Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 12

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

Erwin Lindemann (talk · contribs)

During discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/01/Category:Barracks of the former Austro-Hungarian army until 1918, User:Erwin Lindemann emptied all discussed categories. Thereby he damaged categorization of many related files by location, by type of object (barracks) and by Austro-hungarian origin. He appears to have long-term trouble with understanding of categorization principles. Could somebody communicate with him and repair hundreds of his related edits? --ŠJů (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The "and repair" is something you will not find an administrator to do ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a deja-vu as you can see here. I think that the best way to handle this problem with a user that is learning incrementally and is not listening very well, is to let him do (provided he creates only additional categories) and once he seems to be satisfied with what he achieved, then propose a rename and restructure as needed. In the past, renaming or changing things while he was working made him move all the time in "his" categories. --Foroa (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Onyxtel (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Promotional username matching the title of a deleted advert on en.wiki (see w:Onyxtel). User has uploaded a copyvio, File:Onyxtel.JPG, with an obvious intent of promoting an entity. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have ✓ blocked the account for cross-wiki spamming and deleted the copyvio. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 06:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa (talk · contribs)'s use of User:CommonsDelinker/commands

It seems that Foroa frequently ignores the User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Warnings, when processing category moves with SieBot through User:CommonsDelinker/commands, e.g. this edit processes a request I previously removed from User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands and asked to be done through {{Move}}.

Given that Foroa is aware of User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Warnings, it's preferable if Foroa avoids doing any category renames in the future. -- User:Docu at 10:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Foroa, but I can affirm that. --High Contrast (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Foroa is very active in working in our category system, and from all I saw so far he acts there in a neutral way to harmonize and clean up the category system without following his personal preferences. If you prefer Transportation about Transport you may request rename, but not blame one editor for harmonizing the category system to the established naming convention. For evidence see "transportation in" versus "transport in" and see e.g. Template:Place/main, which builds on Transport in... and not Transportation in.... --Martin H. (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Foroa didn't do any work on this.
It's not important if you prefer one or the other, it's just that the Foroa shouldn't be using the tool that way.
Besides that, all categories already had the move templates. -- User:Docu at 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can't stop Foroa from using the delinker unless you would deadministrate him. Having said that I have for a long time been criticizing that a lot of people misuse the delinker. The delinker is clearly only for non-controversial moves. To me if a request is removed from the page it is apparently not non-controversial. Imho request should always at least be processed through {{Move}} and a cool-down period of at least two weeks should be waited to give other people a chance to voice their opinion. Foroa only transfered the request from the talk page, but what is even worse are admins like User:MPF who post their moves directly violating the two eye principle. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Foroa didn't just transfer the request from the talk page. -- User:Docu at 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Martin H here. Foroa does good work and doing this request is perfectly acceptable. Multichill (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Cwbm, I'm not sure if you read my initial post. The request wasn't on the talk page anymore when Foroa processed it. -- User:Docu at 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously, if people agree that we can do potentially controversial requests without using {{Move}}, I think we should just update the description of the process and do that. -- User:Docu at 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As Martin H. pointed out above, I did just a harmonisation move. Strangely enough, when I executed part of the transportation/transport move requests three days agoo, nobody objected. I fail to see why there is suddenly protest if I move the remainder of the request. Just to keep discussions going I guess. --Foroa (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Harmonization, unless it's 90 % of the categories are already plural so let's move the other 10 % as well, should be discussed before hand as should have been transport versus transportation because that's a matter of contents. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've recently completed a contributor copyright investigation for a user on English Wikipedia who can be verified to have violated copyright in images for years. This case was opened in November after the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint. The conclusion of this case resulted in a great many images being deleted as probable copyright infringements. I also opened a deletion case for those images that have been transferred (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Akhenaton06).

Within minutes of the completion, a newly registered user began busily uploading the images deleted on English Wikipedia to Commons. File:Spartanburg square.jpg was recently deleted as en:File:MorganSquare.jpg. File:ColonialCenter.jpg was recently deleted as en:File:KeenanFountain.jpg. File:HistoricHamptonneighborhood.jpg was recently deleted as en:File:HistoricHamptonneighborhood.jpg. There can be little doubt that this is the same user (I'm blocking on en wiki as a sockpuppet once I complete this listing). I believe that unless swift action is taken, a good many images that are quite probably copyright violations will be placed on Commons. This contributor's talk page on En Wiki speaks volumes: En:User talk:Akhenaton06. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this user to prevent them uploading any more images whilst I look into this issue in more detail. Adambro (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl, do you know or could you tell us, whether QCdude's contributions [2] are the same that have been deleted as copyvios on :en? --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
They are indeed. I've blocked the user indefinitely and deleted their uploads except those from the Sony DSC-W7 since there seems to be some suggestion that those might be legitimate. Adambro (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was about to answer but didn't get through in time. :) I was digging for the OTRS ticket # of the complaint that brought this long-term problem to light. (It's Ticket:2009111810050214.) Many of the images deleted at en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Akhenaton06 were deleted presumptively (although not all; we found plenty of cause for additional concern) in accordance with en:Wikipedia:Copyright violations after being listed at en:WP:CCI, which is our equivalent of a "mass deletion nomination" for copyright infringement. The only ones retained were those where permission was properly verified or those showing consistent exif data suggesting that they were made by the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Atahidepum

Would someone other than me also please take a look at the contributions of Atahidepum (talk · contribs)? I recently had to rebuke him (on his talk page) for attempting to remove a discussion where I'd nominated one of his images for deletion as a likely copyvio. Looking now at his other contributions, I find them all a bit suspicious in terms of whether the work is all by one person. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All images are clear copyright violation, with the exception of File:Percurso corrida de reis 2009.png that may be indeed "own work" --Justass (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violator with multiple user accounts keep uploading images which taken from other websites, some are copyright violation and some of them doesn't have any source.   ■ MMXX  talk  10:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Careful, maybe a school or university project related to wikiversity:es:Departamento de Ingeniería de Materiales, Escuela Superior Ingenieros de (Universidad de) Sevilla maybe. However, writing an educational or scientific text and using images from some sources is common for students but not possible here. The chemical structures are pd-chem, the rest maybe copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
University project or not, I'd suggest to block Esi.us 1-5. All of these accounts keep on uploading copyright violations, material of dubious origin and stuff being out of our project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cf1054 (talk · contributions)

Resolved

This user doesn't seem to be interested in, or perhaps capable of, contributing usefully to the Commons. His/her contributions history shows only part of the story; his/her talk page reveals that many other contributions from this user have had to be removed as well. He/she was also blocked late last year for a few days but even that does not seem to have had a significant impact. Powers (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the copyright violations and the pages that were outside the projects scope. I also blocked the account for one week for continuing the same pattern of behavior that got them blocked in the first place. Tiptoety talk 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dhilung

Could someone besides me take a look at my exchange with User:Dhilung on his talk page, and possibly have a look at his uploads? As I've said to him, I am doubtful of his claims of "own work". - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The claims look quite legit to me. The exif data matches up (Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi in August 2008 and a Canon EOS 40D in August–November 2009 is a natural step, and the exif data also references the uploader's name) and does not appear to be doctored. When asked, the uploader was responsive and provided higher-resolution photos without watermarks and greater level of detail. The photo from caltech.edu that you reference as identical to File:Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics ( Caltech).jpg is not, in fact, identical (or even vaguely similar apart from depicting the same subject). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he got back to me, and you are entirely right. My bad. I was overly suspicious because he had not replaced the watermarked images he promised to replace. I've apologized to him. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Basanthid09s

Resolved

This user appears to be nothing but a sockpuppet for SPAMming. Can they be blocked? 76.117.247.55 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bang and the dirt is gone. Thanks for the heads up. Adambro (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please block Minutejo

Resolved

Please block Minutejo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for the following reasons:

  • Repeatedly uploading copyright violations in spite of warnings
  • Repeatedly recreating previously deleted copyright violations
  • Persistently making fraudulent claims about copyrighted works
  • Flickrwashing
  • Repeated hostile blanking of legitimate talk page comments
  • Repeated blanking of speedy deletion tags from own uploads in spite of warnings

Please take care of Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images as well. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them and deleted the image in question. Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN

This user continually overlapping (de facto deleting) my images.

In the first case, he uploaded similar image over mine, and then dispute the "factual accuracy" of his image:

In the second case, he uploaded image totally different from existing one and also from the name of the file:

There is absolutely no need for doing this, because he could upload different image under different file name.

This user also stubbornly uncategorising my images before discussion ends:

and many more...--Mladifilozof (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please somebody help me here. I am constantly attacked by user:Mladifilozof who behave like an internet troll. Images that he showed here were originally created by me, so he constantly uploading outdated versions of my own images and stopping me from improving image quality. Also, he posting false info about image origins, see this as example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png&oldid=33935968 - he wrote there that image is derivative work of image "Serbia1913.png" and that author of that image is user:Electionworld, while from original page of this image it is clear that I am author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Serbia1913.png&oldid=3845769 (Quote: "This map has been uploaded by Electionworld from en.wikipedia.org to enable the Wikimedia Atlas of the World . Original uploader to en.wikipedia.org was PANONIAN, known as PANONIAN at en.wikipedia.org. Electionworld is not the creator of this map."). And it is not the only image where he posted such false info about author. He also insulting me (he calling me and my work "Greater Serbian", while I have no any wishes for expansion of Serbian borders and I even do not opposing independence of Kosovo from Serbia, so calling me "Greater Serbian" is a big insult). He also ignore any arguments that I presented on varios discussion pages and he have strong anti-Serb ethnic agenda and want to present that all Serbs are war criminals and ideologists of Greater Serbia (just check his edits, especially those on English Wikipedia, to confirm this), so that is why he adding images which show historical territory of Serbia into "Greater Serbia" category. He clearly want to push his political agenda here and therefore his behaviour damage this Wiki project. I am willing to hear some opinions how this problem could be solved. As for info in image "File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png", he basically uploaded modified version of my image (with false claim about its author and origin) and I uploaded new improved version of that file with all info that is contained in "his" version and with much more additional info, so I have no idea why he reverted that to "his" version when there is no doubt that my improved version is better. He also blanked a list of references from map page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASerbian_expansion_1913.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34276440&oldid=34242174 (as I understand, every work in Wiki projects has to be referenced, so how would you people describe this action of reference blanking and reverting to map version with less info and with no references?). Also, I made many maps for Wiki projects and I released them into public domain because I believe in Wiki idea about free knowledge available to everybody, but as every artist I may not be satisfied how some of my early works (or in this case maps) are made, so I believe that I have right to improve quality of my own images here (the fact that I released them into public domain does not deny my right of improving image quality). However, behaviour of user:Mladifilozof (who do not let me to improve quality of my own images) will force me to release my future works with some more protective licence and the true victim of that will be idea about free knowledge. PANONIAN (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from uploading new versions of a map on top of a file description page that was started by an opponent. For readers, unstable images are confusing, it makes discussions difficult. And the repeated reversions not promote the peace. You can each have your own map. Comments can be ventilated on talk pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that "he does not have his own map" in this case - I never touched or changed any image that he created or uploaded independently from images created by me. I only object that he upload outdated versions of my images and not allowing me to improve them. How can he have more right to edit and change that image than me who originally created it and who released it into public domain? (please explain me that, since it is against logic). I asked him here a question why that image "should show only 1913 expansion, not entire one from 1817 to 1913": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png - so, I hope that he will answer, so we can have a full idea about this problem. PANONIAN (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
These are free maps. You made them, but you released them for anybody to use and modify, for any purpose. If your opponent uploads a file, it would be better if you left the image on that file description page as it is. Feel free to make comments on the talk page. You can also link to new versions. But please leave the image as your opponent wants it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
But if I released images for "anybody to use and modify" that mean that I have right to modify them as well, including file version that another user uploaded, right? I cannot leave that image "as my opponent wants it" because as an artist (if you consider map drawing a kind of art, anyway), I really hate that an outdated bad version of my work exist in this way. There are also painters who would destroy some of their old pictures and paint them again, so it is part of my personality, and as long as I do not violate Wiki policy with that, I will improve quality of images crated by me or their derivative works. PANONIAN (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, may I propose that if user:Mladifilozof do not want me to change of modify image which show expansion of Serbian borders in 1913, he should create it from his own map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Srpska_osvajanja_1913.png or from any other source that he prefer. I do have a quite fair personal policy in map drawing: I do not change maps created by others (I only notify authors of such maps on discussion pages if something is wrong in any of the maps), but I am much concerned into what maps created by me will evolve (and I also change such maps by myself in accordance with every good faith suggestion of other users). Problems would emanate only if somebody do not have a good faith. PANONIAN (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can modify the maps you have made since you released them into the public domain, the same applies to Mladifilozof (talk · contribs) but you should never upload a modified map or image over the original, even if it is also a modified map/image. It is best to upload it under a whole new file name, even if you just add (modified) to the name. Bidgee (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that I did not uploaded completelly different map over another one. This is original file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1913.png and this is another modified file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png - so, what I done here is uploading improved versions of both files (not completelly different new files) with more cities shown in both maps, with borders of neighbouring countries shown in first map, and with wider info about historical development of territory of Serbia in the second one (it is same map with aditional info, so I do not have idea why user:Mladifilozof reverted that). PANONIAN (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
While I can see you're trying to make improvements but uploading a new work (whether it's to make it look better or more features) you should upload as a new file not over a existing file. Only time you should upload over an existing file is to remove a typo(or mistake) or image corrections (say colour, balance, sharpness ect) but in this case it should be as a new file. Also further up you called the other editor/uploader an internet troll, please refrain from making bad faith/personal attacks at other editors or you will face being blocked. Bidgee (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, man, I am trying to explain to you that "I am not uploading a new work here" neither it was my intention. My sole intention was to improve existing image with expanded info, the new version of the image might look different from the original, but it is not a new image! However, since you obviously do not understand what I try to explain here and I am tired of "talking to the wall", I will upload improved version as a new file, but I will also make and upload another improved version of file "Serbian expansion 1913.png" showing at least more cities if not more historical info, which I believe will not be disputed by anybody. Finally, I did not said that user:Mladifilozof is an Internet troll but that he behaving like one, and you can see that from his edits in English Wikipedia where he is involved in conflicts with several users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mladifilozof PANONIAN (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(PANONIAN) It is new work nor does it look anything like the original. Saying they are behaving like one is like calling one a troll and Wikipedia drama does not belong on here unless it's a cross Wiki issue (which is not). Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, show me Wiki rule which say how much improved version should be similar to the original and we can have serious discussion about that. Regarding troll issue, I will not use that word in relation to user:Mladifilozof anymore, but your behaviour towards me and the way in which you treat me and my actions or arguments is also not nice, you know... PANONIAN (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At least in case of File:Voivodship and Serbia.png, I'd say that PANONIAN made significant corrections to color. The original colors were eye-hurting.
One more thing that I believe should be mentioned in this discussion is that Mladifilozof has somewhat lax understanding of copyright. For example, I have a hard time believing that File:Raspored stecaka.jpg is drawn by him. Also, this. Nikola (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Clearly should be uploaded under a new name also as it's more then just colour edits. As for the other images you have linked to, if feel that this isn't there own work then list it as an AfD and plead your case. Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't list it at AfD since I can't find original images. But IMHO it shows that PANONIAN is rightfully irked by Mladifilozof's misattribution of the images. Nikola (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to find the originals if your argument for the concerns you have with them are strong. PANONIAN has wrongfully acted as they released the images into the public domain which does not require attribution unlike Creative Commons licenses but Mladifilozof has given attribution by linking to the original and its author (PANONIAN). Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We still have the same problem, because PANONIAN again has overlapped this map before prior discussion. I just want him to follow procedure, and to suggest his "improvements" on talk page before upload it over existing image. P.S.Nikola, thanx for good words on me. I assume your good faith.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But I suggested that with uploading compromise version and you did not wrote a single word on image discussion page is that version OK for you or not. And again: IT IS NOT "YOUR MAP" - It is map that I made in Photoshop using layers and the fact that you changed colour and added one line does not make this map "your". Map is a public property, but I contributed to its creation much more than you. In fact, most of files that you uploaded to commons are parts of maps that other people created or another versions of such maps with few changes. You are just a plagiator, not author of anything. PANONIAN (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You see what I am talking about: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kosovo_Vilayet_1905.jpg - this is latest upload of user:Mladifilozof and I do not see what is a reason of cuting a piece of bigger map and uploading it as a separate file? PANONIAN (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And also this that user:Nikola presented: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:League_of_Prizren.jpg - user:Mladifilozof uploaded that image with false licence claiming that copyright of that image expired but in the same time not knowing author and date of creation of the map?!!!. It is tragic that admins here are so much concerned about my upload of improved version of one file (and there is no any doubt that such version is significant improvement of that file), but they are not concerned at all about user who uploading images with false licences and false claims about authors. PANONIAN (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Panonian's statement was: "this is compromise version based on statement of user:Mladifilozof from discussion page that image should be "focused on balkan wars, not on entire history of serbia", so it does now focus on that only and I hope that nobody will have more objections." As I already suspected, this was not really true. I will revert to Bidgees latest reversion. Panonian's actions are not acceptable, and maybe he should be blocked for a day for preventing disruption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not true? How so? Do you see that only objection that user:Mladifilozof presented on image discussion page was that image should be "focused on balkan wars, not on entire history of serbia" and I fully respected that in my proposed compromise version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png Would you be kind enough to elaborate what else might be wrong in my proposed compromise version? You discredit yourself as serious participant in this discussion if you revert image without real reason for that. Of course, it is easy to block me but how hard can be for you to elaborate and justify your own latest revert of my proposed compromise image version? What is really wrong with that image? You do not like colours, letters, what exactly? PANONIAN (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said upload it under a new file name and not over another an existing image. Your version of the map is largely different to Mladifilozof's version, it would be like me taking a photo of a building, uploading it on Commons and a year later taking another photo of the same building with large modifications done, then uploading over the photo which was taken a year before. I've protected the image page for 1 week due to the edit warring, continue after that or on any other image and you will be blocked for disruption. Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Very nice, as an admin you was not fair towards me at all. Is that because I have bad temper and because I am rude? Yes, I am, but that is just my personality and that is not reason for you not to treat me equaly as you treat other users. If user:Mladifilozof opened this case here that does not automatically mean that he is right (in fact cases where a criminal report his own crime to the police to renounce suspition are well known). I am reasonable person and I can always try to solve problems with discussion, but you do not helping me here: I do not see where you get idea that I want to be involved in revert war or disruption regarding "Serbian expansion 1913.png" image: I reverted that image only 2 times and only before you suggested that I upload my improved version as separate file, which I done. Then I tried to upload compromise version of file "Serbian expansion 1913.png" in very good faith hopping that such version would be acceptable for everybody and I really do not understand why such good faith action from my side was seen as a "disruption". I very well know the rules of the web site, so please correct me if I am wrong about these rules: if an image is a public property then every user here has equal right to upload new version of the file if he thinks that old version is wrong in some way. If there is a dispute between two file versions then proper place for resolving that dispute is image discusion page and in the case of revert war proper action of an admin is to protect the page without supporting the protected page version (which should be any version that was current in the time of page protection, not the selected version of an user). But what you done here was reverting page to selected version of an user which is a clear discrimination against other user (in this case me) knowing that user whose version you selected to support did not proved his case on discussion page. As user whom you have to treat equally as all other users, I have objections to the image version that you selected to support and I will elaborate them on the image discusioon page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png Also, regarding your claim that the map that I uploaded "is largely different to Mladifilozof's version", I do not see that there is a Wiki rule that say how much improved image version should be similar to older version. I also do not understand your latest actions here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AVoivodship_and_Serbia.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34327671&oldid=34202186 - I clearly stated on discussion page of that image which are problems with it, but you just reverted to older version. I do not see why you behave like this and treat me like shit completelly ignoring my arguments for anything. PANONIAN (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been completely fair, I could have blocked you for disruption but I didn't. Also this isn't a police investigation, it is just a dispute between two editors. I have said over and over that all you have to do is upload under a new file name and have said why you shouldn't just overwrite someone's work (even if they base it on your work and have released it into the PD). Bidgee (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Pananian, I'm backing up Bidgee on this one. It's not an unreasonable compromise. --J.smith (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bidgee's actions on this matter. They are in line with our usual and customary responses to disputes of this sort. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
What compromise you speak about? - you 100% supported one side, so there is no even 0.1% of compromise here. What about arguments that I presented on image discussion pages regarding accuracy of images uploaded by user:Mladifilozof? You will just leave everything as it is no matter of arguments against accuracy of these images? Finally, why you do not use same criteria for user:Mladifilozof who also uploaded an image over another image created by another user: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Serbia_in_Yugoslavia.png or why you do not examine false licences that he posted into these images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bidgee#And_other_files_with_problematic_licences_uploaded_by_user:Mladifilozof - I just examined his contributions and saw that he uploaded a dozen of images in which he posted licence PD-old ("life of the author plus 70 years"), in the same time not knowing author and date of creation of these images. PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And see this too: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homogena_Srbija.gif - he uploaded that image claiming that it is his "own work", but it is obvious that he took image from here and just modified it a little: http://www.leksikon-yu-mitologije.net/files/Velika_srbija.gif - it is very questionable is that image free for use. PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests for how to handle images that may not be properly licensed. But, please don't bring content disputes from other projects to that forum. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So, I should propose these images for deletion? LOL - If you do not care, why would I? In fact, I lost enough of my free time on this page and you know what: I will not touch any more any image uploaded by user:Mladifilozof. Are you satisfied? Let him have these two images here, let him have uploaded a dozen images with false licences and let him upload a dozen more. I once left Wikipedia and I did not edited it for 2 years and you people gave me a good reason to think to do that again. Thank you very much... PANONIAN (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you think a file may not be properly licensed, a deletion request is the best response. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Harrasment

User

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia and report about the actions of this user in Commons. The past week, Fujurcitook was blocked indefinitely in Spanish Wikipedia because spam and harrasment about some users (I'm included), and previously had many blocks for the same reason. Few daws later, he created two sockpuppets in Spanish Wiki: Nefilim and Sardukar85, but were expelled.

