Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 17

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

User uploading copyrighted government photos

Hello. User Coronades03 has recently uploaded images from Colombia government web pages, like this or this one. He states that they are allowed because "the copyright holder is properly attributed and don't made bad use of them". However, the webpages from where he took those pictures ban any unautorized use. Also, in previous contributions he clearly spoofed OTRS tickets in order to keep that kind of photos, and even he keeps reverting changes by OTRS team members like this and this one. I’m asking you to block this person and delete all of those files. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 19:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you're getting a little impatient (see topic a few below), so I thought I'd let you know why I haven't evaluated this case. Simply, I do not speak Spanish, and many of the laws and permission links referred to (by both you and Coronades) are in Spanish. Thus I think it best for me to leave it for a Spanish speaking admin to deal with. I hope one comes along soon, please be patient. --99of9 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@Linfocito B, same problem. As the cited document is rather long and available only in spanish, you might have specified the exact paragraph you are referring to. --Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I've found that § 3.1 is relevant: Este sitio de Internet y su contenido son de propiedad de la Presidencia de la República. Está prohibida su reproducción total o parcial, su traducción, inclusión, transmisión, almacenamiento o acceso a través de medios analógicos, digitales o de cualquier otro sistema o tecnología creada, sin autorización previa y escrita de la Presidencia de la República.
Sin embargo, es posible descargar material de www.presidencia.gov.co para uso personal y no comercial, siempre y cuando se haga expresa mención de la propiedad en cabeza de la Presidencia de la República."
In short, content of this website is NC (and whatever more restrictions). However, these restrictions may be waived by an individual permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Individual permission that was never asked, and I might add that was spoofed using wrong OTRS codes. So ok I'll be patient, but people: has anyone noticed this is an official administrator's noticeboard? The thread "The person reading this - yes, you." doesn't belong here and is unrespectful both for foreigners (that might don't understand cultural references or jokes) and/or people that don't know how things works here. Sorry to bother you. I know, everyone here are volunteers of to the same wikidream. Thanks. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a Spanish speaking administrator with OTRS access. I did a quick review of this case and I've found some images tagged with false OTRS ticket numbers and problematic licensing claims. I'm still investigating this & I have requested the help of my fellow agents from the spanish speaking OTRS team. We will be activelly reviewing this case and acting upon it. Thanks for the report. --Dferg (talk · meta) 00:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The person reading this - yes, you.

Since it will happen sooner or later anyway, I would like to complain about (insert your name here) who has engaged in (adjective) and disruptive (verb)ing regarding (images/category). (User) has also made personal attacks (diff) (diff) (diff) and accused (other user) of (bad thing). Please ban (him/her/it/gender-neutral pronound of your choice) immediately. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Create a template --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
{{J'accuse}} maybe? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to close the Administrators' noticeboard/User problems-section? --High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No! But perhaps a more effective method for dispute resolution than all this haranguing could be devised, like English WP has? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I love the idea that anyone thinks en wp handles dispute resolution well... --Herby talk thyme 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it 's a good direction to move towards. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 seriously... Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
<lols> Diego Grez return fire 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
English WP handles disputes well. That's not an idea it's a fact. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So, mighty sysop, please enlight us. I requested this and the only thing you resolved is to just make an indirect and inmature joke of this section of this noticeboard. I don't know (and neither care) how do you things in en:wiki, but in es:wiki we respect newcomer users and teach them the way things work. Sorry, I know this was not an answer for my request, but I took it like it were and I'm feeling really pissed up..... Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Linfocito B,
hmm, the thread above your comment is totally unrelated to your request. If you look at most of the other threads on this page, you will easily realize this. Nobody was joking about your request. Please remember that all those who do the "dirty" (or cleaning) work here, are volunteers and usually have a lot of other things to do. In addition, as nearly all things surfacing at the administrator boards are conflicting and nasty, please leave us our freedom to do something (sort of) pleasant/funny every now and then. There is so few of this as of recently. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess Linfocito might be more inclined to forgive if someone actually responded to their request above on this page. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Abusive admin mattbuck

Mattbuck is currently engaged in malicious abuse of power by (having a POV/uploading things about things I dislike/misplacing punctuation marks/doing stuff/destroying stuff/not doing stuff) and making personal attacks against me and everyone else here. This is clearly racist towards Swedes and whatever the rest of you are. I demand immediate blocking and removal of his rights don't actually request any action at all; I just wanted to whine. LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Túrelio, who is clearly a (sockpuppet/meatpuppet/meatsock/cabalist/cannibal/cabbage head) is vandalizing my comments! LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Por todos los Santos... --Dferg (talk · meta) 17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The use of colours by LX clearly demonstrates his homophobic views. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

vote

lets vote about it!


