that bringing something here first doesn't mean you get to freeze the header. This is about you, more than it is me, and the header after I changed it reflected that we were both involved. I could have just went with you and not me, but chose not to. I won't edit war with you about the section header. I suggest someone else change it. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly one viewpoint. Another view is that this isn't really about me. It's about Docu. (and I've changed the heading accordingly) He has a hard time interacting with others when he is questioned about his actions. Review of the thread just above the one he references on his talk page, as well as a review of the evidence of edit warring diffs I gave in the thread he references, will reveal that he was attempting to unilaterally insert a quixotic statement (about de-bureaucrating people for making annotations to images, no less!!!), which when questioned about it by others, he obfuscates and avoids explaining. Finally, after much prodding it turns out that he seems to refer to some prior disagreement he had with me in which, surprise, I was asking him to explain what he was driving at.
I'm an excellent listener, if people actually respond without obfuscation.
I think, further, if you review Docu's interactions with others, you are going to find a pattern here. He plays obstructionist, asking for clarification, for specifics, over and over again, when what he needs to do is take feedback on board. I stand by my admonishment, if he edit wars (and this is not the first time he's edit wars) he may find himself blocked. He is a valuable contributor, who does much good work, but his approach here in interacting with others seems to leave much to be desired. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Docu please don't change the header, you are part of the problem. Multichill (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't really much to be said about my commons administrator/bureaucrat conduct, but if you want to. Please do. -- User:Docu at 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Docu, for providing a good example of the approach that needs changing... this page is for user problems and you're a user. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Where do you think your conduct should be discussed? -- User:Docu at 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is fine for this I would think, Commons isn't that formal. I'm always open to having my actions reviewed and to receiving feedback. But that wasn't my point. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Put simply, Lar is fine - in this case and every other case where I have encountered him. Docu is apparently lobbying for a clause which would cause Lar to lose his bureaucratship (is that a word?) over a single month-old edit which added a single silly image note to an image that already had dozens of silly image notes - most of which were added by Docu himself. Lar is understandably annoyed by this. Docu needs to drop this. He needed to drop this a month ago. Wknight94 talk 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Docu: Let me get this straight, are you bringing this matter here because you want administrative sanctions to be made against Lar because he has called you "being obstructive", accused you of "edit warring" and "threatens to block" you (diff's in Docus first posting)? If so, sorry - I'm not an admin but I can tell you no such sanctions will be taken. Lar was correct in telling you not to be obstructive (you definitely were), right in telling you to stop editwarring (you were) and right in warning you that you would be blocked if you go on editwarring (you will be). What you should focus on Docu is to try pay heed to what Lar, and before that user:Lupo, has tried to tell you - if you keep on behaving like this administrative sanctions will most probably be taken against you.

If this is about something else in Lar's conduct as user, admin, 'crat, CU or oversighter, please explain what and provide diff's. If not, stop wasting everyones time here. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and definition "edit warring". Just a question, in which part of the Lupo's edit summary "Version 2" should I have read this? -- User:Docu at 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to my opinion. I wasn't referring to edit summaries, let me expand for clarity: "Pay heed to what Lar, and before that user:Lupo, has tried to tell you on your user talk page". It was a general advice to start listening to what people try to tell you instead of splitting words. The message obviously didn't get through. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse that I didn't understand that you didn't want to discuss the Lar's comments about "edit warring", but you simply wanted to state that we should listen to each other. If you follow the discussion between Lupo and me, you might have noticed that we do know to listen to each other. -- User:Docu at 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

--> Docu, Maybe Lar did add som silly notes on an image (he was not the only one if you ask me) but the proper action is to tell him or bring it to the file discussion page. It is not ok to make an addition to some policy. Yes Lar did gave you a not so friendly note on your talkpage but that was a result of your actions that was not correct. There is no basis to take actions against him because of that.