Now this user comes to Commons and continues the harrasment to me and Sonsaz (talk · contribs), and is possible that uses more sockpuppets in Commons. --Taichi (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See Usuario Discusión:Fujurcitook and es:Usuario Discusión:Sardukar85 for more details about the level of harrasment, he abused the unblock petitions and many Spanish sysop intervened in this case. --Taichi (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I cant speak spanish, so I can not go into this, but concentrating only on Commons I see him asking for help and posting some kind of open letter defending some original research on the help desk with Special:Contributions/88.2.234.12 and removing the letter minutes later while logged in with Special:Contributions/Fujurcitook. Sometimes users blocked elsewhere come here to communicate, as long as the postings are communication like this (if google translate is not completely wrong) I dont see the abuse, so we should not inflame a conflict on Commons too. Be generous and ignore the help desk post, self revert. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This user is persistent offender. The message that left to Taichi is similar to other that has left other users for e-mail and discussion pages, earlier and after blockades: [3], [4] and [5] are three examples. After every blockade and of each pardon, returned to reoffend in the same infringements to policies of Wikipedia in Spanish (spammig, autopromotion, attack to other users, blockade evasion... for example [6], [7] or [8]). That is, it has been proved that the regret of this user has been false. Sonsaz (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo solo pido arreglar este asunto, sin llegar a mayores conflictos y reproches. Mi dirección de correo y páginas de discusión son conocidas por todas las partes implicadas. Mi utilización de este foro, gracias Martin, es sólo para pedir ayuda. No creo que sea conveniente que tenga que ser un usuario ajeno al conflicto quien tenga que poner, igualmente, mis mensajes con buenas intenciones. No podemos centrarnos sólo en nuestros errores, sino tener en cuenta, ante todo, nuestra intención de colaborar con la Wikipedia y evitar conflictos posteriores. Acoso??? ninguna de sus acepciones es sinónimo de "pedir ayuda". Evito seguir la discusión en estos términos "destructivos" y me centro en la "construcción" de una solución. Gracias y perdón por las molestias. --Fujurcitook (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Añado esto a lo escrito en la "discusión de Sonsaz".--Fujurcitook (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

190.25.107.243 (talk · contribs)

Noticed some very pointy edits by this user (who is clearly annoyed by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa). Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Dubai is a bit extreme. Given the anon a warning, but worth keeping an eye on. Also, I'm not sure what to do about the edits. That "Images of Dubai" DR is silly, but Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Dubai is actually relatively sensible.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename File:XSi 20091030 7321.jpg Moved to File:Norwich-Vermont-Bragg Hill-Autumn.jpg

I regretfully and unintentionally left the source file name of this image intact, as I uploaded it. I intended it to be titled "File:Norwich-Vermont-Bragg Hill-Autumn.jpg." --HopsonRoad (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done by the way, this page is for reporting a problem with some user.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this tag valid for usage?

User:Megistias proposed my map for deletion and also posted tag that "file should not be used" until accuracy issue is resolved: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AIllyria_and_Dardania_Kingdoms.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34967701&oldid=34894890 - is that a valid tag for usage in such circumstances or not? and if it is valid, under which terms this tag should be posted or removed? PANONIAN (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is: should there be some hard evidence for usage of such tag since user:Megistias that posted that tag on the file page did not presented any such evidences on the file discussion page. As you can see, his claims against this file are only rhetorical and based on personal statements: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Illyria_and_Dardania_Kingdoms.png And not to mention his strong POV political agenda: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AAhtum_sermon01.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34967529&oldid=34896488 So, can I remove that tag in existing circumstances or not? PANONIAN (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also note that I speak about "doubt" tag that user:Megistias posted on file page, not about "deletion" tag, for which I am aware that it remains on file page until deletion voting is complete. PANONIAN (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You are the one being rhetorical. You even claim that random googled sites are proper sourcesMegistias (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You even outright lie about sources in the deletion and talk page. Why the subterfuge?Megistias (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, Megistias, refrain yourself from unproved personal accusations against me. Here, we discuss proper usage of "doubt" tag, so you should address other questions to proper discussion pages. PANONIAN (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The wording in {{Doubt}} should be changed. I propose to remove prescriptive language like "file should not be used". Noting that there is a dispute is good enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree with removing of that part of the tag - in that way it would be acceptable for usage. PANONIAN (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Osakaosaka (talk · contribs)

This user, who's neither an administrator nor a reviewer, has been flickrreviewing his own uploads (so far I didn't see any big problems, except for File:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.jpg which was tagged with a more restrictive license). Still, someone (with Japanese skills) should inform him of the proper procedures. Thanks in advance. –Tryphon☂ 11:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I remembered an Japanese User related to Michael Jackson and Flickrwashing - User:Tozanka - speaking only from the scope they edit and the camera they use, DMC-FX35, they are the same users. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just noted that someone else already made the same finding on User_talk:Osakaosaka#Osakaosaka is Tozanka, if this become worser I will run checkuser. So far I suggest indefblock one account, block the other some time (or indef?), mark the flickr images for flickr review, delete those images not coming from that camera. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive and unreal denial

One of many examples file talk. 2nd book does nowhere write what user is claiming (that Ulpiana was illyrian and founded prior to Roman conquest but just mentions the WORD once and thats it Ulpiana in given book), but user continues whistling away and pretending that all is fine when nothing of what he claims is written there. Using travel and commercial sites as if they are reliable sources and continuing denial talk and odd stance.
Well, I am trying to discuss with this person, but he claim that every source that I present to him is "unreliable" or "trash". I asked him several times to present or quote data from his sources, but he refused to do that and he just repeating over and over his statemens against accuracy of my map or sources presented by me without giving or presenting any source that would support his statements. I cannot simply take that his statements are correct since he do not provide any proof for them. As for this source, here is what source say: "Appian and Strabo mention by name no settlements of the Dardani"..."Ptolemy (iii 9, 4), however, besides Naissus and Scupi mentions Arribantium (identity unknown) and Ulpiana (Lipljan)". The page does not mention to which century this statement refer to, but these web pages say that these cities existed in pre-Roman times: [9] and [10] and this source contains a map of pre-Roman Dardanian state with cities Ulpiana and Scupi. PANONIAN (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Again Travel sites and Commercial sites.You have no concept of the reality of what is a source.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Answer is here but user has serious issues regarding undestanding of basic facts.Megistias (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And again, repeats the same pattern, using non-sources as sources trying to outweigh history books with TRAVEL SITES and the such.continuedMegistias (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is nice that you started to quote some sources by yourself, you have my answer here, and by the way, according to which Wiki rule or guide we should consider that tourist web sites are unreliable sources in general? PANONIAN (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment We don't adjudicate content disputes here. They are best dealt with on individual projects where persons who are knowledgeable and interested in the topic and who read the relevant languages participate. If a file is demonstrably incorrect, and not useful for any educational purpose, it may be deleted, but it is unlikely that a file that is in use on other projects will be deleted. Usage on other projects is de facto evidence that it is useful for some purpose. In any case, little purpose is served by bringing a content dispute here. Please use COM:DR. I would admonish editors to refrain from calling sources "trash". That may be hurtful. "Unreviewed" or "not scholarly" is better and more precise. That said, montenegro.travel would not be considered a reliable source by most editors for information about history. [11] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pannonian stop using and claiming tourist and commercial sites as well as random googling as sources.You have made all attempts at interacting with you a frustrating feat.Megistias (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And you stop harasing me. What ever source I present to you, you claim that it is unreliable (one tourist site is only a bottom of the whole problem). Things are simple: for you, the source which claim what you like is reliable and the source which claim what you do not like is unreliable, that is the only criteria that you use and who ever see your posts on various discussion pages will see that I speak the truth. I tried to propose several compromise solutions but seems that you just want to disrupt my work. My work is made in good faith where I wanted to create maps which would reflect histories of various peoples of the Balkans, but obviously I have problem with a man whose only goal here is to prove that Macedonia and Albania belong to Greece. PANONIAN (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios/spam or...?

These look like copyvios to me however given the naming and de contribs they may have a promotional intent. --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Deleted all as copyright violations; also out of scope for being promotional, but we only need one reason, right? –Tryphon☂ 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"One" was always good enough for me :). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alohahell

This editor has recently been indeffed at a sister wiki for extensive image copyright violation.[12] The other project is deleting all of this user's image copyright uploads. I have already deleted one image that was tagged for speedy deletion there but had been transferred to Commons (and had already been proposed for regular deletion here). The user also has an account here and has done a handful of uploads. Plus they're checking whether anything else of his got transferred here. This looks pretty clear cut: any objections to nuking? Durova (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to an indefinite block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. Proceeding to delete contributions. Due to the relative shortage of responses here at the admin board I've invited the editor to discuss the block if s/he wishes to do so. Durova (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
For what its worth, Softjuice (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Alohahell. Tiptoety talk 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikiisunbiased - Special:Contributions/Wikiisunbiased

The user just keeps uploading obviously copyright material and marking it public domain. It gets deleted and then they do it again a while later. Latest ones are File:Anyuangelov1.jpg and File:Bulgariansoldiers.jpg . Not sure what correct procedure is - SimonLyall (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will handle this case, thank you. →Spiritia 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ECEstats

ECEstats (talk · contributions) appears to be a representative (or representatives?) of the UNECE, and back around July/August 2008 was active on en.wp as well as uploading some images to Commons. On Wikipedia, they were blocked indefinitely due to a promotional username, but their contributions appear to have generally been left alone. Here on Commons, they tagged their images gfdl-self/cc-by-sa, which I find somewhat problematic given that (a) there's some ambiguity in who the "self" is given that the author is listed solely as UNECE, (b) I'm not sure where those images might appear on the UNECE website, and whether the licensing is listed there as well (and the blanket copyright notice on their website is clearly not free). Given that the contributor hasn't been around for a couple of years, I doubt they're contactable, although they do have e-mail enabled on their Wikipedia account (but not this one), so I don't know what the best way of dealing with them is. ConMan 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ECE weekly 235.gif is from the UNECE.[13] However, since it is simply a bar graph with little original or creative content, it may not be protected by copyright. COM:DR is the place to bring suspected copyright violations. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Patko erika (talk · contribs)

Can someone please asap review this flickr washer (January 13 upwards) and do some nuke? I found this by incident (see deletion request linked on talk), I first thought the uploader is trying to fix a problem but I found someone else massively flickr washing. Additional the uploader of that file File:Gorgeted puffleg.jpg and this flickr washer are not related from Checkuser evidence, although they both come from hu.wp if Patko erika here is hu:User:Patko erika there, I dont know. I still can not believe this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

striked something, I now know. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we (= sysops at hu.WP) have become aware of Erika's case via User:Teemeah. Teemeah have written Erika an email asking her to clarify these strange coincidences. Erika is a 15 year old girl doing doubtlessly valuable contributions on huwiki, her edits were insofar perfectly OK. We beg your patience & understanding until T. can sort this mess out with her in her native tongue. We'll get back asap. Bennó (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From expirience I know that actions on Commons are often ignored, so I asked Teemeah to explain the issue in native language on hu.wp to the user. Though that will not help to save the images as everything from that flickr account is clearly copied from elsewhere, it toke me 15 minutes to find 30 of the images beeing copyright violations, not cherry-picked images but images in their order of upload. For me the issue is not to not delete the images but to prevent this issue occurring again in future from 2 sides: 1) the flickr account, at best that account will be deleted 2) hu.wp, a user blocked on Commons may continue on another project. --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, and 3): A user blocked on Commons can not make good edits in future. We are better with all three: No bad flickr account, no bad things on other projects and good, not blocked users here ;) --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I exchanged a few emails with Erika. Just as I thought before, she was watching the flickr account (subscribed to it). She was not aware that the photos are stolen from elsewhere, she just knew the CC licences are valid for Commons, and that's it. I guess CollinEdwards should be reported @ flickr for abusing the account by posting copyrighted photos under cc. By the way, this whole treatment of hers here made Erika promise she will never again upload anything to commons, not even own photos.... I think people should be treated with more care, and inquired in a bit more friendly manner, before shouting their heads off and accusing them with things they haven't done. I acknowledge your efforts to keep Commons clean but if we lose contributors because of mistreatment that won't help the project. The thing that happened to Erika (uploading CC photos from flickr in good faith and then bumping into the wall of accusation) can happen to any of us who transfer photos from Flickr. We are all exposed to the fakers of Flickr, please don't forget that. Thank you, regards --Teemeah (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Teemeah +1. With all due respect, I think you should ask first, and only then put users before the firing squad... Assume good faith? Examining the circumstances? Maybe there is a good explanation. Asking a few questions without hurried accusations surely won't hurt anybody. :) Bennó (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just answered the same posting on my talk. I hold up my claim, Patko erika = CollinEdward, evidences are clear. The account on flickr was created for nothing else but flickrwashing. Of course hurried is a good point, but by all evidences I was shoked how someone can act so deliberately bad just for a bunch of photographs. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ECEstats

ECEstats (talk · contributions) appears to be a representative (or representatives?) of the UNECE, and back around July/August 2008 was active on en.wp as well as uploading some images to Commons. On Wikipedia, they were blocked indefinitely due to a promotional username, but their contributions appear to have generally been left alone. Here on Commons, they tagged their images gfdl-self/cc-by-sa, which I find somewhat problematic given that (a) there's some ambiguity in who the "self" is given that the author is listed solely as UNECE, (b) I'm not sure where those images might appear on the UNECE website, and whether the licensing is listed there as well (and the blanket copyright notice on their website is clearly not free). Given that the contributor hasn't been around for a couple of years, I doubt they're contactable, although they do have e-mail enabled on their Wikipedia account (but not this one), so I don't know what the best way of dealing with them is. ConMan 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ECE weekly 235.gif is from the UNECE.[14] However, since it is simply a bar graph with little original or creative content, it may not be protected by copyright. COM:DR is the place to bring suspected copyright violations. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Esby's use of rollback buttons