Result: 1 support, 1 denied, 1 oversaturated = ZooFari 00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Drork

Now that his sock Kakh-and-no-kakh is blocked, Drork (talk · contribs) is continuing edit warring, see his contribution list, for example this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that most of his edits are an attempt to implement (one side of) my proposal ("per understandings"). I haven't covered descriptions imported from third parties (which we don't always accept unmodified), so I suppose that can be considered a grey area. In this case Drork's version seems more matter-of-fact. Speculating on what someone "would have done" seems unneccessary. Are there any other edits you think are actually bad? --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've now looked further into the edits, and have noticed a few imperfect ones, but one that I started fixing turned out to have already been fixed by SD before I finished! Let's hope the wiki process continues to work... --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think avoiding specifying whether Golan Heights is in Israel or Syria, and adding the relevent categories for both countries where appropriate is a good move. Whether there is consensus to do so is probably less clear but I hope there is. It is a sensible compromise. What I'm not sure about is why Drork hasn't actually been blocked for misusing Kàkhvelokákh? We've got enough to deal with here without having users creating new identities to stir things up even more. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Why hasn't Drork been blocked for Kàkhvelokákh? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Move . Please move this post to the appropriate place as out of topic. If you want to help user Supreme Deliciousness get out of block please post regular commant. Shifting the debate is inappropriate. Geagea (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've turned this into a new section of its own. For the record, I'm ambivalent about a block here. Socking is a very bad idea, and should be condemned, but I'm not sure I ever saw any serious abuse. I really wish Drork had admitted the multiple accounts when I specifically asked him to declare it - honesty is very important in my books. If he admitted it now, and promised not to create new accounts, I would oppose a block/ban. --99of9 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha has taken to accusing me repeatedly of publishing antisemitic comments ([1] [2] [3] etc). In this, he is mimicking a behaviour initiated by Mbz1 on the English Wikipedia and on Commons. Mbz1 has essentially desisted from this behaviour after I indicated that it was beyond what I consider tolerable; Malcolm Schosha, on the other hand, after two direct demands that he retract his accusations [4] [5], persists in uttering them. Two of his recent accessories claims ("Rama has made a statement that has been interpreted by all as antisemitic" and "You said, yourself, that your comment was antisemitic") are complete and demonstrable falsehoods.

Making antisemitic statements in public is a criminal offence in my country of residence. This illustrates that this particular accusation is not of the same nature than some other criticism of even personal attack. This is heading towards an attempt at downright character assassination.