Unless you have some stronger arguments I strongly suggest that you end the debate here. If you have forther questions you can continue them on your talkpage where same matter is discussed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is if he has a basis for his accusation of "edit warring" and related threat. I think we all agree that his annotation was inappropriate. -- User:Docu at 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It was no less appropriate than the rest of the silly annotations you added. They've all been removed since this discussion began. Wknight94 talk 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
@Docu. this edit only proves that Lar has sense of humor. He even used a smiley symbol ":)" in the edit summary. IMO having sense of humor is one of the most important qualities of making good Commons administrators. Anyway as the image creator I removed all silly :) annotations now, and I believe you, Docu, should drop it right here. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't want to discuss the edit warring accusations, I'm not quite sure why you are posting here. You should understand that his edit isn't appropriate, but disruptive, even if it includes a smiley. Restoring them after we agreed on their removal on talk is even worse. -- User:Docu at 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have the sequence of events incorrect there. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
@Docu, You've got the sequence very wrong. Lar restored the annotations and then (later) brought the matter to the image's talk page. He's done excactly the right thing in order to avoid edit warring. Am I discussing edit warring now :) ?--21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
--> Docu. Without a clear definition you can always argue that it was not a war but a disagreement. I would have avoided that word in this case but if I have to choose I would say "yes" based on that your addition was clearly not relevant. Even if you argue that it was not warring or that Lar could have told you in a nicer way there is still no reasons for actions against Lar. --MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not appropriate to tell people they will be blocked over a disagreement. This even more so for bureaucrats. -- User:Docu at 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement is not a reason to block but if a user keeps adding wrong additions then he/she will be blocked. But before admins block a user they should give a clear warning. It is not possible to say when a warning should be gentle and polite and when it should be tuff. Lar could have said it nicer if he thought it would have been enough. As said by more users above Lar did not act in a way that requires further actions against him. --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you precise what you consider a "wrong addition" in this matter? -- User:Docu at 22:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, this user Docu has not contributed any images. He is wasting other people's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pieter: That's not a helpful comment. Docu has made many valuable contributions to the project, and that's not at all in question. What is in question is his engagement style in working with others. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Docu: The point here isn't those annotations. It isn't even that you were edit warring to change a help text to make a ludicrous claim, and when you were asked to explain, you refused, until you were warned. It's your overall participation style. Your response to any input, any warning, any caution, appears to be to obfuscate by deliberately not understanding and by asking tangential questions. That's disruptive, and it needs to stop. You are hearing from a number of people, right here in this thread, that you're off the mark, and that you need to change. Now, do you want to change your style, or not? That's really the question you need to ask yourself. Then you need to answer it here, explicitly. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to your statement "when you were asked to explain, you refused, until you were warned.". -- User:Docu at 21:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Asking for diffs for every little thing is part of your obstructionism. Stop it. The conversation is there for all to read (unless you've swept it under the rug already) and the conclusion is there to be drawn. Do you want to change your style, or not? ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it just illustrates that you don't want to explain your own reasoning. If you re-read the discussion with Lupo, I don't see any warning on his side and I think he and I understand each others point of view. -- User:Docu at 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly one view. However I suspect most other folk are going to hold the view that I'm right. That you can't answer a straight (but personally difficult) question, instead evading by asking for diffs, raising irrelevant side issues and the like. (if I am wrong folk should feel free to say so... read the voices here already, though) I ask you again: Are you going to change this behaviour pattern or not? It's a yes/no question. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Docu, I've looked at a lot of the diffs provided here and provided on your talk page. I think what we have here is a molehill. I recommend taking a deep breath, sighing forlornly and moving along. --J.smith (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Per J.smith - this is not important and not what Commons is about. --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Per J.Smith. I had several incidents because of his particular, lets call it abrasive, sometimes nitpicking style and habits of Docu. But after a couple of months, I got used to it (or he got used to me). After all, his is a very capable and productive member, especially on the technical side. Ans its easier if you leave him the last word. --Foroa (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This should stop now!

  • Lar will not be get blocked or de-bureaucatized based on this. End of story.
  • As for Docu he has been warned not to try to change policy that way anymore and he has also been told not to continue this dispute. I suggest that we let the story end here and do not block him since he does a good work in other areas.

So I really hope everyone agrees on that so we can get on. --MGA73 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MGA73 wrote that Docu "has been warned not to try to change policy that way anymore". This amounts, it seems to me, to saying that Docu should not say anything that MGA73 does not want to hear, because it is obvious that Docu can not actually change policy. Since when is having a minority opinion a grounds for a warning? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Docu tryed to change the policy by adding same text over and over. If you wants to change policy you should start a debate. If you make a change and it is removed more than once you should also go to the talk page. Lar said "please stop" and Docu made a complaint here. We do not need conflicts and when a complaint over Lar has been "overruled" then there is no need for Docu to keep trying to keep the conflict alive. That is non-constructive. If you look at User talk:Docu you can see the warning not to keep this conflict alive. My comment was adressed to that and to what Lar said. --MGA73 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
So Docu edited some policy text, which is allowed, and Lar reverted the change. I do not see that as a big deal. It amounts to not much more than a dispute over article content. (Certainly it is not such a big deal compared to Lar's misusing check user privileges.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats the point! The matter was not a big deal but Docu made a complaint and would not stop even if several users said it was time to stop. If you think Lar misuses his check user privileges you should give examples a proper place. --MGA73 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a rule that users must stop "complaining" when they are told to? The whole point of WP:POINT, is that users should take their complaint to a proper place for complaints, such as Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. If you tell the users who come here to shut up because you don't want to hear any more about it, you are undermining POINT. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:POINT means that you shouldn't add annotations to images as Lar's did, apparently to re-start the discussion of my annotations of an image. This happened to be one of two discussions Lar started after we disagreed on some other point. Both not very productive and he seems to have lost interest in them as I chose not to pursue them (to avoid further escalating this). Given the fact he didn't do any follow-up on either, I assume that he didn't have a genuine interest in either of them.