Last evening I had removed category:Images by Lilyu from a bunch of 19th century photographs. Esby (talk · contribs) rolled back my work, see edits like this, this, and this for examples. Please take away his access to the admin tools. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It would be good to remind that you tried to pass in force here Category_talk:Images_by_Lilyu. Those image are categorized under the current policy. If a few extra-categorizations you did during those actions were lost during your category waring, you have to blame yourself for it first. Your closed-minded attitude does not help much here. The current policy do not define some sort of censorship on the user category, it just tells that the user category must be categorized properly and possibly hidden. Esby (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no way in which category:Images by Lilyu applies to those images. Restoring that category is poor judgement on your part. Using admin buttons to do it is abuse of your powers. Your even undoing the work that I put in to find categories for images that had never been properly categorized is your responsibility. That was vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the category description is perfectly clear: This category is for images i created, edited significantly or uploaded.--Lilyu (d). Who did upload (or requested a bot to upload) those images? Someone else than Lilyu? Is this against the current policy? No. Is it necessary? Yes. So stop arguing and trying to look like you acted correctly here. Esby (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the edits linked by Pieter, I would agree that they aren't constructive and have served to replace useful categories that he added by somewhat less useful categories. I don't consider removal of admin rights is appropriate though, merely a suggestion that Esby takes more care when using rollback and avoid using it except in the circumstances described in Commons:Rollback such as to remove vandalism. I trust that Esby will ensure he is familiar with that guideline and act accordingly in future. I do think perhaps it would have been helpful if, whilst the Images by Lilyu category is being discussed, Pieter didn't remove it but only added relevant categories. Adambro (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well technically speaking, I should have added again the category to each image with hotcats. That should have been longer, since I was about to sleep, I ended useing rollback, I noticed after it that he had added categories at the same time. So I reverted a few of my rollbacks before going to sleep. [15] [16] [17]... sorry but I could not take the luxury of checking all of his edits to check what he had added or removed at this point. Esby (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See User talk:Esby#Roll back your rollbacks. You refused, and you put the burden on me to undo the damage that you had done with your admin tools. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest to Esby that there was no real reason rush to reinstate "Images by Lilyu" if that meant to do so would mean you didn't check the edits as closely as necessary. "Images by Lilyu" may be considered useful by some but I would hope everyone would accept that the priority should be categorising content by subject, rather than who uploaded them. It would have been preferable to simply readd the "Images by Lilyu" category using Hot Cat when time allowed. Adambro (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Adambro that removing the categories added by Pieter was not ok, but on the other side Pieters edit removing the users maintenance category was also not ok. Regarding the whole discussion: I suggest to change Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories (a subpage of the policy page COM:PS) to be more clear here: Users are allowed to collect files in (usernamespace) galleries or categories as described in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. But categories MUST be hidden as they are obviously Private image or other file collections of no wider educational value (Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content) and therefore not in scope and not allowed to be mixed up with Commons educational content. The whole discussion on this particular user category is completely odd, it is only turning about the words "must" and "should" in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy, and the discussion completely lost its conection to the Commons aims - its more about vanity and not about improving the project. --Martin H. (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
So we do censorship our user category instead of solving the technical issue behind the initial decision? Esby (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there an analogue to Godwin's law for the reductio ad censorship/censoring? --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what was wrong with removing Category:Images by Lilyu from this NASA photo? Has Lilyu been on the moon? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone block me or Pieter Kuiper before it get's too late? I mean I am tired of reading idiocy like that one. This guy can't read the category description. Thanks in advance. My request is serious. (If you block me, i ask for a hour block.) Esby (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am glad somebody, but me has noticed the "idiocy" ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Support for Martin's proposal. However, we might need a sort of formal vote for that, I fear. --Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
decline technical issues should not lead to editorial decision. Esby (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Its nothing technical, its a question of scope and Commons aims. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It is technical, images in user category won't get detected as not categorized because they are in a visible category for instance. The _hidden_ keyword is used here to treat the visible category of an image. You have the same problem for licence based template, maintenance template (which are meant to be hidden) and featured template. Esby (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but what exactly has this to do with separating educational content from content without educational value? --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Because you think that images by a given author are not educational if the author is not 'known enough'? I mean, if some of the image are educationnal, linking them together is also educationnal, what ever being their notability. You are only thinking to the direct usage of the categorisation: to descend from top to bottom. But you can also navigate in transversal direction, and the images made by an user will have an educationnal value in this context, not to everyone of course but who can estimate this value for sure? I'd rather keep this information visible rather than i'd offuscate it. This is simply commons sense, we must allow them because they allow and stimulate content creations, we must show those categories because users default settings are to display them, resulting in that most of them ignore they exist. After all, we don't know what the user who come on commons is searching. We are not on the wikipedias, we are on commons. If we want people to participate in our activity, we must show the way clearly from start: So either we put an hide keyword on all the user category and set the default option for all users as 'show hidden category', so users can hide them if they want, either we find another solution that involves saying to the user and reminding him/her continuously (because they tends to forget which settings should be enabled or disabled) that some category are hidden and their displaying can be shown/hidden easily(which is not the case for now), and with possibly making more type of hiding. ( hide_user ; hide_maint; hide_by_camera etc.) Esby (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you still not got the point. We have much, much better ways to collect the educational or potentially educational value from such categories with appropriately named categories without leading to a category that collects random images, is potentially biased and placed outside the collaborative nature of Commons. See this example: The category is visible but the user don't like something removed from the category that not belongs to it by the category name. Is that what a wiki is for? Ownership on content??
Collecting similar maps or illustrations with similar design is educational, see e.g. Category:Locator maps of districts in Bavaria which is sorted by color scheme and that I think is best practice. We also have galleries, collect similar files there. You can add "other versions" to the file descriptions as done in File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg with the various languages. You can also create a user gallery and collect all similar content you created in it to show your related works to others. So there are various, much better ways to catch the potential educational value of a user category or what you mean with transversal navigation. So no need to present something as educational that is (potentially) not educational, that is potentially biased, outside the community controll or vague in its description. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You have been so far in this discussion the only ones who pretended that Lilyu claimed ownership on contents. The whole issue here was triggered by a simple fact: Trying to force an user to comply to a non-existent policy. The policy is not mentionning any lines that a category must be or even should be hidden. There is just a sentence that says that a template can be used for that, while obviously (funny isn'it?) hiding the fact it adds the _hide_ keyword. I am sorry, but I can't deny the right for an user to deny something that do not exist, especially when people do the following actions: * adding the template without discussing. * invoking a policy that do not exist when the user revert this action. * try to convince the user by all mean that all the burden on the situation is on him/her while the situation is obviously linked to the way the actions are performed, lacking consideration and respect for the user. You simply won't convince anyone by forcing them into your rules, what ever you think how good your rules may be, you must have people freely accept those rules. Finally, this section was opened for my supposed abuse of rollback, so stick to it or create an appropriate section somewhere else. Esby (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You mix my position with someone else position or you not read my comments. Owner claim or not, thats irrelevant. I never accented that im disturbed by some ownership claims here. My only concern is to separate educational from non-educational content. Furthermore my concern is to allow for user maintenance categories, but make them hidden to comply with the Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content policy. You are correct with your last sentence. Im simply so convinced by all arguments now listed here that I dont want to spent my time and crack my brain in proposing policy adjustment for something that is self-evident. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please roll back Esby's rollback that reinstated "images by Lilyu" on Civil War photos? Even Lilyu agrees with that now, it seems. See User talk:Lilyu/grr for the list. But Esby is still refusing. He should not have those admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block pieter for his last action and request? You can check this diff and see that he is lying and not mentionning the fact that Lilyu expressed conditions (*delete files, then reupload*) that Pieter did not respect at all. Esby (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1) It was improper for Esby to use the rollback button to cancel Pieter Kuiper's initial edits, but only extremely marginally so. It changes nothing whether Esby cancels the edits by hand or uses the more convenient rollback button. It is absolutely no ground to extreme measures like de-adminship.

2) I do not understand why Lilyu does not want her user category hidden. I understand less why others make such a fuss about it. Lilyu is not required to do anything, the matter is trivial and unimportant, the benefits of the removal of this category are null, and the unnecessary annoyance of a valuable contributor is a certainty. As far as I am concerned, the balance goes way against removing the category.

3) Lilyu does not seem to have agreed to simply removing her user category from images listed at User talk:Lilyu/grr. Before stating that she did, one should provide a quote to that effect. Esby's quote at diff shows Lilyu not agreeing to this at all. Rama (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

re 2) @Rama, as had already been pointed out in the long Category talk:Images by Lilyu by me and others, the potential problem results from the combination of her non-hidden user-category plus the name of that category. This problem would be only minor or even disappear if the category name was "Images uploaded by Lilyu". However, as of yet there are quite some images, not taken by Lilyu, but openly categorized as "Images by Lilyu", thereby suggesting some claim of (a non-existant) ownership that may anger the original photographer. Take for example File:Airvault église clé voûte (4).JPG, File:Sarahpalincrop2.jpg or File:Bee sting infection2.JPG. So, apart from the original start of this thread, removing this cat isn't the issue at all, but either hiding and/or renaming it. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to comment your examples:
I feel that most people who are over-reacting are forgetting that user category are not necessarily ought to exist as category of photographers. They can also be category of editors. The name of the category should not be judged here since the description is kinda without any ambiguity. Esby (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems that labeling uploads from flickr like this one as "by xxx" where xxx is just an uploader is a violation of the terms of the CC-BY license. To me, it feels as a violation of the original author's moral rights. The "by Lilyu" category is fine for here own art, but not for crops or contrast changes. It would be like granting creativity to RotateBot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an image uploaded by Lilyu. This is not about originality or anything related. I wish you would you understand that the categorization has nothing to do with the licence status (I am excluding the maintenance categories for that task of course). The author of this image is attributed correctly, the original licence is specified and was verified by a bot, you'll notice the original author on flickr changed the licence, he is probably angry now that this licence is here under the same original licence. . Finally this image is labelled 'File:Sandwich press for panini-1.jpg' I don't see any 'by xxx' in that title. You are, again, mixing things together. Esby (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary "bah"?? It is difficult to discuss with this admin.
Whatever the file description says, the categorization "images by Lilyu" creates the impression that Lilyu made this photo. That is what I had assumed until I saw this in her list of uploads. And it seems to me that also Billinghurst may have been misled when he did this revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


I am pretty much with Rama here. While I appreciate the passion and good works of the participants, these participants seem to be going straight to punishment because they haven't like the others actions. It all seems a little churlish. There also seems to a concatenation of the actions of righting their wrongs, makes my behaviour right.. Come on people, surely there is a maturity that can be exhibited here.
  • Users having a category of their files should be considered acceptable, and another user removing them without consulting with the first person, should not considered an acceptable practice.
  • Where users having a personal category, then the principle of our operations would indicate that it should be hidden; that it hasn't been captured in a procedural rule is a weak argument, and not one that feel is appropriate. The principle sets the process, and is supported by the convention. That would indicate the discussion should take place about the category, not simply removing the categories from the files.
  • Rolling back the removals, was inadvisable, and maybe a lapse of judgement, and one that every admin can reflect upon as a learning exercise to why we we undo, and also why we should take a conversation to a talk page.
  • The parties were combative, and I would hope that it is demonstrable to both parties, about how easily it gets out of control, and how it solved nothing, and has caused more than a little grief.
The solution would seem to be
  • Undo/rollback the category removals
  • To discuss with the user that normally personal categories are hidden, and there has been no evidence produced why there would an exception in this situation
  • That the user and the admin didn't handle it especially well, especially for their experience on wiki, and that we have the expectation that they would both entertain use of talk pages in the future to resolve situation and start with the premise of good faith.
  • That we get back to normal programming and continuing to improve the site. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Categories: when ?

... And formally document that user categories (and non-topic categories) should be hidden, while documenting that they are visible for all the people with the right setting (that should be the default) --Foroa (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, I think that we make it even simpler, a policy state would state that all MAINTENANCE categories be hidden. STOP at that. Then separately we define maintenance categories to include user defined categories. This way the PRINCIPLE with the policy is more settled, and the community can manage a smaller part that may need more active management. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, I would say there are basically Topic and non topic categories, but if we don't manage to make a proper definition, the discussion will start allover again and again. --Foroa (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
On the subject, I started working on this javascript gadget User:Esby/usercat.js. This basically displays hidden user categories in the visible category sections. It is working under firefox 3.5, untested on other browsers. There is no widget interface yet to disable/enable the effect for now. Esby (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does retouching of a non-own image create a derivative?

In the discussion about Category:Images by Lilyu Esby wrote[18] that File:Bee sting infection2.JPG is a derivative (derivated work) of File:Bee sting infection.JPG. While I totally admit, that the retouching by Lilyu largely improved the original image, I’m rather unsure whether the improved image version constitutes a derivative (which has a legal status on its own). Reading What is a derivative work? on COM:DW only increased my doubts that by cropping and retouching of an existing image one creates a derivative. I think that rather falls under „minor variation of a work”. (Just to be sure, I do not consider this question as important for the above discussion, but IMHO it’s important that at least we admins are sure about what is a derivative and what not.) Any expertise or opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An example would be restored photos like File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg. That is a lot more "sweat of the brow" than cropping or changing contrast levels. But it does not generate new copyright in my opinion. And the restorer seems to agree with that: it is still tagged as PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the question is irrelevant. As soon someone modify a work, this persons enters in the list of the authors. This is true for even slight modification of a wikipedia article. This is how attribution works. The licence for the new version must be compatible with the old one. This where the derivative question is important: When you are taking a photograph of something that is not under a free licence: exemple: someone made a statue, you photographied the statue. Depending the conditions, you might or might not be allowed to release your photo. Because you must ask the original author for the authorization. Now When you retouch a picture under a free licence, the question becomes irrelevant because you are allowed to modify the work by default, so there is no need to ask the original author. The real question should be: should the new version replaces the old one or create a new file? You are debating on an image with changes performed by the french graphical workshop here. The policy to avoid usage problems (eg: detouring pictures) is usually to create a new picture in this case, even if it is slight alteration, simply because you are not sure that the alteration you perform will be accepted if you replace the images on commons while it is used by several wikipedias projects, this is especially true when the change is not performed on behalf on the original uploader (and possibly the person behind a usage of the image on a wikipedia project. Esby (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that my "question is irrelevant". --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Quoting the link you gave: "In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works." A new file is a new media, Even if it replaces the other one on Commons. The derivative works status comes from the fact it derivates from another work, not from the fact it is original. Esby (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, we have two questions:

1) Túrelio's technical question as to whether some degree of difference is needed for a derivative to qualify as "derivative work". This appears to be a US-specific question, and it seems to be inherently such a blurry line that I think that as far as we are concerned, the question is intrinsically irrelevant (because as a website, we will never come up with an authoritative opinion on the matter. I doubt that a court could come up with an authoritative opinion that wouldn't be appealed anyway.).

2) the question of whether "category:images by Lilyu" somehow claims "ownership" of all the files therein. As the files of the category have a clear documentation stating the filiation of work, it is clearly not the case. This is a non-issue. Rama (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Patko erika (talk · contribs)

Can someone please asap review this flickr washer (January 13 upwards) and do some nuke? I found this by incident (see deletion request linked on talk), I first thought the uploader is trying to fix a problem but I found someone else massively flickr washing. Additional the uploader of that file File:Gorgeted puffleg.jpg and this flickr washer are not related from Checkuser evidence, although they both come from hu.wp if Patko erika here is hu:User:Patko erika there, I dont know. I still can not believe this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

striked something, I now know. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we (= sysops at hu.WP) have become aware of Erika's case via User:Teemeah. Teemeah have written Erika an email asking her to clarify these strange coincidences. Erika is a 15 year old girl doing doubtlessly valuable contributions on huwiki, her edits were insofar perfectly OK. We beg your patience & understanding until T. can sort this mess out with her in her native tongue. We'll get back asap. Bennó (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From expirience I know that actions on Commons are often ignored, so I asked Teemeah to explain the issue in native language on hu.wp to the user. Though that will not help to save the images as everything from that flickr account is clearly copied from elsewhere, it toke me 15 minutes to find 30 of the images beeing copyright violations, not cherry-picked images but images in their order of upload. For me the issue is not to not delete the images but to prevent this issue occurring again in future from 2 sides: 1) the flickr account, at best that account will be deleted 2) hu.wp, a user blocked on Commons may continue on another project. --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, and 3): A user blocked on Commons can not make good edits in future. We are better with all three: No bad flickr account, no bad things on other projects and good, not blocked users here ;) --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I exchanged a few emails with Erika. Just as I thought before, she was watching the flickr account (subscribed to it). She was not aware that the photos are stolen from elsewhere, she just knew the CC licences are valid for Commons, and that's it. I guess CollinEdwards should be reported @ flickr for abusing the account by posting copyrighted photos under cc. By the way, this whole treatment of hers here made Erika promise she will never again upload anything to commons, not even own photos.... I think people should be treated with more care, and inquired in a bit more friendly manner, before shouting their heads off and accusing them with things they haven't done. I acknowledge your efforts to keep Commons clean but if we lose contributors because of mistreatment that won't help the project. The thing that happened to Erika (uploading CC photos from flickr in good faith and then bumping into the wall of accusation) can happen to any of us who transfer photos from Flickr. We are all exposed to the fakers of Flickr, please don't forget that. Thank you, regards --Teemeah (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Teemeah +1. With all due respect, I think you should ask first, and only then put users before the firing squad... Assume good faith? Examining the circumstances? Maybe there is a good explanation. Asking a few questions without hurried accusations surely won't hurt anybody. :) Bennó (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just answered the same posting on my talk. I hold up my claim, Patko erika = CollinEdward, evidences are clear. The account on flickr was created for nothing else but flickrwashing. Of course hurried is a good point, but by all evidences I was shoked how someone can act so deliberately bad just for a bunch of photographs. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarah W.

User posted a comment at the helpdesk, I then left a message on her talkpage requesting more information about the images she was uploading. An IP user answered there saying the images were from a copyrighted yearbook & left the below message on my talk page. Today he added another comment to it, which relates to wikipedia more than to here. As I do not know what the best course of action is, I hope someone here can help. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Sarah did not take those photos with her camera. They are from a college yearbook. Sarah W. (Woroniecki) is the daughter of an American preacher notorious in American media for his negative influence on Andrea Yates. Sarah W. says she is working on an article in which she intends to use all these photos. If I were you, I would keep an eye on her upcoming edits to the wiki articles on Andrea Yates and her father Michael Peter Woroniecki. I think she is planning a major overhaul of her father's public image, especially on Wikipedia.71.251.184.152 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
She created a page in Spanish Wikipedia under the pseudonym Reporterared that is not encyclopedic. The article is biased in defense of their father Michael Woroniecki, and circular logic is used to back up their claims. For example: They say they don't ask for money from people they preach to, but there is no other source to verify this claim except from their own mouths. Many of the articles they list as a reference source contradict their biased point of view, but in citing them, it leaves the impression their many claims are sourced, when they are not. Their point of view in the articles is information THEY told reporters. She asserts her father is not to blame for the trgedy of Andrea Yates, but there is no counter argument presented. The article reads like it's an advertisment for their religious movement. When a comment was placed in the discussion page noting the bias and sourcing that claim, Sarah under the pseudonym reporterared deleted it (vandalism). 72.64.34.105 15:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User being aggressive

User:PANONIAN and i have had our disagreement on a few issues, here and in en:wiki. I begun a deletion diff, most likely should not have as this is not en:wp (but the source quoted was that of a screenwriter and i jumped in).
  • diff, "I will tell you this: stop disrupting my work related to Albanian history or I will start to produce maps related to the history of minorities in the territory of present-day Greece (Albanians, Slavs, Turks) and, beign an hard Greek nationalist, you will not want to see any of these maps. You have no idea whom you trying to fuck here."
  • diff, "Please do something else and do not insult intelligence of people who visit this page, we are not guilty because of your empty social life, so find other place to heal your frustrations..."
  • diff, accusing me and 2 other editors for conspiracy.
  • diff, "so if you compare yourself to me, you are nothing.", "It is well known that southern Albania has an ethnic Greek minority and that Greek nationalists claim that "southern Albania is Greek", so being a Greek by yourself, it is obvious that you have a political goal to prove that southern Albania was "always" Greek and never Albanian. If you sincerely believe that spread of such propaganda in web sites such is Wikipedia would result into future event in which southern Albania will become a part of Greater Greece then there is a big problem, with your inteligence level."
  • diff
  • diff

Megistias (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked User:PANONIAN for 1 day for intimidation and harassment. This is completely inappropriate behavior. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DresdenBell (talk · contribs)

User:DresdenBell transferred the file from de.wp to commons. He changed the filename and description and did not give the original source. The old file was this.

I corrected the description of the picture. He reverted dif without comment. I changed again dif and asked in the comment line, why he insists on his questionable version. He reverted without any comment.
I asked him on his talk page (dif) about his edits. He just deleted my question without any comment.
I dont want to run an edit war at the file. But don't know what to do? --Bezur (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Mike09 sockpuppet

I've got a fairly strong suspicion that TUBOS (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a sockpuppet of Mike09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – also known as Abyz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  from previous sockpuppeteering.

I will go into this tomorow evening. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, it is Confirmed that TUBOS = Abyz. Mike09 is stale, so I cannot compare the first two against that account. Also, seeing as Martin is far more familiar with the specifics of this, I would appreciate if he would review the results. This guy operates on a pretty large range, and there are a number of other users active on it. Might be a good idea to go through them and look at the behavioral evidence. Tiptoety talk 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be editing anonymously from 189.153.177.57 now. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Blocked - Tiptoety talk 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tiptoety, so this is done. I cant say any more to this as that the sockpuppetry was blatant in the past and as per the Checkuser of July 6 (CU log). --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppets...

...though unrelated to the ones above. When Silvz93 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  was given a final warning to stop uploading copyright violations, mainly related to AC/DC, they switched over to BigSilvz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to continue to practice. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. In the future try, COM:RFCU. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thought it was a bit of a  duck to be honest, so I was mainly just looking for the block. Thanks though. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Files of User:Doritosmakesmehyper

All Files of this user are probably copyright violations as the user has been banned until yesterday due to copyvios and uploaded this bunch of pictures today. Please delete this pictures and block the user (or is he really the author of these pictures? We would need a permission in any case, then.) Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unappropriate approach to discussion

Let me ask you if the following kind of behaviour is appropriate in a collaborative project or if a warning is to be issued. Here User:Jollyroger replies to my vote with a typical "ad hominem" charge, intentionally depicting me as a POV user, which one could consider as a personal attack. Four days later another reply seems inadequate because of wording and spirit. The same kind of intervention was against another user. Thank you.Avemundi (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What he's said might be slightly out of line, but so, I think, is your suggestion that these images are illegal in their very existence. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

86.182.117.62

86.182.117.62 (talk · contribs) is throwing a rather personal and hostile tantrum over a one-day block of Gwyddgwyrdd over at English Wikipedia and now appears to need some assistance with keeping their promise to say goodbye. (See talk page.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Add 86.176.140.248 (talk · contribs) to that. Please address this sooner rather than later, as their behaviour appears to be escalating to more or less direct threats (At least that's how I would interpret "You have an untamed tongue that could one day land you in trouble.") —LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Bloked This user really need time to cool down :) --Justass (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing your slanderous and libelous comments about me from this page. I know very well about the leftist agenda of Wikipedia and Wikimedia and you are merely attacking me to further your authoritarian desire to appear to be "in control." You have no right to judge me. And when I said, "your untamed tongue may one day land you in trouble" I meant it. It was not a threat. It was wise counsel. Take it or leave it. Further, your accusation that I threw a tantrum just doesn't wash. Your purile finger-wagging and baseless accusations only serve to strengthen my resolve to rid this world of idealistic, perfectionist, communistic, authoritarian satans like you. Do you honestly believe your reverse psychology will work on me? I tell you, you have a cheek writing about me behind my back on this page without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to your remarks. Your faceless, judgmental nitpicking exposes you as unreasonable, pernicious meddlers who go out of their way to cause trouble. You think you police the internet? Well then I shall blame you for the vile, sickening nature of the web as it stands today. Judge me and God will judge you using the same measure. JESUS CHRIST IS LORD! LONG LIVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! And should anyone remove this paragraph may they henceforth be known as a BIGOT! HOW DARE YOU DEFAME ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.180.13 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC (UTC))

Reverted the removal of comments, however I added this user's comment back to the page. sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (paroli) 00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User

diff "Megistias works full time to assert these tribes as ancient Greek tribes, but in fact they were Illyrian tribes." , diff "Greek nationalist POV pushing" can someone just tell this user about POV in the commons and to not accuse people of conspiracies? Megistias (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:216.73.77.238

Vandalism in Apple. --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned. Only one edit so no need for any further measures right now. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Foroa

Would someone remind this user to avoid doing her tests outside the sandbox. The users indiscriminately pastes stuff into category descriptions [19], [20] and keeps reverting users [21] that want to have this discussed first. According to the comments on talk [22] the edits are done "for demonstration purposes" in some unrelated field and aren't really meant to further the use in this category, violating "en:WP:POINT". -- User:Docu at 12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User Nachbanebenan (notice the missing "r"!)