I have repeatedly attempted to signal to Malcolm Schosha that he had crossed a line; several other contributors have given similar signals [6] [7], to no avail. This leaves me no other recourse than reporting the issue here. I do not insist on Malcolm Schosha being "punished", but this campaign of defamation is a public nuisance that has to be stopped firmly and immediately, lest we want to see this become the standard weapon of the "warriors" on Commons. Rama (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rama, I don't know how you feel and I'm not claiming to, so forgive me if this doesn't make sense. There are some users you will encounter that feel so strongly about something, nothing will change their ways. Even the mere thought of trying understand other views is absurd (why would you if you already know the universal absolute truth) Discussion is futile. They make no distinction between thoughts and acting on those thoughts. To them, it's one in the same. Making antisemitic statements in public may be a criminal offence for you, but unless you did, I don't think there's anything to worry about (or does your gov. just take people's word for it?) Don't you also have some kinda of libel/slander law too? If so, maybe Schosha has more to worry about. Rocket000 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Some others have fought for removing images of nude children. That is fine. But it is not ok if they make accusations of pedophilia against those that oppose deletions. It is the same thing here. No attacks on the character of those that one disagrees with. No matter how strongly they feel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
100% agree. My above comment was mainly about the legal issue, but as personal attack here on Commons, it's completely out-of-line. (And I don't use that phrase "personal attack" loosely). Rocket000 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. There is a big difference between holding people to account for their comments, where you believe them to be inappropriate, and making attacks on their character. I can't defend Malcolm Schosha's overall behaviour here, because he has done both of these to Rama (and more), but saying that what someone said is sexist, racist, or antisemitic is not the same as saying that the person is. I think people have indeed been too loose with accusations of personal attacks during this dispute. --Avenue (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To clarify on the legal issue: I think that the risk of actual indictment is remote; I did not mention the criminal offence in this perspective, but to illustrate that there is a quantum leap from saying "X is a bad admin" and accusing him of antisemitism, and that this leap is as objective as possible since it is written in law. Criticising actions, even as part of a wikilayering tactic, is more or less fair game; spinning statements or uttering downright falsehoods to sully a man's honour is not.
Also, I wish to de-focus the issue from my person. I am reporting the issue in part because I see no other way to defend myself, but most of all because, if left unchallenged, this development would change the dynamics of Commons for the worse. Wee are observing here a shift from accusing images to accusing users. Given the sort of turmoil the images have caused, I do not think it would be desirable to see actual Human beings brought into that sort of turmoil. I would like to insist that Mbz1 has issued and quoted numerous statements that can easily be spinned into racist comments, and that by complaining here I am also trying to protect her. Rama (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "spinned into racist comments"? Some diffs might help clarify matters. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
[8] or File:End_the_unjust_Jewish_occupation_of_Arab_land.jpg are typical examples. Mbz1 makes points that display "Arabs" is general as uninterested in peace; she treats them as a single entity, which they are not; she implies that Palestinians can have their land occupied since it represents only a tiny fraction of "Arab land", which is arguably deshumanising for the people who face the actual occupation; she refers to Israel as "the Jews", while all Jews are not Israelis and all Israelis are not Jewish.
And I repeat my point. I am not saying that these are racist. I personally find them offensive, but that's neither here nor there. What I am saying is that if there was somebody as prone to spin and deformation than Malcolm Schosha and Mbz1 in Pieter Kuiper's camp, she would see these statements and images denounced as racist. The fact that she uses hyberboles and quotations would be pointed as further proofs that she knows her points to be racist and wants to push them sneakily, etc etc. With that sort of tactics, it does not matter whether the accusations are true or even plausible, you just have to repeat them over and over and over again, directly or obliquely, to sully somebody's character.
I believe that this sort of tactics do not have their place on Commons (nor should they anywhere but that's politics for you...). And I think that those who renounce these filthy tactics should not simply be the victims of those who engage in them. Rama (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I agree that some of those comments are not based on fact. But I guess I am not seeing how they can be "spun into racist comments". That seems rather a rhetorical flourish that isn't adding much to the discussion. Passions in this topic area are high. We should try to be as dispassionate as possible. Even if others don't manage to do so. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Lacking this sort of imagination does you credit.
There is indeed a high emotional potential that is no help. What I meant to add to the discussion is
1) that people who do not resort to defamation should not be put in the situation where they fight with a hand tied in the back because of their integrity.
2) that anybody can be a victim of fact-free character assassination. Those who resort to it run the risk of given their opponents ideas, escalate the nastiness of discussions and fall victim of their own tactics eventually. Not everybody has my scruples. Rama (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well. We have for instance File:Suicide bomber climbing West Bank Barrier cartoon.jpg that can easily be interpreted as racism. We have a source saying that picturing Arabs as terrorists is a form of ant-Arabism and thus a form of racism.[9] // Liftarn (talk)