As far as MGS73 summary is concerned. I don't really agree with it.
  1. Jarekt and I both edited a text that was started from scratch not too long ago. In this process we both added, removed and re-added elements. There wasn't much or any discussion around most of these elements as the tool and the way to use it was fairly new. Today, the resulting text is considered one of the "standards or behaviors which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow".
  2. A month later, Lupo added a new section about version 2 of the tool (with edit summary "Version 2"). When doing this, he overwrote part of the other text. I restored some of it. In a discussion (on my talk page), he confirmed that his edit for "Version 2" also intended to remove another element (he hadn't brought this up on talk earlier or mentioned in his edit summary).
  3. MGA73 summarized as "Please stop" the words of our bureaucrat Lar that were: "What exactly is going on here", "what point you are trying to make", "includ[e] an explanation of why you have been edit warring" "You are being obstructive." "That's obstructive." "Your approach is singularly unhelpful" "you will be blocked".
  4. At no point Lar edited or reverted any addition to the policy text or even deemed it interesting to participate in its discussion on its talk page. He just jumped with his "What exactly is going on here", "what point you are trying to make", "includ[e] an explanation of why you have been edit warring" "you will be blocked" comments on my talk page.
-- User:Docu at 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
@Malcolm Schosha, Administrators'_noticeboard is a place for matters that demands admins attention. Docu asked if we would do somthing about Lar and that was fine. But the answer was no. Lar suggested that we looked at Docu's actions also and the conclusion was that we did not need to take actions agains Docu either. So what excatly do you want us to do?
Yes, I understand your reading of how this thread is configured. My point has been that there is nothing wrong with Docu saying more, if he thinks he has more to say. If you have run out of patience listening, then why not step aside? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
@Docu. I know what Lar said and I still do not think there is any reason to take actions against Lar. --MGA73 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Docu, MGA73's response (above) indicates how things are likely to stay. Of course, that is not necessarily a reason to give up. But you need to understand that Lar has one thing that you, I, or MGA73 do not have: wiki-clout. He is a WP administrator, a check user, a Commons bureaucrat, and OTRS. (As far as I know he has not been on the WP arbcom, and may now have too many enemies to get elected.) It is my personal observation that the man takes a lot of pride in acting like a dick and getting getting away with it. As you can see from the administrative responses here, none of the administrators have the guts to take him on, no matter how shitty his behavior. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, if you have evidence of untrustworthy behavior, I'm sure that the community would be happy to see it. That means doing the hard work of putting together diffs and a timeline, not unsubstantiated "personal observations". If you are unwilling to do this work, your allegations are not helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Malcolm Schosha is a currently banned user on en:wp who prior to his banning was very vocal in his defense of Jayjg, a user who was stripped of his CU and OS powers (and removed from the functionaries-en mailing list) by the en:wp ArbCom for conduct unbecoming a functionary. I think knowing that, and reviewing his phrasing in this discussion is really about all you need to come to a conclusion about the validity of his input in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The arbcom topic banned a number of users involved in in both sides of some I/P dispute issues. I argued that it was a mistake to have topic banned any of those users, including those who were on the opposite side of the issues than me (but, NB:I was not a party in the case), because the banning would accomplish nothing. Additionally, I argued that the arbcom action of removing Jayjg's checkuser privileges, as a sort of additional punishment -- singling him out -- was irrational because he had not misused his checkuser privileges. My argument had nothing to do with Lar's actual misuse of his checkuser privileges, because I did not even know about it at that time. However my criticism of the arbcom decision did clearly annoy Lar, and that gave me a chance to see what a vengeful wiki-schmuck he could be. If you refer here [74], for instance, you will see that Lar denied an unblock request I made, even though he was actively involved in a dispute with me at the time. His taking administrative action against me at a time he was actively involved in a dispute with me is certainly contrary to proper administrative conduct.