This user is trying to impersonate and discredit me with his choice of name and marking my uploads as copyright violations. Thankfully, Admin Pill already cleared some of the vandalism in the german wp and confirmed it was no password breach. I've reset my user pages but the affected files Anch.png & BBAE.jpeg are already gone (Undeletion request is on). From the edits I suspect 151.1.143.116 is behind this user (it had been blocked in the past for the same reason), but I can't prove it. So it would be nice if someone had a look into this. --Nachbarnebenan (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just trapped into this at UNDEL (stable link), two last postings. Would anyone disagree to check the impersonator "Nachbanebenan" and share the result with a de.wp checkuser? Maybe we find something. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Misuse is obvious in this case. I've blocked the impersonation accounts here on Commons and on de.wikipedia (and deleted their userpages) therefore, see also 151.1.143.116. I can't say anything about the copyright status of the files in question, though.--:bdk: 22:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: Nachbanebenan (without "r") is also globally blocked now. --:bdk: 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So ✓ Done here, @Nachbarnebenan, please report any new incidences. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Turbodexel

Turbodexel (talk · contribs)

Please watch out for his conributions, we have already had a lot of problems with him in huwiki with awful quality drawings and copivio photos. He also has another account at huwiki under the name Picturedexel, already blocked. Have to note that he is a 10 year old boy (hu:User:Turbodexel, huUser:Picturedexel)... So you might have issues communicating with him in English.

Should you need help in communicating with him please refer to the Hungarian village pump of Commons or contact me directly, or User:Grin.

Also, if you have experience in how to deal with so minor contributors, your comments would be highly valued, this is the first time we came across such a minor (in age) user, and are basically helpless what to with him....

Thanks a lot. --Teemeah (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The image found here[23] (Wikimedia here[24]) is a copyright vio taken from here[25]. Although the Greek site allows some use - it explicitly requires attribution and limits commercial rights. It is not an appropriate listing here, attribution being outside the standard for wiki images. As to the retention of commercial rights, I don"t know how that squares up.99.151.172.170 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, please tag such images with {{Copyvio}}, instead of deleting the page content. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a typo in their banner, PIGS is written PIIGS ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Martin: Just a question of whether Italy is included. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Blurpeace

Blurpeace is part of User:Durova's set. I posted information about why I've stopped contributing, which involve Durova harassing me.

He blocked me for having posted it. He claimed it was for "reinstating personal attacks after multiple warnings." Checking my user page history will show no warnings whatsoever. In fact, I restored it after being told that it had been removed.

In short, his block reason was made up, he is an involved user, and he has stated, on my talk page, after the fact, an intent to continue such behaviour if I attempt to discuss the harassment again.

When you're harassed due to your actions on Wikipedia, the only way I can return is if others are aware of the harassment, so that if the harassment continues, it can be stopped. This is particularly necessary when the user is Durova, who is deeply ingrained into commons.

I would ask that my block log be annotated to note the block reason was invalid, and Blurpeace be warned that he should not act in order to suppress information about harassment by his friends.

Furthermore, he claims that a fair-use discussion of Durova's actions, quoting a section of my conversations with her for commentary and analysis, hosted off-site, is copyright infringement, making this an example of copyfraud-by-proxy as well. (For link, see page history)

The reaction to reports of harassment should not be for the user's minions to step in and continue the harassment for the user. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no one has commented on this one for a while. I think that's because its not cut and dried what the right thing to do here is. If there were a way for you and Durova to work out your differences instead of using Wikimedia wikis to comment about each other, that might be a better way forward. Sorry if that's not very helpful. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Durova, I would like to repeat what I have said on English Wiki on already. Please do consider an apology. Just think what is on stake: the case would be closed for good in a flash, Adam will feel better, many users, who care about both of you will be very happy, and I believe yourself will feel better too. I understand that with my own reputation around here :( I might be not the right person to give advises, but on the other hand I believe I might be one of the best persons to understand what Adam feels. Thank you, Durova.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:VízPart

Please check behaviour of this user: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VízPart - he was registered one day ago and he removing maps from the atlases and reverting my edits. I tried to discuss the issue with him on discussion pages, but seems that there is no use. Also, at first I reverted his map removals from Atlas of Slovakia and Atlas of Hungary and after that he also started to revert my other edits as some sort of "personal revenge" against me. PANONIAN (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

These pages are in question:

PANONIAN a POV pusher reverted my edits without any explanation on three different pages. If you check these pages carefully you will see that in all Atlases, I made the first edit and PANONIAN followed me around in all of them (he followed me to Atlas of World War II as well(see his edit following me here.) PANONIAN should stop his aggressivity and stop edit warring with multiple users. He edit warred with [user:Ajdebre] as well. VízPart (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Removal of images from the atlases is example of vandalism, so explanation for reverts of such removals is not necessary - it is you who have to elaborate and explain why you removing such images. Also, I am not in revert war with user:Ajdebre - he uploaded his map over my own work and I reverted that (accorind to the policy of this site, he should upload his work as new file, not over my work). PANONIAN (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He also insulted me claiming that I am "chauvinist POV pusher" and that I "push extreme POV": http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtlas_of_Slovakia&action=historysubmit&diff=36273118&oldid=36272794 PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not an insult if it is true, you are indeed a POV pusher, as seen on your talk page. Various maps proposed for deletion for extreme POV in them. That is fact not insult. VízPart (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You see - he insulting me right now too. Would any admin please do something about that behaviour? PANONIAN (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For example first edit from talk page link to deletion "[26] quote "On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. " Creating false maps is in fact POV pushing. VízPart (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss about that map, please go to discussion page of that file, but for your information Hungary was not recognized state before 1920 and no country or international organization did not recognized any part of Serbia from that map as "Hungarian territory". There is nothing false or POV in that map. PANONIAN (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Hungary was not recognized state before 1920 " Typical extreme chauvinist POV thank you for proving my point. Hungary existed and was recognized long before 1920 (since 1000 AD) therefore your argument is POV to the extreme. De Jure ownership of territory can not change by occupation only by international treaty. Therefore attacking Serb bandits and marauders do not mean that the parts they pillage is part of Serbia from the time they attack it. A lesson well learned in Bosnia and Kosovo and Croatia and many parts that Serbs attacked looted and where they committed mass murder such as in Srebrenica. VízPart (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I had enough of this. I appeal to the admins to stop these personal insults against me and to force this user to behave civilized. PANONIAN (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that PANONIAN was recently blocked for intimidation and harassment I feel he is trying to do the same with me, I uploaded my first map just recently made a few edits and he immediatly attacked me reverted all my edits, called me POV pusher, vandal, attacked and harassed me all based on a few edits. I tried to defend myself best as I could but it seems he does this routinely as he didnt even try to discuss anything with me when he thought he can harass me away with pure reverts on all 3 pages I ever edited. All my edits done on march 7 were gone when I came back later to upload another map I find that my edits are systematicly destroyed. VízPart (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So? I was blocked for one day because I insulted one user in one discussion. It is not even close to this bulk of insults that you adressed to me. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's make one thing clear, you came to me, attacked me, called me vandal, and POV pusher, harrassed me by following my edits, before I just as much as spoke 1 word to you.[27] [28] [29] Clearly you have a problem with agressively attacking other editors when you dont like an edit. I just tried to defend myself. I didnt go to you. VízPart (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Let make this clear: you registered your nickname yesterday, deleted files from the articles and changed descriptions of some files in nationalistic way (for example, changing Vojvodina to "south Hungary") - clear examples of vandalism and POV pushing. PANONIAN (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know Vojvodina didn't exist before 1920 so I changed to title to be more appropriate. Vojvodina was created from several regions in Hungary and even from Croatia and never existed as a territorial unit before. If I was wrong I will apologize but as far as I know this is correct and there is no such thing as a Vojvodina before that time just as there is no Soviet Union in Roman times or the Middle Ages. VízPart (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
title is not "appropriate" - term "delvidek" (southern Hungary) was invented by Hungarian fascists after 1920 and was never used for Vojvodina in history. Contrary to that, name Vojvodina is used for the region since 1848 (and it certainly existed as territorial unit before 1918/1920, so please read some history book before speaking about history). PANONIAN (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In another words, you use a name that was used by fascists. That is simply not acceptable. PANONIAN (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"Southern" in this case Hungary is an English term used to describe you know the south-ern part of a country. I think anyone who speaks a little English can say the same. And it is more appropriate because Vojvodina includes part of former Croatia after Croatia was invaded. True or not? Vojvodina is a big region made up of multiple territories if you only want to speak of Hungarian lands in for example 1880 you can't say Vojvodina as that means +Croatian lands as well. And I didnt remove Vojvodina from maps depicting a map when Vojvodina existed. But such maps like of "Soviet Union in the age of Augustus, 14 AD" would be very strange to me the same as other fantasy maps. VízPart (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In 1848, Vojvodina included Srem, Bačka, Banat and Baranja regions and since then name Vojvodina is used for these territories officially or unofficially. Also, there was no country named Hungary from 1526 to 1920 - country of which Vojvodina was part was Austrian Empire and then Austria-Hungary from 1867. As I said, term "southern Hungary" was invented by fascists and therefore it is not acceptable for usage as much as it is not acceptable that we use picture of Adolph Hitler as symbol of this web site. Can you understand that simple fact? If you do not like name Vojvodina, then we can use description like "Hungarians in Bačka, Banat and Srem", but we cannot use terms invented by fascists. PANONIAN (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegg

Vegg (talk · contribs), Category:Sockpuppets of Vegg


Starting from the ugly copyright violation File:Daniel Diges.png and some coincidences related to that image (CUs see log for reasoning and all following checks) a Checkuser brought some concerning evidences. Fortunately I can summarize all the wrongdoing with presenting only one account: User:GMcF Uploaded 2 images,

Summarizing: One user created tons of accounts and uploaded stolen images over a time span of >2 years in bad faith! (as you can see cearly from the Queen image as well as the latest file File:Daniel Diges.png). A list of 100% related accounts is presented below, how to proceede?

--Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (later added marked with +)

I have been tracking some other accounts for years, besides the above ones: the first one detected was Granadin (talk · contribs), then Gabri-co (talk · contribs), Gabri (talk · contribs) and Satesclop (talk · contribs) all of them used to upload copyright violations or steal images, as well as some other controversial contributions. It is clear this user does not have any intentions to collaborate positively respecting Commons rules. Several of his accounts have been blocked indefinitely but he keeps on creating new ones. What else can be done?. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Regretably not much. I not started "fishing" for him on random IP ranges, I only checked those IP ranges I know he was on. And I dont want to start with more, it will only put users from spain (think thats no secret) under general suspicion and increases the probability that good users become suspected or blocked just because of this users bad acting. The bad thing is that he also uploads maps. Generally a user can do copyright violations but his maps will never be deleted, deleting them is some kind of taboo on Commons (although it might be justified, he dont name original sources for the maps). The answer, why his maps are not deleted is simple: It would only damage Wikipedia, so keeping this abusers name as "author" is the lesser of two evil. Maybe thats the only two options: 1) Deleting everything, including the maps to finally disappoint him from working here and to clearly show him that his contributions, good or bad, are not welcome here. 2) Trying to contact him (email?), ask him about the reasoning, ask him what exact part of the words 'derecho de autor' he not understands and why he is vandalizing Wikipedia in such a bad way. Maybe both options will finaly disburden Commons from him, of course the second option requires some minimum of cooperation and rationality by the user. --Martin H. (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a real pitty as he can be very productive too. Probably only Spanish speaking and a dialogue via email should certainly be tried. As I sometimes recognise his signature, is there an easy way to report a new "incarnation" when I suspect it ? --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, COM:RFCU. Tiptoety talk 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Dialogue is useless, this user was collaborating in wikipedia as es:Usuario:Gabri-gr-es with the same bad behaviour and no response to any dialogues. In the end, after several blockages, he was blocked indefinitely, as can see here. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Anna. As you have a lot of patience and goodwill, I have to conclude that this is a problem that we cannot settle by dialogue. --Foroa (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, my new kid was born one month ago and I don't have much time available (an ArbCom case in the en.wikipedia has spent all my remaining time). I must agree with Cookie. This user has been behaving in the same time for years. Sockpuppetry is a usual tool both in the Spanish Wikipedia and in commons, so the only solution is the obvious: block and deletion. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The more I see the more I agree. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Serainavlaer

(moved from Commons talk:Community portal)

I notify here that all the contributions by User:Serainavlaer are in violation of copyrights since artists like Miquel Barcelo or Clemente are still alive and reprodutions of thier paintings are not in the public domain. Thanks for deleting, asap--LPLT (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Blurpeace 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User civility, aggresiveness

A user here has been repeatedly calling another user "magyarized one", "brainwashed and magyarized one, unfortunately" "nationalistic vandal" offending his nationality and dignity diff, diff, diff, diff. Megistias (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned the user and watchlisted his/her talk page. SlovenskoSlovákom (talk · contribs) is a party to the VízPart (talk · contribs)/PANONIAN (talk · contribs) dispute.[30] Thank you, Megistias. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank thee, a wise motion. Megistias (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be a content dispute from enwiki that has spilled over into Commons.[31] There is an active RfC at which maps are relevant that references Commons. I think the parties would be well-advised to try to exploit the enwiki RfC mechanism to resolve their dispute.
I warned VisPart about his/her edit summaries and talk page usage.[32] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Galegos de soa.jpg & User:Zscout370

Bad english:

File:Galegos de soa.jpg is a derivative work and the licence is PD-self.

  1. Two of the images of the derivative work are mines and GFDL or Cc-by-sa-3.0. Others images are Cc-by-sa-2.1 and...
  2. There aren't names of the authors in the credits.

The image is a copyvio, but Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg. The image must be deleted.

See also User talk:Zscout370#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg ([33]). Thanks--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the license Cc-by-sa-3.0 is not the same of GFDL, al my images GFDL must be deleted.
Español: No acepto otra licencia diferente a la que yo he colocado en las imágenes. Es una imposición que no comparto (supongo que borrar unas 2000 ó 3000 imágenes no va a tener consecuencias en el proyecto, pero si se borran por ese motivo, pediré compensación por el tiempo perdido y por medio de los medios que considere oportunos
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what? You want your images deleted because someone reused your GFDL work with cc-by-sa material? Isn't remixing one of the main purposes of free licenses? That's a good thing, right? Why don't you like it? Of course, you should be attributed. I feel like deleting that image simply because whoever wrote the information was so adamant about the licensing part, but not actually doing anything the licenses say... kinda missing the whole point there. But that info can be added. Rocket000 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Very inappropriate to tag this for speedy deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Español: No comprendo la actitud de los administradores. Ni siquiera soy mencionado adecuadamente en la imagen. Es una obra derivada y en los datos principales de la misma debe aparecer mi nombre, no en una subsección (NO APARECE EN NINGÚN SITIO). ¿Tengo que ponerme en contacto con un abogado para que no se actúe como ha hecho conmigo User:Pieter Kuiper sin dar explicación ninguna [[34]]. OJO: NO SE HA DIGNADO NI SIQUIERA A DIRIGIRSE A MI
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Español: Sí, si en Commons se va a permitir atentados contra los derechos de autor como este (ni siquiera se me menciona y no se respeta la licencia (pues es GFDL y no Cc-by-sa-2.1), solicito que sean todas mis imágenes borradas, tengan la licencia que tengan. En ese caso no he debido nunca colaborar con ustedes
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Español: Pero tal y como van las cosas creo que voy a tener que hablar con mi abogado--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC
Español: Evidentemente yo no deseo que se borren mis imágenes y deseo seguir colaborando en el proyecto Wikimedia, pero todo tiene un límite. Atiendan, respeten las políticas, si no las respetan, yo sobro. Y se de lo que hablo, por algo he sido burócrata en este proyecto
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Les sigo rogando que borren la imagen. Es la única posible solución, mis imágenes no son compatibles con las licencias de las otras imágenes de esa obra derivada--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats please. If I add your attribution would that solve the problem, or do you simply do not want people making derivatives of your work with (possibly) incompatible licenses? This doesn't feel much like a conversation, you're just saying things (in multiple places) and not really responding to anyone, so sorry if I can't be of more help. Rocket000 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand. What is "threats" in spanish?
Español: No es suficiente con la atribución. Lo digo, lo expreso, por si alguien ha simplificado hasta ese punto la situación. Si se me hubiesen pedido que cambiase las licencias,las habría cambiado, pero nadie me lo ha pedido y no lo voy a hacer ahora
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want people with derivative works if this derivative work it is not GFDL--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 03:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Español: Observo que ya la imagen tiene licencia GFDL, pero además tiene otras y no puede tenerlas. Además -insisto- hay imágenes Cc-by-sa-2.1 que son incompatibles con mis imágenes. Sigo insistiendo: Borren la obra derivada. Sean serios

--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: Me he cansado de su ineptitud. Mañana procedo a hablar con mi abogado para denunciar lo que aquí está ocurriendo. Yo he sido burócrata en este proyecto y habría borrado la imagen sin dudarlo lo más mínimo. Pienso que representan ustedes la máxima ineptitud que puede haber en este proyecto en especial en lo que respecta a usuarios y políticas
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Español: Sigo hablando porque no acabo de salir de mi asombro: Estoy increíblemente asombrado con su ineptitud. ¿Deciden ustedes cambiar la licencia de una imagen que no es suya sin siquiera dirigirse al usuario (cosa que yo sí he hecho). Han cambiado dos veces la licencia para complacerme y solamente han conseguido que considere que su ineptitud raya con lo indecible. Solamente falta que me bloqueen por decir lo que pienso de la mejor manera que puede ser dicho--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 04:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No es lícito, al menos no es decoroso, cambiar la licencia de una imagen sin ponerse en contacto con el usuario que la ha creado, ¿realmente son ustedes administradores? --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done a heavy edit to File:Galegos de soa.jpg [35] to do the following:

  1. Provide attribution to authors of the originals.
  2. Correct the licensing: The composite can only under a cc-by-sa license (3.0 unported being logical choice). I've also changed the permissions (on this page) of the originals from GFDL to cc-by-sa-3.0 as they can be used as a result of the relicensing.
  3. Simplify the text somewhat.