Well good you didn't say "reliable source," w:Brian Whitaker being who he is, having himself taken considerable flack for biased reporting eg here and here. Whitaker is speaking in an opinion piece about a movie in the link you gave. So I am not clear on your point in relation to MalcolmSchosha. What exactly are you trying to get at here? Stellarkid (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would add that while you might find it racist, I do not, since it was not the Chinese that committed all the suicide attacks against Israel. In fact, if memory serves me right, it was only Palestinians (Arabs) who committed these acts. Therefore it is not a false or exaggerated characterisation but in fact, an accurate one, in this case. Here is Israel's list of suicide bomber fatalities I am quite sure that all the perpetrators were Palestinian Arabs. Stellarkid (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
And once again the double standard here--our sources are RS, yours aren't, portrayal of Israelis as Jews in political cartoons is racist, portrayal of terrorists as Arabs in political cartoons isn't--makes it nigh impossible to actually to do anything with these issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I blocked Malcolm two days ago for this sort of behaviour, and he still persists on the talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm Schosha continued to accuse Rama in antisemitism on his talk page, so I've reblocked him for a week w/o right to edit talk page (because this right was abused by Malcolm Schosha during the previous block). Trycatch (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see a basic disparity here. MalcolmSchosha said that Rama made an antisemitic statement (here)and was blocked for 2 weeks for saying so. The ability to edit his (MalcolmSchosha's) talk page was removed. Rama said that Mbz1 "has issued and quoted numerous statements that can easily be spinned into racist comments" without any diffs or proof, but he (Rama) remains unblocked. Rama really has no business blocking anyone for making comments about antisemitism since he has engaged in numerous discussions of antisemitism, and the charge has been made that some of his comments here (previously struck) had a flavor of antisemitism. He is involved to say the least. It seems to me an abuse of his sysop tools to be banning people for anything connected to such. In fact maybe anyone who cannot discuss antisemitism without fear of being indicted in his home country should bow out of such discussions unequivocally. There would then be no fear that anyone could accuse them of anything. This banning and blocking business is really getting out of hand. Shame you can't discuss things like grownups, instead of punishing people for their opinions on this subject. You admins need to reread your rulebook. You are handing out blocks like candy. Stellarkid (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We, as a group, are tired of the fights here. So people are getting blocked. That's a good thing, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Those that are getting blocked are those who share a particular point of view, that you do not. Don't you find it coincidental that all the so-called "disruptive" editors are on one side of the I-P conflict area? One side is doing the blocking and the other is being blocked. Perhaps if your side were on the receiving end of the blocks you would not consider it such a good thing, lol. But yeah, a great way to keep the peace. It is sort of the way the Iranians are keeping the peace these days as well. Stellarkid (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Half the problem is your polarizing into sides; I am far from clearly on one side of the I-P conflict. Kuiper got blocked, but unlike Mbz1, he seems to have neglected to declare his dedication to war at the cost of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of Malcolm:
It is highly problematic to have a continuing noticeboard discussion about me, while at the same time I am blocked from editing even my own talk page. For instance, Rama has made statements such as: "What I am saying is that if there was somebody as prone to spin and deformation than Malcolm Schosha and Mbz1 in Pieter Kuiper's camp, she would see these statements and images denounced as racist", in which he attacks a now deleted image by Mbz1 which I had nothing to do with, and accuses me (by implied association) of being a "racist" without supplying a a diff. I find it rather he can call he a racist without getting challenged, while I got blocked for saying what is supported by diffs.
I suggest his block is modified so that he can edit his talk page. ZooFari 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
He had talk page access, and used it to continue the exact same behaviour he was blocked for originally. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Commons really benefits by allowing Malcom to return to using his talk page whilst blocked to argue with others. If Malcom has concerns about Rama's behaviour then I would encourage him to take the time, after his block expires, to carefully explain them in a new section here with appropriate diffs and quotations so they can properly be reviewed. Adambro (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, as with your removal of talk page access for Mbz1 which I overturned, I am not seeing how Commons is damaged by letting him have his say on his talk page. I've a mind to overturn that too. But is there a clear consensus here for keeping talk page access turned off? If there is, I won't, but if there isn't, someone ought to. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like he is going to continue to discuss things that are completely unrelated to his block. This is not the purpose of blocked user talk page access, and I have no idea why this can't wait until the end of his block, a week is not so long time. Trycatch (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki discussion