I would say that although I may not have meshed well with some WP rules and regulations that no wiki-violation I was accused of is a violation anywhere but WP. Since it was clear to me that I can find many other things to do with my time and talents that will not involve the friction that is so frequent in my encounters in Wikiland, I did nothing to appeal my ban. I was happy to be over with it.
As for my experiment here, on Wikimedia Commons, I have already stated that I will now remove myself from Wikimedia commons, and once this discussion is settled, I will return no more. You are welcome to the company of Lar. Enyoy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's somewhat funny and at the same time sad, that exactly what you are doing here (your "argument" against Lar), was predicted already 5 months ago[75] by Gwen Gale over at :en. --Túrelio (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen Gale was pursuing an ongoing campaign against me, to the point that DGG, when overturning one of her blocks, wrote: My deciding point is, that as Looie said, you seem to have gotten into a personal test of wills about him. The threat to extend the block for not cooperating with you when there was no specific violation was not appropriate. Therefore, you should take no action of any kind whatsoever in respect to him.
Moreover, on that final (indefinite) block of her's that you link to, she had completely misread (intentionally, or not, I don't know), what was a defense of Stoic philosophy as a personal attack on a user -- who had, any case, quoted me as saying something I never said. You will also note how completely she ignored DGG's advice. Also note, that the ban was carried out with very few users actually participating in it, although it was on AN/I for days. Most of those few were those actively engaged in editorial disputes with me on I/P issues (a very hot topic).
I want to point out that I was not the user to initiate this complaint against Lar. Also, the things I have said about Lar are base on his own problematic behavior. Making accusations against me, while perhaps making an interesting diversion, do not change any of that. To be more specific, Túrelio used in an Ad Hominem argument [76], which is a logical fallacy. Please do not do that. This, of course, also applies to Lar's statement above that "Malcolm Schosha is a currently banned user on en:wp", as though my insisting on doing what I consider the right thing even though I knew it would get me banned, makes me unqualified to criticize the great Lar. It is a perfect example of a Ad Hominem logical fallacy being is used as a disguised violation of WP:NPA. I can actually live okay with the personal attacks of Túrelio and Lar...as long as it is openly understood and acknowledged as personal attacks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
One more thing in this reply to Túrelio. Gwen Gale was anticipating in what she said (that you linked to) that I would appeal the block, and she was trying to anticipate (and neutralize) an argument that the administrators were all involved. That would have been an easy point to make in an appeal, but I chose not to appeal. At that point, I had enough of WP, and had no regrets about leaving. I have been happier and more productive without WP. As for my work on Commons, that was only the image gallery I created, Knots in traditional art, and if there is any objection to my work on that no one said anything about it to me. My only dispute here has been this one thread, which I noticed and committed on. My comment was enough to bring on the clowns, and that quickly made it clear that this experiment also is a waste of my time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Lar should not "act like a dick" - even if users make a mistake. No one should. He/we/you should try to help others in a nice way first. I agree the comment Lar made on Docu's talk page was not a school example of how to do it but his response to the mistakes Docu made was not enough to take actions. Not in my opinion. So talking about the same example takes us nowhere. If Lar keeps showing up on this noticebord it would be a problem. If you think this Lar makes too many mistakes you could make a list and if he keeps doing it you could make a new notice here. But please no "oldies" please. Besides that I agree with Wsiegmund. I'm sure most of us think carefully if someone makes a complaint over something we did. Even if the complaint does not result in a block or warning. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think if you review Docu's interaction style (with many folk, not just with me) you can see why someone might get a bit exasperated at the repeated lack of substantive responses from him and his repeated requests for diffs, for restating questions, and the like. My interaction with him, in this latest incident started with pretty laid back questions, but perhaps I let myself get exasperated too quickly, since this isn't the first time I've run into this obdurancy of Docu's. My view is that he's a good contributor as long as he's left alone to gnome away at things, but his approach to interpersonal matters is problematic. It isn't, in my view, bad enough to take action at this time... as long as he doesn't edit war or what have you. But Docu needs to take away from this something important: His approach has not been validated and numerous editors have pointed out that it's problematic. If he doesn't want to change, sooner or later it may cause enough of an issue that something more drastic than discussion is done. But I suggest that we close this one off now, as I'm not seeing a lot of forward progress. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_10&oldid=264579059"