The page is now in line with the licenses of the originals (I think). Bear in mind all the cc-by-sa licenses allow redistribution under a similar license so it is fine to use a cc-by-sa-2.1-es image under cc-by-sa-3.0 unported. In response to Lmbuga's concerns about the GFDL, your images (and the others) were uploaded before August 2009 with the license "GFDL 1.2 or any later version". When GFDL 1.3 was released, the images were also licensed under that new license. GFDL 1.3 allows for migration to cc-by-sa. My only concern about this image is the number of "unknown" authors for the PD files, some of them may still be in copyright but I cannot verify.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nilfanion. Hopefully that will solve the problem he has. Rocket000 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I owe you one Nilfanion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GFDL & CC-by-sa-3.0

Español: Les ruego que retiren de mis imágenes GFDL la licencia Cc-by-sa-3.0. Ni he tenido información de lo que supone ni se me ha asegurado que es la misma licencia que la que yo he aprobado. Sean serios, por favor

--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: La licencia que tienen mis imágenes no es compatible con Cc-by-sa-2.1. De eso estoy seguro
--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User --h-stt

Can anyone give advice on how I should deal with the comments this user has left on my talkpage? 9carney (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly by participating in the Commons under the same account you use to comment on policy? Or giving some indication on the user page of that account why you have an account to participate in policy discussions when you have no apparent contributions? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For a second there I thought you were condoning ad hominem attacks. As we all know, anyone can edit any file on this project, subject only to technical constraints and the rules and principles of the project. That applies whether a user has one edit or a million.That principle is sacred. Comments like "Your account is single purpose and I flat out deny you to contribute to policy issues for this very reason." and "You are not welcome to discuss policies on Commons" have no place here. As it happens I posted here a little prematurely because I found what I wanted here. If he chooses to contribute to any further discussions I will engage him in a friendly and welcoming manner and look for the same in return. 9carney (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

During the course of a talk page discussion regarding posting translation requests to village pump pages, h-stt has engaged in personal attacks: User_talk:H-stt#Air France 447 - He seems to have a general idea that people should be confronted and insulted. This needs to stop immediately. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please block 74.63.93.191

Please block 74.63.93.191 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (resolves to fdcservers.net, so probably a compromised web server acting as an open proxy) for blanking tags informing of an ongoing deletion discussion in spite of warnings, for edit warring (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3) and personal attacks:

—LX (talk, contribs) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User hasnow started discussing on the talk page; no reason to block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The last two quotes are from our open proxy-using friend's contributions to the deletion discussion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they qualify as discussion. If that's the tone they intend to use, they don't need to be editing here. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days harassments / vandalism, despite warnings --Justass (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm not an admin on Commons, but I work extensively with copyright on English Wikipedia, so when I went to place a copyvio template at User talk:Xav47x for File:CaseyLaceyJames.jpg, it raised some flags. I saw that in 2008 he was given a serious "keep this up and you'll be blocked" warning: User talk:Xav47x#Copyright violations 2. A look at his contribs shows that in the last day he has uploaded 13 images from American Idol, all of which are undoubtedly copyvios as this one is. I haven't done the legwork of tracking down the originals, though. Given his history, I thought it might be appropriate to bring it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That are blatant copyvios, Ill nuke them. --Martin H. (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked them, They have been warned about copyvios since 2007 with two final warnings. Bidgee (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go do the cleanup on the English Wikipedia side. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

User:Watermill333 is affiliated with Watermill Express does commons block in these circumstances?Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually we only block spammy names like urls. Unless, the representation is false, I see no problem with it. Rocket000 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexlanes13

This user keeps uploading copyright protected images, some of them were deleted in the past. I don't know how this is handled. Perhaps another warning would be appropriate?—Totie (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the uploads have stopped. I'd say the next bad one should result in an immediate block. Wknight94 talk 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alert for Commons admins

Hello! I know this is technically the wrong place, but just wanted to alert any Commons admins to the contributions of this fellow. I don't believe for one moment any of those images are free. Thanks, Aiken ♫ 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This was placed on en:WP:AN. Since I agree that it was "technically the wrong place", I thought I'd put it where it belongs, so you guys can do with it as seems best. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nommed the 4 files found in contributions for deletion, as they all have shaky provenance (at best). ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Three have been deleted since they are blatant copyvios, the fourth photo hasn't as I've been unable to find it but is likely a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Download A .SVG File?

moved to Commons:Village pump#Download A .SVG File? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor at Large (talk • contribs) at 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar slow edit warring against consensus

Per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Estrilda (October 2009) and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_19#Advice_required_I_think (February 2010), a notification was placed on the User:Estrilda page that the account had self-identified as the wife of User:Lycaon.[36] This notice was placed because checkuser had determined the strong appearance of double voting at featured picture candidacies, and it was affirmed by consensus at the checkuser discussion in December and at the Commons admin board in Feburary. Alvesgaspar was active in both discussions. On 6 March 2010 Alvesgaspar removed the notice from the Estrilda user page.[37] I restored the notice on 6 March with the note "Please seek a new consensus before removing again."[38] On 23 March 2010 Alvesgaspar reblanked the notice with an edit summary which stated that he did not acknowledge consensus.[39]

It doesn't seem appropriate for the minority side after two consensus discussions to override consensus by waiting a few weeks and then quietly implementing a different outcome. So opening this for community input. Durova (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the archive, it seems to me the consensus was that a crosslink is not necessary at the present time, but may be required in the future if the there is double voting from these accounts. That was Lar's proposal, to which just about anyone participating in that discussion agreed, you yourself included. Has there been double voting by these accounts since then? If not, there's no need for a crosslink. Lupo 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That is also my view. If there were a consensus on a matter so relevant as putting a crosslink on some user page (against his/her will), that should be explicitly referred to in the conclusion of the discussion. Which was not. On the contrary, it was concluded that no action should be taken against the two users envolved. The same goes for the discussion in the Admnistrator's noticeboard. It is really time for this war to have an end.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Durova seems to confuse her own opinion with community consensus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The consensus was that a cross link from at least one direction was necessary, due to the history of double voting. No one removed that link when either of the consensus discussions closed. If that is mistaken then the way to resolve that is to discuss it openly. In future, Alvesgaspar, please hold dialog on user pages and/or open up a community discussion. It is not acceptable to wait a few weeks and then act unilaterally. Durova (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically, what Durova is saying is that if the crosslink was not removed from Estrilda page immediately after the discussion, then it should stay there forever or only after a new threath were open to re-discuss the issue. In other words, that 'truth' or 'the right thing to do' prescribes after a certain time. Please respect other people's intelligence! If I did not correct the situation immediately is because I didn't notice the note was still there (but that is not your business, for sure). BTW, we are still waiting for some hard evidence about the consensus you keep talking about but are unable to prove. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually that is not even remotely related to the basics of what I am saying. This unfortunate episode was discussed extensively by the community twice, and a conclusion was reached. It is inappropriate to repeatedly attempt to implement a different conclusion weeks later without seeking a new consensus. Please seek a new consensus without personalizing the discussion. Durova (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, I completely missed this episode. With great surprise I read the archived discussion and frankly I'm at a loss for words. I considered Lycaon a valuable and trustworthy contributor and I am not willing to throw away this trust just because of an accusation which can easily be explained. In fact I find the Glenn-Beck-rethorics that some participants used plain sickening: "Lycaon did not deny having made up a wife to cheat in voting", well so it must be true. Are you out of your minds?! What is going on here? --Dschwen (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I perceive the consensus in the same manner as Alvesgaspar. If I had noticed Estrildas crosslink was not blanked I would probably have done that too without seeing it as something which is against consensus. --Slaunger (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if a new consensus has arisen then of course that's worth respecting. My understanding of the previous discussion was that a cross link was necessary in at least one direction if both accounts were to remain unblocked. Alvesgaspar, if any misunderstanding like this arises in future please discuss instead of reverting. Durova (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You take this to here without any discussion with Alvesgaspar, but he's the one in the wrong for not discussing it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • How can this be a new consensus? Apparently there was no old consensus in the first place. It seems inappropriate of you to close this of by lecturing Alves about proper wiki-manners. On a side note: it may be the distance from not being involved and reading the whole thing after some tme has passed, but it just looks Kafkaesque to me. At one point in the discussion a participant actually accused Lycaon of wasting the communities time by essentially refusing to answer to his inquisition commitee. --Dschwen (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Durova, what would you like to achieve here? I don't mean what you think the consensus is or what your understanding of some previous discussion was, but what do you personally want to achieve by bringing this issue here? Do want the crosslink restored? Page protected? One of the accounts blocked? Alvesgaspar punished? I don't see what the big deal is with this crosslink, if he doesn't want it on his userpage, why push it? The information's out there. People know. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like a lot of unnecessary drama. Rocket000 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • No, Rocket; this was procedural. Obviously I wasn't going to edit war with Alvesgaspar. During the two previous discussions Lar had stated that he considered a notification on at least one of the two user pages to be the minimum acceptable response, and previous consensus had appeared to agree with Lar. As stated above, we can consider this matter resolved now. Durova (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That didn't answer the question what you wanted out of this (procedural, sure, but something still motivated you), but if it's resolved, that's all that matters. I was just trying to understand more than what it appeared to be. Rocket000 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
        • There was no need to say more; the question asked something which was fully answered in my previous post. It isn't easy to respond to a question that refuses to take yes for an answer and makes accusations of drama. Will chalk that up to good faith miscommunication, though. There doesn't appear to be any more need for discussion here. Durova (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
          • It's not a yes or no question. "Yes" what? And feel free to assume bad faith, that's entirely up to you (I can handle it). I was asking what you hope to achieve here because it's not clear. The only thing I'm left with it you're doing it just for the drama. Assumption? Not really, it was an honest question. If you wanted something like the link restored or some account blocked that would explain things. I wasn't asking for reason, I was just asking what you wanted. Is that so hard to answer? There must be a motivation (and I pass no judgement on whatever that may be, even "for the drama" is a perfectly acceptable answer to me). Rocket000 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
          • It worries me that you seem to try to suppress any discussions about your conduct here. Some of that good faith that you now generously assume could have prevented this so called User problem from spinning into this discussion (and the initial discussion about Lycaon could have used some of it too). --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
            • If you'll forgive me hijacking this a little, the reason I left here for 5 months was Durova attacking me because I pointed out the obvious problem in File:Raven_Manet_E2.jpg. She claimed that politely questioning its obvious upside-down state was trolling through original research.
A lot of the incidents I could discuss, since I was driven off for five months, are either old or on en-wiki. I'll let people decide what they prefer Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Try refreshing your browser cache, the thumbnail wasn't updated for me. Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Dang. Edited. She still lies about there being no problem, but it's much harder to prove. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a crosslink is needed in at least one direction. I don't think we ever reached a consensus to remove the crosslinks in BOTH directions. But as long as there isn't double voting I'm not going to push the matter. It's just not worth fighting about any more. I have no idea what Durova's trying to achieve by raising this now, but I'm not sure I care. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Mdb10us

Please delete the two latest uploads by user:Mdb10us (w:User:Mdb10us) and consider blocking. Refer to [40]. Cenarium (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Wknight94 talk 16:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

188.75.128.2

Please block 188.75.128.2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . The IP address is used to circumvent the block of Le chatea (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , which in turn is blocked for circumventing the ban of Fredy.00 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .

Diff confirming the relationship. Diff confirming knowingly circumventing the ban.

A thorough review of the edits made from the account would also be good. I've reverted a few instances of notifications of ongoing deletion discussions being removed. This habit, along with the user's hostile and argumentative tone and this edit of a comment made by 74.63.93.191 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , also establishes the link to that account. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Turbo deleter User:Mbdortmund

User:Mbdortmund deletes files that are in discussion in deletion requests too quickly. As far as I know a deletion debate must be open minimum for 7 days unless it is an apparently case of copyright violation or something like that - what is definately usefull. But here (recent case): Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/01 and Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/02 he closed some discussion that are - in my view not that obvious - within one or two days. Here are some examples ([41], [42], [43]) of debates that are worthy of even be opened for 7 days because the reason contains a little specualtion where other opinions with more valid arguments could enrich the discussion. Carla 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at all three examples and endorse the deletions 100%. There was no point leaving those open. Would you have voted keep in any of them? Wknight94 talk 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I cannot know if I had voted keep or delete because the images were removed too quickly. So I and surely many other users did have no chance for voting. And I think especially that was the point to invent this 7 day rule, that as many as possible people can bring themselves in the discussion. Carla 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
For these, there was about 0% chance of keeping, so all is well. Wknight94 talk 15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought "turbo deleter" was the honorific title of an another administrator. The one who deletes most stuff I tag. -- User:Docu at 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Some DR's should be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

おれ (talk · contribs)

There is a problem with this user, that should be handled by a Japanese-speaking admin. Contrary to our policy, this user has created and re-created several non-english categories, such as Category:マジックリン, Category:ねこ and Category:いぬ, even though he was asked not to do that. In addition he uploaded scores of low-res (480x360), medium-quality cat & dog images, all with nonsense-filenames such as File:D2ca50e6.jpg, File:Hitachi 031.JPG or File:9e9fcbcb.jpg. 15 minutes after I had tagged one blurry low-res cat image (File:765af7bc.jpg) for speedy deletion, in a sort of retaliatory vandalism he put delete-tags (resulting in incomplete DR) on several images of other users: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. As 3 of his uploads were easily identified as copyvios (File:Mcl bath wall plus 00 img l.jpg, File:Mcl bath bubble 00 img l.jpg, File:Mcl bath deodorant plus 00 img l.jpg), I suspect that the animal images may also be copyvios. He may be a cross-wiki vandal, see here (Japanese).
I've blocked him for 1 day to avoid more damage. But a native-speaker should look into this and try to communicate to him/her. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See also http://toolserver.org/%7Evvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=おれ –Krinkletalk 12:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Quahadi

User Quahadi reverts some {{No license}} templates instade of putting the appropriate licence tags, please see this:

Also, as far i can see, he claims that the files are cc-by-sa, but there is clearly visible copyright watermark on the image, for example [53]--Ex13 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It may, but not necessarily. If it was published elsewhere, it needs an OTRS tag. The uploader needs to email the permission to the OTRS team. You should tag it with {{No permission since}}. -- User:Docu at 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I asked Quahadi about this and he told me OTRS was pending. Hopefully he won't remove no-permission tags. Wknight94 talk 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Then {{OTRS pending}} would be the better tag. -- User:Docu at 19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I ask some admin to do that, because he reverted that again. --Ex13 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done (non-admin) -- User:Docu at 09:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing editwar between two users

Two users, User:CatJar and User:TheCuriousGnome are reverting several images back and forth, it looks like they have taken their editwar from en wiki to Commons. Files affected are image compilations by decade like File:1980s decade montage.png. This needs some admin attention. --Denniss (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done for File:1980s decade montage.png. (non-admin) -- User:Docu at 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Precautionary protected for 1 day. --High Contrast (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Behavior by User:Pieter Kuiper

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) is exhibiting a behavior pattern of focusing on my contributions to this project. The user was already warned about this behavior, by admin Zscout370, see this request. I would appreciate it if Pieter_Kuiper would stop the focus on me, and heed the request from Zscout370. Pieter_Kuiper has a pattern of prior inappropriate behavior on this project, please see block log. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent chronology of behavior by Pieter Kuiper

I request that admins look into this matter to have the behavior pattern from Pieter Kuiper stop, and the focus on me from this user to stop. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the DRs. If those files get deleted, then what you are asking basically is to be allowed to fly under the radar and let copyright violations remain on the site. If one DR for a person gets posted it is only normal to take a closer look on other contributions by the same user. --Dschwen (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that on this project we would not want to encourage the sort of behavior pattern engaged in by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs). Other users would not wish this type of focus on their contributions in response to a particular action or as a form of retaliation, and I am sure that the same would even go for Pieter Kuiper and his contributions as well. I would not do that to him, and I would request he not do it to me - as the motivation could appear to be less than appropriate in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody else nominate File:Leo Ryan Park sculpture sunset.jpg and File:Leo Ryan Park sculpture stilts.jpg? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Files have been deleted, as they are not covered by FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of administrator Cirt in relation to deletion requests

Cirt, the first deletion request you listed above was opened by Pieter Kuiper while you should have been opening it yourself and which you failed to explain. As it was noted at COM:AN/Conduct of administrator Cirt (talk · contributions) in relation to deletion requests (2):
“ .
Cirt would have avoided us much of this if he'd follow Commons processes on deletion: looking closely at {{Speedy}}, one notices what he should have done:
Appeal: If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{Delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.
Unfortunately, taking it from Durova's comment above (and Cirt's post on his talk page that he agrees with her), it seems that neither have taken the time to figure out what that means:
: Administrator changes the speedy tag to a regular deletion request
: Administrator removes the speedy tag from his own upload
: Administrator re-removes the speedy tag from his own upload
: Administrator admonish[es] the user who placed the tag
: Administrator comments on another user's talk pages about a "pattern of disruptive behavior".
Cirt's conduct probably also failed the central point of "mellow" and its counterpoint (from Commons:Not staying mellow#About mellowness): "It is good to be nice towards .. ".
Overall, taking it from a comment like this one, it seems that Cirt didn't take the time to figure out how the Commons deletion process currently works.
 ”
It seems that you still fail to understand that COM:DR is the forum to discuss whether a file is in scope or not. Your user page is not suitable for this. I think you should thank Pieter Kuiper that he opened the deletion request you failed to open. To some extent this repaired the problem you created by removing deletion requests from your own files and even admonishing a user about not listing your files for deletion.
The subsequent listings are all about copyright concerns over your uploads. Two have already been deleted. Do you seriously suggest that these files should not be listed for deletion simply because they were uploaded by yourself? As the others are still open, we can't really comment on them. Thus, please avoid us such pointless threads. -- User:Docu at 04:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
COM:AN/Conduct of administrator Cirt (talk · contributions) in relation to deletion requests (2) = pot calling kettle black with regard to Docu (talk · contribs) repeatedly opening up these subthreads with the exact same title... see [54] and [55] -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not Pieter Kuiper nor Aylaross. Besides that, you started another thread about the same file of yours.
The main reason why there is a subsection is that you insisted on the section headers not being modified. -- User:Docu at 05:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Docu complains about what he calls "pointless threads" - and yet Docu insists on repeatedly opening up threads with the exact same title, after the prior threads were already archived. Seems like disruptively pushing a point over and over and over again. -- Cirt (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins should have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:May 1950 Astounding Science Fiction.jpg, and at the history of the talk page there. Cirt was clearly made aware that copyright had been renewed, and that his/her {{PD-US-no renewal}} tag was false; yet was clearly more interested to keep this Dianetics image than in copyright.
Similarly, Cirt/Smee tagged with {{PD-USGov}} loads of court files that had not been created by Federal employees. When I question such tags, Cirt responds with reporting me here. If such files would be PD (very doubtful), Cirt should have created a different tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I now also nominated Commons:Deletion requests/File:2006 banner plane Lisa McPherson.jpg, a very obvious copyright violation uploaded by Smee; it is rather problematic that admin Cirt/Smee uses this forum to intimidate me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is problematic that this user Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) continues to follow me and go after my contributions to this project. There are plenty of other things he can be occupying his time with other than digging through my old work. Especially in light of his prior conflicts with me - the recent actions by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) are not in good faith. -- Cirt (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
However I note you acknowledge that you had uploaded a copyvio in that you deleted the image and closed the request almost as fast as Pieter opened it. I guess it is a pity that, as an admin, your copyvios have not been dealt with before now. --Herby talk thyme 12:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I should hope that it is a positive thing that I deleted the image when the issue was brought up. Separately, it is not a positive thing for a user to abuse the deletion process, especially in light of the user's conflicts with me. -- Cirt (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The superfast deletion looks like an admin covering his tracks. The source was indicated in the description box, so uploader was well aware that this was not a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would rather I had voted delete, but as uploader it would have been a speedy delete anyways as self-requested by uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really self-requested... you complaint is that I requested deletion... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in that I wanted it deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice to jump quickly to a bad faith assumption, but how about "the user realised the nominator was probably right on X image and decided to save the community the time and trouble" as an alternative? Speaking personally, that's happened to me before in other times and circumstances. In those cases, some of my uploads (on en, not here) took place years ago before I fully understood copyright; alternatively, others have been so outclassed by efforts by later individuals that it is better to keep theirs than my redundant one. If someone believes it should be deleted and its uploader agrees, that would normally be a fairly easy speedy delete were the uploader not an administrator. Your campaign against Cirt, however, is starting to get a little tiresome and I suggest, as did Zscout, that you desist from it. As I said in another place, if his behaviour/uploads/whatever is really so objectionable then it does not need to be prosecuted by you as there are plenty of admins and others around. Orderinchaos (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cirt maybe ought to delete the other three images that come from the same source; probably not free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Abusing the deletion process how? Wknight94 talk 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Users should avoid using the deletion process to go after and focus on a particular individual's contributions, when the user has been in prior conflicts with that user. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of deletion process