FYI, see:

--A. B. (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning sock

This is related to the archived thread Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 16#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer and concerns a sock-farm of User:Amir.Hossein.7055 - a prolific sockpuppeteer both here and at en-wiki. The new sock account appears to be User:Shariatitehranpars (both here and at en-wiki). The account uploaded two images here, File:Rahimi.jpg and File:سید مسعود میرکاظمی.jpg. The first (already deleted) stated that the image was self-created and in the licensing tag specified the author as User:I'm free - a blocked sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. So basically User:Shariatitehranpars is a self-admitted sock and needs to be blocked (and the other file he uploaded needs to be deleted; apart from anything else, the source and author info given there appear to be incorrect). See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055 for the current SPI report regarding the activities of User:Shariatitehranpars at en-wiki. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A new user, User:What's ur name? has just popped up and uploaded a file File:Afshin Ghotbi 1980.jpg. Various socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 have persistently tried to upload various copyvio images of Afshin Ghotbi, both here and at en-wiki and to add them to en:Afshin Ghotbi. It seems likely to me that this one is a new sock. The licensing info given at the image page is obviously false. The subject was born in 1964 and he would have been 16 years old in 1980. The image shows a man in his 40s. So the image could not have been taken in 1980, as the uploader claims and the image would need to be at least 30 years old in order to qualify for public domain under the Iranian law. So it seems likely to me that User:What's ur name? is another clumsy sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed & blocked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like another sock has just popped up, User:Autoupload, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghotbi.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mansour Ebrahimzadeh.jpg. This time he is trying Flkr washing (but in a fairly clumsy way, as usual). Nsk92 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
All gone, blocked, thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record: [56] --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bapti and his tagging

Admin Bapti (talk · contribs) is harassing contributors with "no-source" and "no-permission" tags without reason. Currently he is reinstating these tags on two files, and he stubbornly refuses to make an ordinary DR. The two files are:

Uploader has emphatically stated that he is the author of the graph; he has indicated a source for the numbers, which Bapti inexplicably regards as the image source.
Uploader indicated a book source, which should be adequate.

Such an unstoppable tagging constitutes harasment of contributors. Bapti apparently also deals with the OTRS correspondence, and he has deleted files that he had tagged himself. When bonafide uploads encounter this much unreasonableness, newbies will get discouraged. And it shows that we need a firm rule: do not reinstate tags - take it to DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, indeed. This also involved Bapti. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But after the second thought, I think tagging of File:Dufetre.jpg was adequate -- while the source was given, there is no information about the author. Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Pre-1860 painting, there is no need to know the painter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But where is that date coming from? None of the surrounding pages in that book say 1860/11/06; I can at least recognize "1860", even in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That date is sitter's death date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Tableau-prod-coupe406.png was previously licensed under CC-BY-NC but the author has just given a clear permission via OTRS. There isn't any problem any more with this picture.--Bapti 17:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
He had already given permission at upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more necessary to be said. --High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Well, this indicates that Bapti is making things difficult for people that want to contribute. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I only see a complaint about the OTRS system, not about Bapti Esby (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be Bapti who is handling these OTRS cases. And certainly he is edit warring over his tags. This needs more eyes (correspondence is in French). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that an OTRS member should accept OTRS tickets even when the OTRS content is not allowing commercial usage? Bapti already explained that the first tickets were not allowing commercial usages. I also got confirmation of this fact by another person (1) in OTRS . Are you implying we should not confirm the OTRS status of photographs not taken by the uploader? Esby (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate "traditional usr problems" page

Because this page is filled up almost permanently with endless discussions around Pieter Kuiper and Mbz1, I would propose to move them to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Traditional user problems so that we can try to follow up real urgent problems here. --Foroa (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Perpetual" or "persistent" may be better than "traditional". Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget our neglected Commons:Disputes noticeboard. Rocket000 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Perpetual looks good to me. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 support. Maybe reoccurring? This would probably solve the problem for the rest of us.  Docu  at 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that we're considering creating a seperate page for reoccuring problems says something is very wrong here. Adambro (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Pieter and Mila's Super Fun Happy Noticeboard -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Married too long, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Unhappy couples or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Bad sex and related .... --Foroa (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 Support Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Unhappy couples. I wanted to propose Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Marriage counseling but then read this: "Marriage counseling originated in Germany in the 1920's as part of the eugenics movement. The first institutes for marriage counseling in the USA began in the 1930s, partly in response to Germany's medically directed, racial purification marriage counseling centres."--DieBuche (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Guérir le mal par le mal ? (take a hair of the same dog). Maybe Neuro-linguistic re-programming exercises. --Foroa (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Report about user Иван

I want to report this user for insult and inacceptable behaviour. The reason was an deletion request. He just wrote down these barefaced and unconfirmed answer:

I'm quite sure that something with your health is wrong and in fact you are sick, but the reason is not me, may be it's something about genetics? Do you really think, that six independant, refferd, statistically grounded scientific papers "are not clear point of view"? Иван (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not suitable or acceptable and a violation of applicable usage conditions. I want you to react and to stop him spreading those animous and unconfirmed facts. He justify it with "legal to laws in bulgaria" which makes me guess, people in still live in middle ages. Thank you for your attention and have a nice evening --Saviour1981 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting entire countries while complaining about being insulted by a single person. Now, where was this? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Here. The diff after that makes me think of pots and kettles for some reason. LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Saviour1981 (talk · contribs) and Ivanov id (talk · contribs) are admonished to avoid personal attacks. The latter is reminded that Commons is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to photos I added: New to Wiki

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Txcitydisasterparkinglot.jpg#Summary

I added this photo with the wrong Author. I went back to change it to the correct author, but when I am not logged in, I can't see the correction. Do edits need to be approved? I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your help.

You appear to have managed it. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

KazamaBoy's copyvio uploads

User is continuing to post copyrighted Tekken artwork and has ignored all warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User Nightscream - uploading edited images over pre-existing image pages

Wikistalking by Cwbm (commons)

user:Cwbm (commons) has been following me around for the last couple of days undoing my edits. There is no valid reason, for instance, for four of his edits in a row to be undo-s of my tagging, it is just spite and it needs to stop.