The deletion process should not be used by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), as a way to go after a user's contributions of an individual he has been in conflict with. See comment from admin Zscout370, who said, "because of the issues I am seeing between you and Cirt on here and on the English Wikipedia, I respectly ask you to disengage from him." Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As the DR template says, uploaders should not take a DR personally. An admin should know that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 Comment -- See also how actions referred to by admin Zscout370 resulted in a warning of Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) [56], and when Pieter Kuiper continued the behavior pattern after the warning, a sanction of a topic ban [57]. -- Cirt (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, this is not enwp, where you hounded me with the Big Book of Rules; the topic ban that you got me there does not apply on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) OK - Pieter knows I am not his biggest fan. However I fail to see how this can be termed "Inappropriate use of deletion process". You have apparently uploaded copyright violations (worrying that an admin still has such). Pieter has tagged them. Having discovered that you do have them he is cleaning them out - I fail to see how you can consider this "Inappropriate use of deletion process". You may have issues with Pieter but I don't see him as being in the wrong here frankly. --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate given his clear problems with the user (not his behaviour) that he continue. If there is a problem, let someone with no history or bad blood look into it. If there is no problem, then fine - great. I'd also encourage Cirt to look through old uploads himself to see if there's any further ones lurking - we're not talking deliberate copyvio here, firstly, the rules change over time, and secondly, especially historically, they have been unclear and even advice given here has later turned out to be wrong (that is the fault of nobody, it just reflects where we're at as a volunteer-run enterprise that is gradually professionalising.) However, waging a form of personal warfare by using correct or arguably correct policy justifications to target a given user's work, especially when there's a documented history of unrelated conflict, seems more minded towards inflicting damage rather than improving the commons and has historically been recognised as poor community behaviour. Orderinchaos (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's forget users for a moment. The emphasis is on the fact that these are apparently copyvios. Someone needs to deal with them. If the admin won't/doesn't then frankly it is a bit rich to complain when someone else does the job. Clear the crap out and then there will not be any issues for this page. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying, first, Cirt should clear it up himself. These are old images he'd probably forgotten about. As far as I can see, he's never said that he wouldn't, nor was he ever given an opportunity to do so before this series of nominations was made. He's now aware - that's good. Then once he's done that, then someone who isn't using this as a grudge match against him can take a second look and see all is OK. Yes, copyvios are a problem where they exist, but there are better ways to sort them out that don't fuel people's malicious agendas. I once worked assisting people in employer cases and used to see this sort of stuff all the time. Orderinchaos (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 Comment - Rather than opening seven deletion discussions, it would have been better to discuss the issue with me on my talk page. This suggestion was made to Pieter Kuiper, but he ignored it [58]. The matter could have been resolved more amicably, and I would have self-deleted some of the images - avoiding the need for an entire deletion discussion about them. -- Cirt (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I gave you a chance to save yourself the embarressment with File:Lisa McPherson brick 2001.jpg, File:Lisa McPherson brick 2004 defaced.jpg, File:Lisa McPherson brick 2005 restored.jpg, File:Lisa McPherson brick 2005 full.jpg, but they are still there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed the manager of the website and I am awaiting a reply. Please be more polite, and avoid wording such as "to save yourself the embarressment". -- Cirt (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
And the above demonstrates another reason why dialogue is preferable to trying to beat one's opponent over the head with a metal pole. shooting first and asking questions later. Orderinchaos (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of beating someone with a metal pole? Not even Cirt's reporting me here comes close to that kind of violence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a common figure of speech in my country, I apologise if it offended. I'll substitute an internationally appropriate alternative. Orderinchaos (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure - but if they are copyvios they are copyvios - they get to go straight away. Discussions are not required about such files. I've deleted plenty, I've never discussed them. --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but it would be more COM:MELLOW to attempt to resolve the issue with the user through a polite inquiry on their user talk page, instead of starting multiple deletion discussion pages. This was never even attempted by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) starts another deletion discussion page, after he was made fully aware that I was already in contact with the website manager, and in the process of attempting to get more information about the images. Apparently Pieter Kuiper did not have the patience to wait until I heard back more information from the source of the images. -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Bynk also an alias of Cirt/Smee? How many more account should I approach Cirt for, to discuss copyright problems? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not that user, but I am the one that contacted the source of the images, and you could have discussed this with me and waited for a response. -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 Question If you don't want the files to be tagged, what do you expect Pieter Kuiper to do with the downstream users? -- User:Docu at 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see why Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) had to ignore my statement that I was in contact with the source of the images, and go straight to opening an 8th deletion request relating to my contributions on this project. -- Cirt (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant the downstream users other than Pieter Kuiper. -- User:Docu at 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant I am already dealing with the issue, through direct communication with the website manager who is the source of the images. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) seems to have deliberately ignored this fact. -- Cirt (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Downstream users are unlikely to check more than the file description page. If you don't want the file to be listed for deletion, you need to tag it yourself in one way or the other. This could be done by an OTRS pending tag (though I'm not sure if the OTRS team likes that).
Maybe new MediaWiki features will allow to unpublish files, but currently, a file is either there, deleted, or tagged somehow. -- User:Docu at 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes and there is no reason why Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) had to ignore my update that I was in touch with the source of the images, and no reason why he could not have waited until I had received a response. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Downstream users shouldn't have to wait for this. If the files need "clarification" that means they should be tagged in one way or the other. If Pieter Kuiper tags them or lists them for deletion, this is primarily a service for downstream users. -- User:Docu at 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflist X 2) I have to agree with Herby here. It doesn't really matter how copyvios get resolved - they need to get resolved. I suppose Peter Kuiper could tell someone else to start DRs, but that seems like a waste of valuable time. Let's just get them out and over with, and then this whole thing will go away. Whether he discussed with you first - which seems like an impossibility given the venom of the discussion here - or waits for you to contact so-and-so before nominating ---- that is all semantics that only serve to distract from the more important issue: that you have multiple copyvios in your upload log. Rather than spend time typing here, just go through your logs and find them yourself. If you find them before Peter Kuiper, then everyone wins. Wknight94 talk 14:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) never even attempted to discuss the issue, before going after my contributions, despite being given a suggestion to do so. The matter could be resolved, without the need for 8 different deletion discussion pages. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) is inappropriate as the individual to do this, due to his history of conflict with me. -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There were very different cases: YouTube videos that already were under discussion, inappropriately tagged court documents, derivatives of statues, and some blatant simple copyright violations. I notified uploaders, and I did take part in the deletion discussions. What more does Cirt want? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It would have taken all of a few seconds to start a discussion about the matter on my user talk page. Instead, Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) chose to ignore a suggestion to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not seeing why Peter Kuiper should be held to this other standard - coming to you directly about deletions rather than doing the typical DR process. A few of the DRs have or probably will result in "keep" - would you have told him to "keep" on your talk page? How about the ones that result in "delete" - you would have said "delete"? DR is an area for the community - including me - to weigh in on proposed deletions, and I don't see a reason to bypass that process other than you and Peter Kuiper don't like each other. Why should that impact whether or not I can weigh in on a proposed deletion? Now we're all being punished for your feud? Wknight94 talk 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a conflict of interest. If a user has been in conflicts with another individual, and has been sanctioned for such inappropriate behavior, it is not the right way to go about things by trawling that user's contributions and starting 8 different deletion discussion pages. If the reverse were the case, I would not behave in such a fashion towards Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wknight94 - if you just go delete the copyvios rather than continuing this it would make sense. I've said before I am not Pieter's biggest fan and maybe things could be done differently but I think he is right here. This is not "Inappropriate use of deletion process". --Herby talk thyme 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If I got into a conflict with Herbythyme (talk · contribs), the way to resolve that conflict is not for me to then go through Herbythyme (talk · contribs)'s contributions from years ago and start 8 separate deletion discussions relating to his work on this project. That would be inappropriate. It is here as well. -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment -- Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)'s first nomination came immediately after it was recommended that he talk over any concerns with me prior to nominating for deletion. He bypassed discussion and attempted to delete an entire category, which tied up several people's time before the material was kept. I am perfectly willing to delete any of my old uploads that do turn out to be inappropriate, but Pieter has never given me that opportunity. And a lot of the material he's nominated for deletion doesn't qualify for deletion. It's a waste of my time and the community's time to deal with a barrage of challenges to everything I have ever uploaded. -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If many of the DRs result in "keep" (I honestly have not checked), then that is the problem to focus on here. If someone successfully nominates files for deletion, I don't honestly care who does it. There is no conflict of interest in getting images successfully deleted. If Peter Kuiper is willing to do the appropriate work that the rest of us have not, then I applaud him for it. Hopefully the work is indeed appropriate and not just wasting the community's time. Wknight94 talk 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the "work" by Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) with respect to retaliating against me on this issue is indeed a waste of the community's time, unfortunately. Pieter even questions and attempts to get files deleted that were confirmed as free-use by COM:OTRS. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Further waste of community's time by Pieter Kuiper

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has further wasted the community's time again, further acting out his retaliation against me by posting to the OTRS Noticeboard, see [59]. The files were confirmed as freely-licensed per COM:OTRS. The owner and copyright holder of the files is Miles Fisher. This was confirmed after a double check by Raymond. Despite this, Pieter Kuiper ignored the confirmation and the double-check [60], and posted to the OTRS Noticeboard anyways. Simply a severe waste of the community's time, solely to entertain Pieter Kuiper's use of this project and its processes as a form of retaliation. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that had better turn out to be a legitimate question on Peter Kuiper's part or I for one may change my mind. Questioning OTRS permission for no particular reason does indeed smell like vindictiveness. Wknight94 talk 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the fact that the individual Miles Fisher has asserted ownership and copyright over the files and has also agreed to license those files by the license "PUBLIC DOMAIN", was confirmed by two different COM:OTRS checks -- [61] and [62]. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) was made aware of this, before he wasted the community's time by posting to OTRS Noticeboard. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wknight94: Cirt has protected very many uploads with OTRS tickets, and this one seemed particularly questionable. I asked at his user page, and I was not satisfied with his answers. So I asked at the OTRS notice board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Protected OTRS? I mean, as one of the more lackluster members of OTRS, I'm kinda curious... Do you not believe Rdj0060's work? Or Raymond's word? Yes, Cirt is on the defensive here, he feels (Rightly so from what I've read and seen of the behavior) that he is being targeted by one specific user... he's trying to get help and ... well that's up for debate still. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea that will once and for all solve this problem. Pieter, LEAVE CIRT ALONE. You've raised your issues with items in his past that might be copyvio, thank you. Now, please... go elsewhere. It is obvious you two have a past and intentions be damned (on both sides) you're still clashing. This conversation shouldn't be going on so long. Cirt had problem images, dealt with. Cirt feels that Pieter is harassing him, simple fix - Pieter doesn't bother Cirt. And Pieter, if you aren't "harassing" or even "Targeting" Cirt, than you won't mind wandering along and not bothering him. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, Pieter Kuiper had better have a good reason to bring up issues. If many of these DRs are ending with Keep and the OTRS questioning is turning up nothing, then it definitely needs to stop. Pieter, there is a fine line between defending Commons from poor content and harassment. Please don't get on the wrong side of that line. Wknight94 talk 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A copyvio is a copyvio. But we were all once unlearned, all once not admins.... and more importantly we're all human. I've deleted images that I uploaded because I later learned that they were copyvio, or fop violations... or something. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching but not commented until now, I'm happy to act as neutral party and recieve emails directly, I'm an OTRS agent so I can review any permissions if the needed and as an admin I can delete if the need arises. If everyones ok with this Pieter and Cirt can disengage over the matter we can close this thread and move on. Gnangarra 09:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I made an enquiry at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Photos of Miles Fischer uploaded by Erwinfletcher. I wrote that before I had seen Raymond's answer at User talk:Cirt#File:Miles Fisher in 2006.jpg. Although it does not really answer my questions (who did the OTRS volunteers correspond with? who were the photographers?), I am willing to accept his statement that there is no problem. But someone with insight in that correspondence should fix the content of the information boxes of those images. As it is now, there are quite a few contradictions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) continues to waste the community's time, for example continuing his behavior pattern of even questioning files that have been confirmed as free-use via COM:OTRS [63]. The problem is that Pieter Kuiper does not concede at all. When it is clear that a file should be kept he does not withdraw the deletion nomination or cease complaining about the issue - he simply tries a new argument for deletion, or goes after something else. This is taking time away from my content work. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If he's going to question COM:OTRS, then he can spend all his time at COM:OTRS/N. Why does that take up your time? Let OTRS deal with it. Wknight94 talk 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a waste of my time, because he is going after my work. It is a waste of the community's time, because his motivations are retaliatory in nature, and thus not grounded in good faith assumptions about the files, especially with regard to his attacks on my contributions that have been confirmed already via COM:OTRS. This is especially evident when he questions status of files confirmed with multiple OTRS checks already. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Relax. Relax. The issue isn't who's time is being wasted. The problem originally reported by Cirt, and what he is most understandably frustrated with is Pieter harassing him via every upload he's ever made. This is really gone on long enough. Pieter obvious read this thread where noted above where at least two admins say enough is enough. Now just in case there was any question what so ever as to the meaning of the posts above, I've left Pieter a final warning. This little "event" is ending here, today. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment If Cirt has uploaded copyvios we should thank Pieter Kuiper for finding it! Pieter should ofcourse not nominate 20 files if only 1 or 2 is "bad". But it seems to me Pieter has a pretty good "hit rate". There should be no need for Pieter to look for them - Cirt should find them fix the problem or make sure they were deleted.
Normally it should be enough to find an example or two because admins are expected to clean up their own mess. I find it hard to believe that Cirt will not check the uploads. I suggest that we give Cirt a few weeks to clean up and during that time Pieter should not nominate further images. If Pieter is able to find more "bad" images efter these weeks when Cirt says "All done" then I think he should be most welcome to try. Hopefully he will not succed but if he does I think we have worse problems... --MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that, but the OTRS fishing seems even more suspect. With those, Pieter Kuiper is insinuating such bad faith that even OTRS is involved. I would allow less time for that exercise (although it's not Cirt's time that is being wasted as much as people at COM:OTRS/N - regardless, I would be shocked if anything came from Pieter Kuiper's tries there). Wknight94 talk 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with asking OTRS-users to do an extra check of a permission. The template even says "To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.". Pieter asked Cirt about additional information "who is the author is this photo?" but Cirt never answered that question. I agree with Pieter that information on image did look a bit strange and when Cirt did not answer the question Pieter has no where else to ask. --MGA73 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given Peter a 24 hour block for trolling deletion reviews. [64] and [65] is pretty obviously him disrupting Wikipedia over the upset he expresses in [66]. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the result of that DR is correct then Pieters wotes to keep would probably also be right... I agree with you that Pieter could have done that in a better way by leaving a link to the other DR and said something like "A similar DR ended as keep.". --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's one of those situations where, out of context, it wouldn't be an issue, but he's on his final warning already, has shown himself ready to jump around users - ShakataGaNai warns him, and suddenly he's attacking her stuff, and making deletion comments about how horrible it was her stuff was kept. He needs to disengage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the plan MGA73 suggested. Do you also agree Cirt and are you willing to recheck your own uploads? Multichill (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there actual evidence of a pattern of problematic uploads by Cirt? As far as I can tell, there was a single issue, but Peter Kuiper was mainly just being harassing, challenging things just because he could. Whenever a genuine issue was pointed up, Cirt's been quick to fix it, just like an admin is expected to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This assessment by admin Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) is essentially correct. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Adam Cuerden: Since the issue "Was Pieter right?" or not keeps showing up I started this Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Who_was_right_-_Cirt_or_Pieter to debate the facts. In short: Cirt mention 5 DR's Pieter made regarding copyvios. 2 was deleted, 1 saved by a later OTRS and 2 are still in debate. Some might find that problematic! I for one is not convinced that Cirt has not other copyvios in his uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over Cirt's conduct as an administrator

ShakataGaNai, I think you are loosing proportions. There are several concerns over Cirt's conduct in this matter:

  • The initial deletion request Cirt quotes above should have been opened by Cirt himself. Rather than doing that, Cirt left a "please stop" notice on another user's talk page. Neither that user, another administrator, nor Pieter Kuiper mentioned concerns over copyrights as Cirt's comment suggests. It seems that Cirt still hasn't understood that.
  • Two other deletion requests listed above lead to Cirt speedy deleting his own upload. This precluded any non administrators to review the problems with these uploads. At least one request was opened after Cirt hadn't followed up on concerns that were raised on one of the image's talk pages.
  • One deletion request lead to an interesting "clarification" of the positions of the WMF in regards to the file.
  • It happens that users question OTRS tags and request clarification on these. Hundreds of files are deleted despite OTRS tags.

It is troublesome if a user is censored over questioning the uploads of an administrator when that administrator shows a lack of understanding of our deletion process and a lack of interested for our downstream users. It seems cynical when the administrator quotes "COM:MELLOW" when his own conduct already fails Commons:Not staying mellow#About mellowness: "It is good to be nice towards .. ". Maybe he just doesn't like Commons:Not_staying_mellow#Admins. -- User:Docu at 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


With all respect, are we really to believe that an administrator, having a problem pointed out to him with an upload, seeing it has merit, and deleting it is supposed to be in the wrong? If an administrator sees that he was clearly in the wrong about an upload's copyright status, I think that deleting it is exactly what he or she ought to do. Why should other administrators need to look over his shoulder, and check? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It raises concerns over his conduct when doesn't follow up on comment's on the file talk page, but speedy deletes files after a DRs and then opens a thread here complaining about these DRs having been opened. -- User:Docu at 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it really doesn't: Deleting the single file pointed up in a DR, because you think that specific one has merit does not make the much more numerous harassing DRs suddenly have merit, nor does it make him wrong to complain about the campaign as a whole. Nor is missing talk page comments, many of which were uploaded under a previous account, so he probably didn't even see them in the first place, a sign of any malice whatsoever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not alleging malice, but see File talk:May 1950 Astounding Science Fiction.jpg - Cirt had claimed "no renewal" without a sufficiently thorough check of the records; when he was made aware that copyright had been renewed, he took no action. But he is excessively defensive when I make a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - I'm in agreement with Adam here. Speedy deleting one's own old images when a flaw is identified is commendable, not suspicious - it saves the community the bother of debating something that is already in effect finalised. Orderinchaos (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) So this is my fault now? Anyways... There is absolutely nothing wrong with an admin speedying his own files. If you point out a file to me and say "Hey, I think that might be copyvio because of XYZ", and you're right, I'm gonna speedy it myself. You're right, it is bad. I mean, why would I let it sit there and languish in an un-necessary DR for people to look over and go "yay/nay" when we already know the answer. If my example were to have been a DR instead of a post on my talk page, I would have speedy closed/deleted that DR. Why? Same theory.
As for Cirt. /me shrugs - I see a guy being defensive about his work because he's being harassed by a user that he's had a history with before. I also see other admins starting threads on questioning his conduct when he says in the section above he's willing to go over his stuff and work things out. I know I'd feel targeted if it were me.... Just saying... --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, now we have wheel warring over whether Pieter Kuiper should be blocked infinitely?! Does Commons even have an ArbCom? Wknight94 talk 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbwho? Is that like a type of ice cream? I do love ice cream! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we hit the bottom. Didn't Adam Cuerden resign last week? -- User:Docu at 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


You're misreading the log, Wknight. The actual timescale is as follows:

  • ShakataGaiNi gives him a final warning, listing behaviour that will get him blocked.[67]
  • Pieter immediately begins nominating her(?) images for deletion. Whatever the merits, it's really suspicious he immediately begins concentratin on her uploads. [68], [69], [70]. This gives strong credence to the idea he's reviewing with the primary purpose to harass.
  • After her warning, Pieter makes several edits that give a strong appearance of disrupting Commons to make a point. He posted [71], then went to discussions related to de minimus and commented, in one case linking to his complaint: [72] and [73].
  • 24 hour block applied by me, since he was under so many warnings already that boundary-pushing behaviour was a problem.
  • Pieter appeals.
  • Peter Symonds unblocks, warning him to stick to behaviour advice, but saying that he thought that it wasn't clearly trollish enough for him to have to be blocked at that time.
  • Pieter almost immediately violates the terms of his final warning, by attempting to reopen an OTRS discussion. [74] This is forbidden for him to do, on pain of indef block. [75]
  • I block Pieter indefinitely.
  • I change my mind, reducing it to one month.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a wheelwar now for sure - Pieter was just unblocked again. Admins: Please communicate before unblocking/reblocking/reunblocking. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What the HELL? The unblocking admin didn't even bother to ask me what was going on, or he'd have gotten that list. That's totally out of line. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think we should all try to remain calm. I unblocked Pieter because I think blocking for this (good) edit is out of line. Pieter was has allready been unblocked once because of too little basis for a block so I really think that "next" block should be on more solid ground and not for indef or a month. I also think that admins should not reblock once their block has been undone.
I think that both parties could have done better in this situation. Cirt did some bad uploads and if Cirt had said "Thank you for telling me. I will check all my similar uploads" situation might have been avoided. Pieter tried to find out who the author of a file was and it seems to me noone tried to help him. Cirt could have told him when he asked and then we might not have ended in this situation.
I therefore hope that all involved users will take a deep breath and focus on getting bad files deleted or fixed and not on who is the worst user. --MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He was warned he'd be indef blocked if he continued his actions. He continued his actions. Violating the exact terms of your restrictions is NOT AT ALL an ambiguous block. You are WAY out of line. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Block is only right if warning was... Also see my response on my talk page. If I'm out of line I'm sure an other admin will find a better solution. In "hot" discussions like that I think we should only block/unblock once and let others decide. But best thing would be to discuss and reach a clear consensus before blocking/unblocking starts. It seems to me that there is not consensus yet that Pieter is the only user that did wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Given he's STILL violating the warning ([76], as well as a couple of Shakata's uploads), I think he needs a speedy reblock. If he can't even handle pulling back for one day, after getting blocked for it...

I told him he could discuss the warning here. Instead, he seems to think he can ignore it with impunity. I've given him warning to stop his violations of the warning immediately, and have again told him to discuss it here. But he's clearly just seeing what he can get away with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Violating the warning". What if the warning is not right? Lets suppose I say "Dear Adam. Please do not make any more edits related to Pieter. If you do you will get blocked." Does that give everyone the right to block you if you do? No ofcourse not. Only if my warning is concidered to be ok. Your timescale shows a very "black" side of the story. I think that things are often not black or white. To illustrate my point I have made a very "white" version:
  • Pieter finds out that Cirt has some bad uploads and informs Cirt.
  • Cirt does not fix all problems so Pieter gives Cirt some new examples
  • Cirt does not like that and tries to stop Pieter
  • Pieter does not stop because it is importaint that files are free
  • Cirt starts a complaint on AN/U
  • Pieter tries to explain what happend
  • Other admins do not like Pieter and uses the opportunity to give him a warning
  • You (Adam) finds a few edits and uses that as an excuse to block Pieter
  • A not involved admin finds block not correct and removes the block
  • You (Adam) does not like that and finds an other excuse to block Pieter
  • I remove the block because the warning is not correct and the blocks are not correct
  • Etc..
If you trust the "white version" of the story it is clear that there should not be a warning in the first place and that Pieter therefore is not violating anything. If you trust the "black version" Pieter is disruptive and should be stopped.
As I said cases are not black or white and I'm sure Pieter makes mistakes sometimes and that he could improve the way he talks to other users. But if you look at the edits related to Cirt you will se that he has a high rate of "being right". I think that telling Pieter not to report (possible) copyvios is a bad idea - we should instead help Pieter find better ways to inform Cirt or any other user if there is problems with the uploads.
But the headline of this part of the discussion is "Cirt's conduct as an administrator". And I think that Cirt should spend more time fixing the problems and less time on trying to stop Pieter from pointing at the problems. Cirt is not a bad admin for doing a few bad uploads so Cirt should not be afraid that other users check the uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is more complex than it looks in your summary, Pieter is subject to topic bans on en.wikipedia which occured after the matter was brought to the attention of ARBCOM by Cirt, the ban includes editing of article related to Scientology the images that Peiter has nominated included scientology interviews. While we shouldnt be beholden to issue from other projects this one has spilled here and it does have the apperance of being harassment by Pieter unfortunately there was at least one image in which there was an issue and Cirt fixed/deleted that. Pieter has been asked on a number of occassion including in this thread to disengage, I find the block by Adam as being appropriate for the level of harassement. Cirts action are accpetable in that he's attempting to not engage and continue the dispute across project yet he's still responded apprporiately to valid concerns Gnangarra 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I invite anybody who is interested in examining that link at enwp; clearly, Cirt is trying the same thing here as there. None of my deletion requests was wrong at the time; some have been closed as "kept", but only after Cirt obtained permissions. Have look at User talk:Smee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
@Gnangarra Yes things are never black or white. I think that whatever happend on en-wiki is of little relevance here. You could also argue Cirt got Pieter banned on en-wiki and now is trying to do the same thing here. (Who is stalking who?) What I have seen is that Pieter nominated some of Cirts images for deletion or questioned them. Cirt has for some reason tryed to prevent Pieter from checking his uploads. You can make many guesses why Pieter checks Cirts images and why Cirt does not want them checked. My reasoning for thinking that Pieters actions was acceptable was that he was right in more than one case and that Cirt at least in a few cases has done very little to help fix any problems. Had Pieter not been right in any of the cases or I would agree that Pieter should stop. But if he is right it will look very bad if we block him for pointing out errors made by an admin. --MGA73 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If Pieter Kuiper had disenaged as requested I could see the poistion being valid but he hasnt. Pieter wasnt be blocked for pointing out copyright violations but for harassment and that is the issue here. Secondly while we expect admins to operate at a certain standard Cirts uploads were as a contributor, any errors were not made by acting in function of an admin. Gnangarra 09:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree in both issues. But I would like to point out that it seems not all agrees that it is harassment. If Cirt had fixed the issues Pieter brought up without complaining I doubt anyone would have concidered it harassment. Or if it has been a well known and respected user I doubt a warning and a block had come so fast.
As I said above it is ok that Cirt (as a user) uploaded some bad files. We all make mistakes. Just check my user talk - I transfered a lot of files from enwiki with a free Flickr license but it turned out that not all was ok for Commons (FOP issues etc.). But I said "Thank You" once DR notices started comming in and I checked my uploads and deleted copyvios or nominated them for deletion if I was not sure. I did not try to "cover op" or scare users not to nominate "my files" for deletion.
As an admin Cirt has power and Cirt should be very careful not to use that in a way that can look as an attempt to "cover up mistakes". --MGA73 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you show me where Cirt has used power as an admin to "cover up mistakes". Gnangarra 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No. But as I said he should be careful not to act in a wau that can look as an attempt. And by trying to stop Pieter from finding anymore bad uploads Cirt act in a way that could look as if Cirt has something to hide. Also Multichill asked abowe if Cirt would be willing to check own uploads but Cirt did not say yes. If Cirt will not check own uploads and try to stop others that will check them it looks bad to me. --MGA73 (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
@MGA73, I agree with your assessment above except that you left out a line with some importance. After the warning from ShakataGaNai, Pieter Kuiper started going after his uploads as well: Commons:Deletion requests/File:WonderCon 2010 - Floor 015.jpg, File talk:Maker Faire 2008 San Mateo 13.JPG, this file, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg - which had already been closed as "keep". Even if correct, why did he not nominate everything in Category:R2-D2 and most in Category:Amazon Kindle 2? Is he righteously trying to keep Commons safe? Or is he only keeping it safe when it is in retaliation against an enemy? No one is going to come out of this looking good. Pieter Kuiper or Cirt or Adam Cuerden (who is even removing votes by Pieter Kuiper - a bad precedent indeed). Wknight94 talk 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your good arguments. I really like them. I never said Pieter does not make mistakes. But again the problem is that Pieter has a point with his new "nominations" - the files can be questionable and if anyone else but Pieter has asked I doubt that anyone would have been upset. As for reopening a DR sometimes result changes - I would perhaps have closed it as delete if uploader (!) had not speedy closed it. And as for R2D2 "Why not nominate the whole category?" is a bad argument for not deleting or not checking own upload (but I actually think we have a DR for a R2D2 that ended as keep?). I think the message that Pieter wants to send to ShakataGaNai is that "You make mistakes too". And if he only gives a few examples and let ShakataGaNai check relevant uploads before he starts a "mass attack" I think that that is acceptable. And ofcourse Pieter (or anyone else) should [not] (added this missing word later --MGA73 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)) nominate files for deletion if they know the result will be keep. That would be waste of time and disruptive. --MGA73 (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
MGA your right in saying if anyone else questioned the files we wouldnt be here, that because Pieter had an on going conflict with Cirt elsewhere and he specifically targeted files that were associated with the subject in dispute and an editor who was significantly involved. Through out this discussion Pieter has been continually asked to disengage with Cirt which he has ignored, he's then turned onto another editors uploads who expressed an opinion about his actions. This is harassment at its worst, your confirming the harrassment by saying the message that Pieter wants to send to ShakataGaNai is that "You make mistakes too". The simplist and the best solution for everyone is for Pieter to just disenegage which will see the harassment issue disolve, then we can all move on. I'm sure any of us would be happy to look at any further concerns Pieter has over the uploads of Cirt and ShakataGaNai, but that he should do it via email where we can make our own assessment rather the esculating the problems further. Gnangarra 14:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was suggested to Pieter to come directly to me with any additional concerns [77]. A correction to Gnangarra on the chronology: it actually started here on Commons (22 March 2010) with him nominating an entire category of my uploads for deletion on "out of project scope" grounds. So I wrote an article with over 40 sources to demonstrate that the subject was educational, and Pieter followed me to the other project and got topic banned there [78]. Once he was topic banned he returned to Commons and targeted me here again. I have never provoked him in any way. There isn't any "history" other than him singling me out for the last couple of weeks, and it's becoming unreasonable the number of hoops I have been asked to go through to demonstrate that the OTRS submissions nor the arbitration enforcement on the other project, etc. were correct. The few points he raised that weren't frivolous were handled promptly, and and they could have been resolved on a friendly basis without consuming the community's attention if he had approached the matter with good faith. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Gnangarra Yes it would stop dispute if Pieter did not check other files that Cirt had uploaded. But it would perhaps also mean that Commons hosted copyvios (not many I hope). As long as Pieter does an efford only to nominate/comment bad files I think he should be allowed to do that.
@ Cirt I noticed that you asked him to contact you on your talk page. It would be nice if Pieter followed your wish. But then you should also try to answer his questions if he does contact you. I point your attention to the OTRS-debate where he tried to get an answer on your talk page and when he did not get what he came for made a notice on OTRS-bord. Had you answered his question in the first place he would either have stopped or we would have a better basis for blocking him he dit not. --MGA73 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what Cirt calls as "friendly basis" started out with Cirt reading twice a notice that said "If you [i.e. Cirt] disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{Delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.'".
Instead of doing that, Cirt responded with a notice "Please stop tagging pages for speedy deletion that do not qualify as such - as you have now done, repeatedly, at [..]. The images are confirmed as free-use, per COM:OTRS. The images are within COM:SCOPE, as relevant to wikiprojects [..].."
He went on to comment about this on another users page to note "the user is still continuing with this pattern of disruptive behavior".
Pieter Kuiper just repaired an error of Cirt.
Unfortunatly, for some of the users participating in that discussion, this lead to a very unfortunate incident that lead one person having to withdraw a series of rather offensive comments (It happens to be one that Cirt mentions as having "suggested to Pieter to come directly to me with any additional concerns").
Supposedly all this can be considered "friendly" somewhere, but I don't think it is.
As an administrator, Cirt should strive to follow the usual procedures rather than attempting to label people with a "pattern of disruptive behavior" about questioning his uploads and removing deletion tags from his own uploads. Even worse, he is using his administrator tools to delete his own uploads prior to complaining about these being listed for deletion. -- User:Docu at 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over Adam Cuerden's conduct as an administrator

As a user making frequent deletion requests, I want to continue exposing my doubts about the files I review without feeling a threat of being blocked by admins who disagree.

I am a bit disconcerted by Adam Cuerden's blocking of Pieter on 6 April 2010. Although I have been involved in Deletion Requests for a few years, I don't remember seeing Mr Cuerden involved in the talks there, even once. I checked his deletion log, and although he has been an admin since November 2008 and made a number of speedy deletions, I don't see any file he mentions in the log summary as being deleted as the consequence of a Deletion Request.

I would rather someone with so little experience in Deletion Requests did not get involved in juging and punishing another user in a Deletion Request-related issue. Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, this was in regards to the above lengthy thread, and was enforcing a ruling made by anther administrator. I have given the justification in great detail above, and will gladly provide more information as needed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
In answer to your message on my talk where you summarize the problem as somebody "abusing the processes to harass people", I would like to say that in my view, the Deletion Requests is a process for collective decision making, and as such cannot be abused by a single person. To abuse it, one would need a plot involving at least two people : a request making person, and a request closing admin. The Deletion Requests is also a place where the enforcement of Commons policies is performed. Request makers' intentions should not be questioned beyond the purpose of enforcing those policies. If these policies are bad or have problematic loopholes, or need some amendments, these reforms and amendments should be discussed, but people should not be accused of whatever evil because they are merely trying to enforce existing policies. The other day I nominated a file for deletion considering what the picture was showing, considering some knowledges on the copyright laws in the concerned country and the available source and licence information provided together with the file. It is only after the "nominate for deletion" link software had automatically edited the uploader's talk page that I discovered the uploader's identity and found out that he was a Commons Administrator (for whom I have otherwise nothing but respect and trust). However I did not revert my request, because in my view files uploaded by administrators should be treated the same way as files uploaded by non-admin users. Teofilo (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Pieter again

To put a not to fine of point on it, this is just stupid. Pieter continues to harass Cirt, even though he's been warned, even though he's been blocked twice (or thrice?) in the last 24 hours over it. I really don't give a damn that he's nominating my stuff, fine, but he's obviously on vendetta's. It has been shown and proven that is all Pieter does. He isn't here for the good of the community, or the good of commons. He's just here to get back at people, and whom ever has angered him the most at the moment, suffers his wrath. I left him a talk page warning and he IMMEDIATELY goes through my entire upload list. I'm not saying that every edit of his is bad, definitely not, he's made some good contributions. He even categorized at least one of my images (yay! we wuvvle cats). But on the overall, he is just running vendettas. And as for commentary such as "I think the message that Pieter wants to send to ShakataGaNai is that "You make mistakes too".". I'm sorry, but that is total rubbish. I've made it very clear that I accept the fact that I make mistakes and are willing to rectify them. He is just gaming our system and using it to abuse those he doesn't like. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wheel-warring.
There is no consensus for such a block. A proposal was made to Cirt and he didn't accept it. -- User:Docu at 17:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the action taken by Shakata - the original decision to block, based on Pieter's violation of pre-existing conditions upon which he'd been warned, was a fair one and the unblocking administrator in my view made a good faith error. Orderinchaos (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
He's on a vendetta. He just jumps from person to person. I fully agree that some of his contribs are useful, but vendettas are not acceptable. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support block. It is not wheel warring to block for continued disruptive behavior after a previous unblock, despite additional warnings. Durova (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper was just blocked by User talk:ShakataGaNai for a month after an exchange of words at User talk:ShakataGaNai. I strongly object that ShakataGaNai as an involved admin blocked this user and I strongly object against the length of this block. Multichill (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've exchanged words, and I've even received the early Christmas gifts of DR's. So be it, I don't mind. I've deleted my own images before, and I'll accept it more do. I was uninvolved when I filled that warning, and I intend to keep it. PK can try to game our system and use our rule of being uninvolved against us, but I wont stand for it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
All Shakata did was reimpose the original block on the original terms by Adam Cuerden, an uninvolved admin, which had been unsatisfactorily rolled back. I think, however, that being attacked by a problem user who one has just warned does not qualify one as "involved" - if so, it would be the perfect device for any troll. Were they to be more broadly engaged prior to today, I would say you had a strong point. Orderinchaos (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, how did you come across this thread? -- User:Docu at 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been here for days, if you look more carefully at the various threads above. Orderinchaos (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice "various threads", but only just a set of threads of Pieter Kuiper. It happens to start with one where you agree with a statement that had to be withdrawn later on. -- User:Docu at 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
And this is relevant because....? Docu, any user is entitled to air their views on an issue, and as someone who used to assist people in the workplace on bullying matters, I saw an emerging pattern which I felt needed someone to call it out. I had never heard of Pieter Kuiper before the Aaron Saxton controversy at en.wiki (which turned out to have originated here, as I found out when I was investigating it) which ended at Arbitration Enforcement. My editing interest is Australian politics and geography - that'd be pretty obvious from my uploads here. My past dealings with Cirt include him taking me to dispute resolution and demanding my desysopping in November 2009. I'm certainly not a truck for either side, if that is what you are implying. And as for the "withdrawn", I made a comment in the Australian idiom which I did not realise would be misunderstood; once I realised it had inadvertently caused undue offence, I opted for one in the American idiom instead as it was more likely to get the point across. Orderinchaos (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not suppert block. Pieter does not harass Cirt - he tryes to clean up after some bad uploads Cirt made. There was not a concensus to ban Pieter from working with topics related to Cirt ad therefore we can not block Pieter for doing that. Pieter is being blocked and warned by involved admins and that is not good. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Seriously not trying to sound like an ass, but you're not involved (and I am?)? You showed up the to party here shortly after I did. The only difference is that PK hasn't taken his vendetta against you. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think you sound like an ass - at least not more than I do :-D . Yes I'm probably involved now that I unblocked once. That is why i comment here instead of contributing to the blocklog. --MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have followed this case too. The block of Pieter is unright. It should be perfectly acceptable to point out problems with administrators' uploads. Even if Pieter is on a vendetta, he is raising very relevant issues with files and Pieter does not have some good contributions he has a lot. Administrators should not take deletion requests personal. I'm strongly against this block. Nillerdk (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While we are on the subject

I'd like to remember a few things to Pieter: It has been more than one month that Pieter performed uncategorisation on files belonging to an user category. There were conditions on user:Lilyu agreeing to it that were never fullfilled by Pieter (see here for example. Can I ask for the conditions to be applied and for possible sanctions versus Pieter to be taken since he never intented to apply these and while he still performed the uncategorisation knowing that and did nothing since. Esby (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Is it just me or has this spiraled out of control a bit? ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. Lupo 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not just you. A few days absence and I come back to see this mess... --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested way to solve this

Nobody wins here. We cannot turn back time and do it right. We can only try to find a compromise that most users think is ok. So the suggestion I have here is not perfect. I made it after discussions on several pages around Commons and on IRC.

Finding bad files is good work and should normally be awarded. Pieter has demonstrated that he is good at finding files with (possible) problems. Normally that does not lead to a dispute. Out standard notice even tells users not to take a nomination personal. Uploader does not need to like it but has to respect that and should not try to get revenge on nominator.