The four in a row I speak of are from his "contributions" list:

  1. 12:04, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Scouts in Iran 1975.jpg ‎ (unused)
  2. 12:03, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Scouts of kosovo.jpg ‎ (remove spam)
  3. 12:01, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F014922-0009, Berlin, Staatsbesuch Vizepräsident von Zypern.jpg ‎ (Undo revision 45240126 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) unused no priority)
  4. 11:59, 20 October 2010 (diff | hist) m File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F049672-0008, Bonn, Gustav-Heinemann-Haus der Behinderten.jpg ‎ (Undo revision 45240134 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) unused no priority)

These are not the only examples, but this is the most vivid illustration today. It is not his to decide the priority of my requests. If he chooses not to do them, he should leave them alone for some who does. Calling one "spam" is antagonistic and point pushing. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Another great one can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_1983_variant.png&action=history where he claims to be undoing my edit-but check that edit record and he in fact is not, just put my name on there to be a jerk.Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not think Commons removes the Bundesarchiv marks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F014922-0009, Berlin, Staatsbesuch Vizepräsident von Zypern.jpg it might not even be a good idea to remove the caption now. It is possible that the file already is reused outside of Wikimedia Commons via hotlinking and that this reuser trusts in the caption as an appropriate attribution as required by the license contract section 4c. Besides this problem the removal of the caption has no positiv effect for the use in Wikipedia becaue the file is not used. Without any editorial improvement the removal of the caption only does potential legal damage to reusers and it damages the cooperation of Wikimedia and the content provider, here the BArch. Tagging it with {{Remove caption}} is very unnecessary. I however see no problem with your edit on File:Scouts of kosovo.jpg, removing that ugly black frame and making it transparent is good improvement, but I dont think the file will be kept. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that this couldn't apply to almost any image that an uploader has watermarked and uploaded. We should not let our outside users depend on watermarks, because we do regularly remove watermarks. Whether or not it is currently in use is irrelevant; any file on Commons can be impressed into service at any point, which is what they're there for. I recall a recent case where a contributor was very upset to the point of getting permanently blocked because we insisted on removing the watermarks from his images. It's distinctly unfair to actively refuse to remove the Bundesarchiv's watermarks on its images when we don't let other contributors keep theirs, and it would be something I would be deeply unhappy with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
(A semantic web geek writes) Just to supplement Prosfilaes comment, "We should not let our outside users depend on watermarks", another reason to avoid this sort of image source credit is that it's embedded in a bitmap and not accessible as processable text or image metadata. IMHO, these "border-like annotations" are a bad thing and we should work to replace and remove them. That is however a long-term issue outside this dispute between two editors.
Some things that I think we can all agree on (obviously we probably won't, but one remains hopeful):
  • The current situation is bad. Edit-warring between two is no way to address a large-scale Bundesissue.
  • It is non-harmful to tag images (i.e. a template) as having these Bundesarchiv markings. That will help with their future management, whatever we decide.
  • This tag should be distinct to the Bundesarchiv and should not be our existing general "border" and "watermark" tags. (If Kintetsubuffalo would agree to create and use such a tag, I think that would defuse much of user:Cwbm (commons)'s justification for removing them.)
  • It would be helpful if Kintetsubuffalo would voluntarily agree to restrict themselves to tagging images only and not actively cropping them, until we agree a consensus on what the next action should be. Whether you choose to do this is clearly up to you, but I think it would be useful for the moment. We already have one RichFarmbrough.
  • We need some comment here from user:Cwbm (commons), not just reversions. I don't see this as "wikistalking" and it's emminently explicable as a GF action that interprets the Bundesarchiv label as something different to how Kintetsubuffalo sees it. However it is edit warring, and won't resolve itself without clear discussion.
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy, I have never actively cropped an image, I don't have the skills or the software, all I do is tag them so that those who do can crop them. As you said, it is non-harmful to tag images, the warring is all one-sided, Cwbm (commons) never touched these images before I did, they are clearly going down my contributions list and undoing my tagging. This is in fact wikistalking.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is of course contributing to the irritation: tagging to make others do work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Bull. That is what the tag is for. That's also why we have Graphics Labs. Not everyone can do every job.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Moo from me too. Pieter, that was a particularly unhelpful comment to make at this point. Notwithstanding it being simply wrong - tagging is workflow, so that we can all keep track of what needs doing. Many editors, I'm one, will tag articles in batches, then return later and carry out those same batches themself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He said it was "contributing to the irritation", which it probably is. That doesn't mean it's wrong to do or that the people getting irritated should be getting irritated. He didn't say tagging is wrong. Putting words into people's mouths is unhelpful. @Kintetsubuffalo: Do you know about Cropbot? Check it out. It's really easy to use. Rocket000 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
So would you suggest deleting all of our tag templates, no matter how useful, because they might irritate a particularly thin-skinned editor? That is a ridiculous standpoint - the tags are valid, they perform a useful function, and if one editor has as little respect for organisation and workflow as they so obviously do for NPA or consensus discussion of their actions, then no-one is forcing them to be part of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
What in the world would give you that idea? I have no problem with tags at all and think they should be used. Kintetsubuffalo did nothing wrong. Just because it can be irritating to some doesn't mean we should avoid it. Just because me or Pieter point this out doesn't mean we're implying anything else. If I said copyvio uploaders probably find getting warnings irritating, would you also assume I meant they shouldn't be warned? Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors will get irritated at whatever they feel like. But this is of no importance at all, unless it's a legitimate reason to become irritated and this isn't one. C's irritation is of no significance (and they're 'required to contine to act in an even-handed and policy-based manner despite it, which they have failed to do here), it's wrong of Pieter to suggest that we should pay any account to this irritation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't have to pay attention to it, however, we should always be considerate of other contributors' feelings and reactions to our processes. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it and they simply will have to deal with it or leave, but maybe we can do things better. Maybe there's room for improvement in the way we do things (and there always is). This attitude of "well, his opinion/view is insignificant because he doesn't have a 'legitimate' reason to become irritated" is not legitimate. First of all, there's no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate reason to become irritated. Either you do or you don't. (And of course attitudes aren't (il)legitimate either so my use of it wasn't serious). That's besides the point since feelings like irritation aren't arguments for or against anything (they can be reasons used in a argument, but no one is doing that). There's been many routine practices here (such as welcoming users, deletion requests, or the "categorize your images" message spam) that have been reevaluated and adjusted based on user feedback. The goal is to make everyone happy. Impossible, of course, but if we can improve that happy/unhappy ratio at all, we should. We probably can't in this situation, but I'm speaking in general now. I think you missed the point my comments, but that's ok. The important thing is we don't disagree about the tags. Rocket000 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
So how does User:Kintetsubuffalo fit into this? If anyone has legitimate reason to feel irritated by other editor's actions, it would seem to be him - yet you're concerned about how user:Cwbm (commons) might feel, about a mistaken response to legitimate editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It applies to everyone... I don't know why you're trying so hard to make this an argument, so let's just say you're right about everything and leave it at that. Whatever you say or don't say in reply to this is absolutely correct and anything I said is wrong. Paradox. Rocket000 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand, Cwbm (commons) is still following me around and undoing my edits. Please address this, it is pure and simple harassment.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for an editor to use a misleading edit summary like (Undo revision 45205415 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk)) when they are in fact adding text reading "User:Kintetsubuffalo wants the svg to be redrawn because he does not like the color. So get your ass up from the chair and work!"? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_1983_variant.png&diff=prev&oldid=45212627 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed a sentence not allowed on encyclopedy pages and files and deserves a warning. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Info Cwbm (commons) was just notified about this. Rocket000 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And having been notified, the harassment still continues.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
File:FunanMap001.jpg is pretty clear edit warring. He must be really irritated about something. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Both edit warriors, Kintetsubuffalo and Cwbm (commons), should be blocked for some time IMO. 89.217.206.3 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo should not remove this kind of borders. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What about uploading the derivative version of File:FunanMap001.jpg with a different name? 89.217.206.3 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It would not be meaningfull. The border indicates a scale of two degrees latitude or longitude per division. It should be restored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What is also of concern is Kintetsubuffalo undoing an Admin's (who had a reason to undo) edit at File:WikiProject Scouting BSA Eagle knot.svg and User talk:Kintetsubuffalo. I will be blocking them for disruption and continuing to edit war File:FunanMap001.jpg. I would take action on Cwbm (commons) but haven't been editing since the 25 October, a block also should have been done a week ago when the disruption was active. Bidgee (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kintet should have discussed this when reverting the admin, but I believe the admin Leyo was wrong about the other svg file. The other one is not equivalent, the lines are not smooth (compare 500px versions of both). --99of9 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Copied from user talk page: The problem is that you keep asking for pruning the white-space entirely (example). Me and others prefer having a small margin around drawings (with a transparent background). Don't you agree that the snail shell on the right now misses a small margin? --Leyo 09:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) End of copy
A small margin was re-added now. --Leyo 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sense of {copyvio}