The normal response to a DR would be that uploader comments the DR and try to fix any problems. Also uploader should consider if there is any uploads with a similar problem. If there is they should all be fixed. If file is kept without finding problems nominator should learn and avoid nominating similar files. During a dispute both parties may find it hard to stay focused on main object of Commons. That leads to unneeded tensions and arguing and we risk doing more damage than good. As someone said it is better to host a few copyvios for a while than loose good contributors.

It is therefore better to let the case rest for a while. "Bad files" will probably be found later anyway. Therefore doing a check of users' contributions you are in a dispute with is not good and should be avoided. Some would call it vindictive and disruptive to the project.

I therefore suggest this:

  1. Both parties should avoid contact with each other for a while. In existing cases where they are both involved in a debate they should both try to minimize edits and if an edit is very important then keep it calm and civil. Perhaps the best would be only to comment if someone asks “Will you comment this?”
  2. Cirt should consider if any uploads should be fixed or deleted. If yes make the necessary edits. If no files are likely to be “bad” it is not needed to check every single upload. If there are open questions they should be answered even if they are annoying.
  3. Pieter should respect that even if it is possible to find bad uploads among the things Cirt or any other users he may have a dispute with then that could do more harm to Commons that keeping the files a little longer. Therefore Pieter should not search for files to nominate for deletion etc. uploaded by users he has a dispute with.
  4. If Pieter finds bad uploads of users he does not have a dispute with he should consider leaving a note on User talk instead of making a DR. And arguments should be as good as possible.
  5. If Pieter agrees on the terms above (or whatever we can agree on) then I think the block should be lifted.

I know he edited against a warning but the project does not benefit from blocked users and since there were open disagreements among admins Pieter might have thought it was ok to continue. At least it was not clear what was ok and what was not ok.

I would like to hear what other users think of this is this acceptable and if not please make a better compromise. --MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but since it addresses specific behavior patterns that we, as a community, should consider inappropriate, I can support it. Bastique demandez 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the spirit of this, as long as they truly separate until tension eases. If Pieter Kuiper leaves a single image question on Cirt's talk page every 3 hours for the next 2 weeks - allowable by the terms above - Cirt will certainly get agitated and we'll be back here again. Maybe a batched list of images would be best to minimize communication. Wknight94 talk 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Bastique, works for me. Anything would be better than what we have now. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The false parity implicit in this doesn't sit well. Cirt has never sought out Pieter Kuiper or initiated the conflict. There is no need to demand that Cirt avoid contact with this person in future. And since most of Pieter's nominations regarding Cirt's uploads have proven to be groundless there is no need to impose special demands upon Cirt for self-review. We can probably take it on good faith that Cirt will be as diligent in that regard as any other Commons administrator. Otherwise the compromise looks pretty good. Durova (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. (Since you seem to be replying to me) I see conflict aggravating factors on both sides. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I suggested that Cirt concidered if any uploads should be fixed was that my impression was that Pieter WAS right in many nominations. But lets avoid to start that debate in this section :-)
The reason I suggested that Cirt should also try to avoid Pieter is that if Cirt can talk to Pieter but Pieter can not reply without getting blocked it would be too easy for Cirt if he wanted to get Pieter blocked.
@Wknight94 I fail to see that Pieter can nominate images every 3 hours. That is ofcourse not the intend. If something should be made more clear it is ok with me. --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Replying to the opening post of the subthread rather than you in particular, Lar. Earlier in this discussion MGA 73 had supposed that Cirt had manipulated the arbitration enforcement at a sister wiki. That isn't the sort of thing one ought to presume, sight unseen. MGA 73 seems to overlook how Pieter's OTRS challenges were misfiled and turned up nothing, and that Pieter singled out ShakataGaNai in a way similar to the pursuit of Cirt. This sort of pursuit is bewildering when it happens without provocation; neither Cirt nor ShakataGaNai have responded in ways that merit formal reprimand. Durova (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that we do not agree on wether the OTRS challenge were misfiled or not. But lets try to focus on what we whould do to solve the problem. --MGA73 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The venue of OTRS challenges is a minor matter. What is not a minor matter is to unblock without confirming that most of the deletion nominations were meritless, suggesting the person who had been targeted ought to thank the person being unblocked, and then propose a sanction against the person who was targeted. The spirit of handshakes and olive branches is excellent, though. Let's chalk this up to experience and move on. Durova (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note: Pieter has refused to agree to be bound by the remedy suggested here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Pieters response. Pieter made a response on his talk page. He does not find the suggestion acceptable as it is. Pieter thinks that it makes it possible for Cirt to "scare people" to silence and getting away with uploading copyvios. (My wording. Please check his talk page for excact words).
I left an aswer for Pieter on his talk page. Cirt should ofcourse not be allowed to upload copytios or scare users to keep silent - noone should. The trick is to solve problems without getting into a dispute. If that fails it is better to ask that others have a look. Lets see if Pieter can agree on that. --MGA73 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


[Edit conflicted] Just to note: Pieter has refused to agree to be bound by the remedy suggested here. Honestly, I don't think there's any way to arrange an unblock, since Pieter has consistently shown unwillingness to agree to any restrictions that would diffuse this.

Allow me to enumerate. As it's a little heavy on the diffs, I've bolded the most relevant parts as regards why I think it's impossible to get him to stop his disruptive behaviour with anything short of a block.

  1. ShakataGaiNi gives Pieter a final warning to disengage, on pain of indef block
  2. Pieter is blocked [83].
  3. He gets unblocked. I shall spare you a repeat of my views on this.
    • Result: He immediately returns to stalking Cirt's uploads. [84]) and ShakataGaiNi's ([85])
  4. I tell him to stop this behaviour until such time as he has the final warning declared invalid. I ask him to open a thread here to get it overthrown, before he blatantly flounts the warning.
  5. Is reblocked. MGA73 suggests this restriction to him. )[89])

I think the pattern is clear. Any restriction will be flouted. Requests that he discuss restrictions before flouting them will be rejected. He wants to do what he wants to do, and I don't see any way we can stop the problematic behaviour short of a block, at least at this time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was ready to say "throw the book at him", but then I looked at the diffs for your point 5, just as a sanity check. I find that I don't agree with the emphasis you've given, his words are much more reasonable than your summary makes them out to be. They may still not admit of a solution but your characterization may be doing a disservice. We may want someone a bit more detatched to do an evaluation of the situation as well. That's not me, I've had several disputes with Pieter over the years, I am not sure I'm detached enough, but I feel you may not be either. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Very well, another diff, with quotes:
  • Bastique tells him "Vindictive behavior is disruptive. You're being blocked for being disruptive, which is a valid blocking reason [... Vindictive behavior is disruptive. You're being blocked for being disruptive, which is a valid blocking reason. It doesn't matter whether it's an admin whose contributions you're stalking or another users, it's all the same thing. If you can reconcile these facts, and promise never to act on this behavior, I'd consider asking someone to remove the block, but you don't seem to realize that what you're doing is poisonous and permitting it causes great harm to any sense of community.]"


This is now four different admins, at least - Me, ShakataGaiNi, MGA73, and Bastique - that have tried to get him to stop his behaviour, only for him to dig in his heels and refuse. If we agree that his behaviour is a problem - and using commons processes certainly is - then I don't see how we can unblock him until he agrees to something.
I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I do think that, before we can unblock, he needs to agree to change his actions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I do not endorse Pieter's block, and I don't think the initial warning issued issued by ShakataGaNai reflected a consensus among admins (or users) at the time (so a block based on that warning is quite unjustified). I have the feeling that this whole situation got out of proportion because on one hand, Cirt took those DRs very personally and tried very hard to protect his own uploads, and on the other hand, Pieter can be a bit abrupt in his ways, and very persistent when he sets his mind to something. I don't think anyone should be blocked for this; everything happened in a rather short time frame, so calling it harassment seems premature, and the DRs were not groundless. Besides, Pieter has always been very active around DRs (and is quite knowledgeable about it), so it's not that unusual that he would review someone else's uploads.
The proper course of action, in my view, would have been for Cirt to let the DRs run their course; then either most of them are closed as keep and we can start suspecting that Pieter is just making random DRs against Cirt, or most of them are closed as delete or result in a permission being granted, in which case Pieter is just doing a fine job. But we need to let some time pass before we intervene, in order to see the big picture; I wonder why it was so urgent to get Pieter blocked. –Tryphon☂ 15:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you think of the warning, Pieter should not have broken it without at least discussion with Shakata, here, or similar. I told him that in the first discussion of it. Further, when I I again asked him to temporarily stop his behaviour, in favour of discussing the warning here and getting it declared invalid, he refused to. If Pieter agreed to stop his behaviour even temporarily, I'd gladly unblock, and he could then join this discussion, and we could decide what, if anything needed to be done.
But he was under a warning, and refused to even temporarily stop his behaviour in order to appeal the restriction. You can't just ignore warnings, particularly after being told exactly where to appeal twice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec, to Tryphon) Cirt hasn't taken the nominations "very personally"; the ones that valid he self-deleted promptly, as he should. That few had been uploaded 3+ years ago. The problem here has been that even after Cirt wrote an article with 40 sources to demonstrate that a category was not only within project scope but had been the subject of international news and quoted on the floor of the Australian senate, Pieter continued to push for deletion. Pieter has approached this matter as if content items were pawns in a chessgame between editors. He could have resolved matters with zero drama if he had engaged in reasonable give and take. Durova (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not agre that Cirt has not taken it personally. He made this complaint! Cirt uploaded some copyvios and other bad files. Pieter found them and Cirt did not like the way it was done. Normally we say "shame on you" to the person who uploads copyvios - in this case we say it to the person who finds them! I find it really bad to block people for looking for copyvios. Lets not forget that Pieter had a point with many of the files that Cirt used as examples (they was deleted or saved by a later OTRS).
The issue here is that Pieter searched for copyvio etc. uploaded by users he had a dispute with. Some would say "Who cares? As long as he hunt down copyvios he should be welcome to do so!" others think "No, he should not look for bad stuff for users he has a dispute with. It is stalking - even if he is right. It creates a bad climate on Commons."
And yes Pieter could have stopped it if he had not looked for copyvios. But Cirt could also have stopped it by not uploading copyvios or by checking own uploads when Pieter found the first bad file. It is easy to blame it all on Pieter because "we do not like him". We should focus on cleaning out the copyvios etc. that Cirt has uploaded in a way that does not do more damage than good. --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, did folks see the latest message from Pieter Kuiper? He has given a pretty comprehensive list of the remaining issues he has with both Cirt's and ShakataGaNai's uploads. I'm no expert but they sound like issues that might be worth discussion. Moreover, it is a finite list. He is not promising some endless stalking campaign - he has what appears to be a legitimate list of uploads that need examination. So what else do people want to hear in order that he be unblocked? Wknight94 talk 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No. Hell no. Pointing to categories with several hundred files in them as your list of what you want to go through may be finite, but it solves none of the problems. Are we really going to give him permission to keep this up for years, because after that time, he'll have run out of files? Get him to come up with actual lists, not several-hundred-item blanket categories. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well obviously since he has a type of file he is referring to, it doesn't need to be discussed one at a time. It could be done in one generalized DR. We - Pieter Kuiper included - need to be practical. Wknight94 talk 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Who was right - Cirt or Pieter

I tryied to find a solution above but still the issue keeps showing up. Who was right - Cirt or Pieter. Was it copyvios or did Pieter nominate files for no reason. I suggest we try to seperate the discussion in two 1) Was Pieter right? 2) Did he raise issues in the right way?

This thread is supposed to answer only question 1) Was Pieter right?

Lets look at the issues that Cirt complaints above:

  1. Complaint of Pieters edit [90]. As for the comment Pieter made I see nothing wrong with that. Questioning scope is ok – even if DR later ends as with keep. The comment regarding OTRS is not relevant since a OTRS does not prove that a file is in scope!
  2. Complaint that Pieter nominated file for deletion instead of debating it to Cirts talk page [91]. Cirt does NOT decide what is in scope and what is not. A DR is the right place to try to establish scope or not for a file. Note 6 users vote keep and 4 votes delete. Closing admin closes as keep. Again OTRS is used as an argument but OTRS.
  3. Complaint that Pieter nominates a file for DR [92]. File is later saved by permission from author.
  4. Complaint that Pieter nominates a file for DR [93]. File is deleted as a copyvio!
  5. Complaint that Pieter nominates a file for DR [94]. There is reasonable doubt that file is as free as Cirt claims. Nominating file is therefore OK.
  6. Complaint that Pieter nominates a file for DR [95]. File is deleted as a copyvio!
  7. Complaint that Pieter nominates a file for DR [96]. DR is not closed yet. Only Cirt and Pieter has commented. I can not tell if that DR is correct or not.

So Cirt has 7 complaints to start with and you cannot say that Pieter was wrong with any of them. Pieter found 5 possible copyvios: 2 was deleted and one was later saved by a OTRS and 2 files are still in debate. I would therefore say: "Pieter was right" or "Nominations was ok". (The only issue is that Pieter reported the copyvios while he was having a dispute with Cirt but as I said I think we should the discussion in 2 parts). --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick note that Pieter Kuiper has a similar list on his talk page. I was too lazy to cross-reference - maybe you have the same list. Wknight94 talk 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed. But I only checked the edits Cirt used in his first complaint. --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC) ... but if I count the red links then 6 copyvios was deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Pieter is not right when he stalks editors' contributions. It is poisonous behavior. If Cirt's uploads are unfree, someone who is not acting in bitterness and bad faith will eventually get to them. Pieter's behavior is disruptive to the project, is already a time sink on no less than 8 administrators as well as other contributors. If he continues to nominate Cirt's uploads, he'll be blocked for disruption for a longer period. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither. Both were wrong for different reasons, both are right for different reasons. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@Bastique In this small part of the discussion I only try to find out if Cirt uploaded copyvios or not. 90 % of the discussion has been "Should Pieter nominate Cirts images?" I think there is room for a discissuon "Did Cirt upload copyvios?". Please lets keep "the stalking issue" in one of the other parts of this discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, this is inappropriate. The reaction to someone harassing and stalking a user should not be its expansion into a group of people pillorying and stalking the user, when said user was clearly acting in good faith, and any issues being found are years and years old. This is a highly inappropriate distraction from the issue. Cirt has had wild accusations made about him throughout this. Everything has been claimed from:

  • Cirt not noticing a message on a file talk page uploaded as Smee evidently shows he willingly refused to engage, as opposed to not seing it.
  • Cirt attempting to avoid contact with someone banned over harassment of him on en-wiki is also seen as malfeasance.
  • Malicious speculation that en-wiki was tricked by Cirt into banning Pieter, wihout the slightest bit of evidence for that extreme attack.

The behaviour of some people on here, who think that in order to defend Pieter theyy must drag Cirt through the mud, and make him run the gauntlet, is disgusting. This is Wikimedia Commons, we are supposed to be mellow. A user is abusing our processes to harass Cirt. When ShakataGaiNi tred to stop him, he immediately began attacking her in exactly the same way, blatantly flouted the warning, and... well, y'get the idea. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pot and kettle. Did not Durova ask Cuerden to stop following her around? Did not admins remove personal attacks on her from his talk and user pages?
(ecx2) What ShakataGaNai said. But my point is that this section is irrelevant. This is habitual behavior by Pieter. I first noticed to this discussion when Pieter started nominating SGN's uploads immediately after SGN posted a warning on Pieter's page. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper must have the right to report questionable pictures uploaded by another user without being accused of stalking that user. The blocking of him seems unsubstantiated and I think he should be unblocked. You should be thankful for the fantastic job Pieter Kuiper does here, instead of blocking him and accusing him of such absurdities.Obelix (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This section is NOT about if it is ok to stalk people or to do a lot of other things. It is only about the uploads Cirt made. Was it copyvio or not? You can ot say Pieter stalked ShakataGaiNi therefore Cirt did not upload copyvios. Therefore ShakataGaiNi is not relevant in this section. Can we agree that Cirt uploaded copyvios? If the answer is "Yes!" We can close this discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
MGA, was Pieter banned on en.wikipedia? did Pieter specifically nominate files here that were uploaded by Cirt that were of the subject matter for which he was banned? Has all this happend since the ban? How has Pieter responded to requests to disengage? How has Pieter responded to warnings about his actions? Does Pieter have a past pattern of similar behaviour? Can we expect that behaviour to be repeated again in the future? Its the way in which Pieter has acted that is the issue. Cirt has tried to act in a manner befitting an admin by avoiding engaging a person who has issue from another project and has brought that here, thats never an easy thing to do as you pointed with Adam recent issue with Durova. Making Cirt out to be some copyright villian and Pieter Commons saviour from this is absolutely ridiculous, we can close this discussion now because no one has disputed that Cirt had uploaded a copyright violation they only have concerns with the way Pieter has acted. Gnangarra 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Does any of these questions change the fact that Cirt uploaded copyvios or bad files? The reason I brought this up was that some users keep saying that Cirt did not upload copyvios and if he did it was only one file and that Pieter nominated the files with no reason.
The reason I find it interessting to find out if it Cirt uploaded copyvios or not is this: 1) If Pieter was wrong we should block him for makeing DR's without any reason. No need for a long discussion. 2) If Cirt uploaded copyvios should we block users for looking for copyvios at users they have a dispute with?
It seems to me that many thinks "Yes block a user that finds copyvios uploaded by users he has a conflict with". Well what if I find (or know) an admin that does a good work hunting down copyvios - even if users scream and yell on that admins talkpage - should that admin be warned and blocked for finding copyvios uploaded by users he has a dispute with? I really hope not.
And a funny thing is that it is said that Pieter should be blocked for working with files Cirt uploaded because the have a dispute. Well ShakataGaNai also has a dispute with Pieter and yet he blocks Pieter. Why may ShakataGaNai block a user he has a dispute with? If it is so bad to engage with someone you have a dispute with why is ShakataGaNai not warned and blocked for that? Could it be that some users does not like Pieter and that if why he is blocked and other users are not? --MGA73 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like you've created this section as a way to excuse Pieter's bad behavior, and now you're continuing to defend yourself by continuing to avoid the main issue; that Pieter's behavior is inexcusable; and whether or not Cirt unknowingly uploaded copyright infringing material still does not excuse Pieter's behavior.
MGA73, any argument that suggests that Pieter is being blocked because "some users do not like him" comes right out of Junior High School, and I am highly disappointed that you would resort to such a childish defense. This has nothing to do with people liking or not liking. Pieter gets mad at someone and makes frivolous nominations of their contributions. If Pieter was sincerely interested in helping this project, he'd not target people he's mad at and pick out the thousands of obvious copyright infringements we get every day that nobody seems to bother with. But no, he's only interested in nominating marginal items and harassing good contributors. Pieter is wasting this project's time and it's time he stopped. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree that nominating copyvios waste of time! I really hope that it is only a few admins that thinks that. The only issue is if it is acceptable to nominate copyvios when you have a dispute with that user. My point is that when admins "hunt" users they have a dispute with then nothings happens. But when Pieter does that he gets blocked.
The only reason I made this section is that some users keep insisting that the nominations was not correct. I find that minipulating and dirty play. If no one tried to hide or twist the truth then this discussion probably would have ended days ago. 6 copyvios was deleted, some was later saved by a OTRS and more is discussed - that is the truth even if you do not like it! --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got new info that makes me believe that what Bastique meant was that even though Pieter is right about some of the uploads it would be better if he focused on some of the copyvios that other users upload and it would save us all time and trouble. I can totally agree on that. If everyone (or most of us) can agree on that we only need to discuss if it should be an advice or a must and what should happen if Pieter disagrees. I suggested a compromise above and I still think that it would work. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(indent)This whole tread of discussion is so confused that I'm not sure where to post this, leaving the note here (feel free to move it somewhere else): I've posted a request for review of the one month block of Pieter Kuiper on COM:AN/B. , Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_12&oldid=264579080"