Hi, please can mediate - i'm not experienced in that matter - if p.e. File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-11-03 16-30-42 ShiftN.jpg, referring that edit is within Wikimedia commons a "copyright violation". That image and some others are 'own' photographs of inside views of a Swiss church, i.e. Category:Katholische Kirche Dübendorf.

User:Bobo11 complains within Category:Stained glass windows of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf respectively Category:Interior views of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf several times {copyvio}, personally i do not think so. Please explain the 'legal situation' to avoid future uploads of that kind respectively to avoid further (user) problems. Thank you and best regards:-) Roland zh 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Roland zh,
wenn du Werke anderer Künstler (wie z.B. Bleiglasfenster) photographierst, musst du - vor dem Hochladen auf Commons - immer prüfen, ob diese Werke schon frei sind oder noch dem Urheberrecht des Künstlers unterliegen (bis 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod). Falls letzteres der Fall ist und du die Aufnahmen im öffentlichen Raum gemacht hast, könnte die Ausnahmeklausel der Panoramafreiheit greifen, die allerdings in jedem Land anders definiert ist. Laut COM:FOP#Switzerland scheinen für die Schweiz (wie auch für Deutschland) Innenaufnahmen nur in den allerwenigsten Fällen unter FOP zu fallen und auch das scheint strittig zu sein. Deshalb dürften die Glasfensteraufnahmen tatsächlich das Urheberrecht des Künstlers verletzen. Falls er noch lebt, könntest du natürlich versuchen, direkt bei ihm eine Genehmigung einzuholen. --Túrelio (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I took a bunch of these to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-11-03 16-32-46 ShiftN.jpg. Discussion can be concentrated there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Túrelio,
ganz herzlichen Dank für Deine ausführliche und klärende Antwort, und lieb von Dir, dies gleich auf Deutsch zu tun; Englisch verstehe ich zwar sehr gut, aber mit dem Schreiben hapert's :-))
Auf die rechtlichen Aspekte solcher Aufnahmen bin ich trotz mehrjähriger Erfahrungen und Uploads innerhalb Wikmedia commons bislang noch kein einziges Mal hingewiesen worden, daher meine ehrliche Unkenntnis der Rechtslage. Einzig zur Definition "Öffentlicher Raum" wurde mir (meist wohl von Rechtslaien wie ich) zu Innenaufnahmen – wenn möglich frage ich vorher und weise auf eine mögliche Verwendung innerhalb Wikimedia commons hin – mehrfach schon gesagt, dass dieser innerhalb der Schweiz auch das Gebäudeinnere umfasse. Den Betreff habe ich mir übrigens erlaubt, etwas "neutraler" mit diesem Edit zu definieren, in der Hoffnung damit gegen keine Gebräuchlichkeiten innerhalb Wikimedia commons zu verstossen. Wie Du ausführst, scheint die Rechtslage eher verwirrend definiert zu sein, sodass ich der Einfachheit halber inskünftig innerhalb Wikimedia commons keine Innenaufnahmen respektive insbesondere "Nahaufnahmen" von "zeitlich oder Urheberrechtlich nicht definierten" Objekten veröffentlichen werde.
Dankeschön vielmals auch für den Hinweis auf die Kontaktnahme mit den KünstlerInnen – als an beispielsweise Kirchenarchitektur nur minimal Interessierten, stellt auch eine Löschung der fraglichen Bilder für mich absolut kein Problem dar; s'ist ohnehin nur ein "Nebenprodukt" meiner üblicher Uploads und kein "Schwerpunkt".
Nur als Randnotiz zu Deinem letzteren Hinweis: Bereits vor drei Jahren habe ich für mehrere Uploads auf Wikimedia commons mit relativ grossem Zeitaufwand die Einwilligung der Rechteinhaber (darunter ein Buchcover, mit schriftlicher Einwilligung von Bertelsmann München, mehrere Fotografien von KünstlerInnen mit Einwilligung deren Managements) eingeholt, aber "ORTS" hat sich ausnahmslos eher etwas "kompliziert" gezeigt; auf Anfragen bei Rechtinhabern verzichte ich seither dieser Erfahrungen wegen ;-)
Du hast mir mit Deinen Informationen sehr weitergeholfen, und das Problem betrachte ich in rechtlicher Hinsicht für Wikimedia commons und auch für mich mehr als zufriedenstellend als gelöst:
Nun auch aus meiner Sicht korrekte mindestens zwei Löschanträge, mit Bezug auf Category:Stained glass windows of Katholische Kirche Dübendorf, und keine Schnelllöschungen (das war eigentlich der Grund meiner 'Klagen') mehr, wurden von den Copyright-Wächtern innerhalb Wikimedia commonns gestellt, wie ich vor einigen Minuten bemerkt habe, und werden mit Bezug auf Deine klärenden Ausführungen von mir kommentarlos als rechtens "hingenommen" ;-) Ganz herzlichen Dank und liebe Grüsse, Roland zh 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: @Pieter Kuiper, thank you, we tried to edit at the same time, i'v noticed the deletion request(s) as mentioned. Regards, Roland zh 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 back with a vengeance