Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19

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

User talk:Aberforth

Hard to say just what this user is up to with this image (definitely NSFW). The user has mostly been posting on the anti-porn side of discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content and elsewhere, and then uploads an image about as close to child porn as might possibly be legal. I don't think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (out-of-scope is not a criterion for speedy deletion and it's probably - just - legal). I have asked the uploader to request deletion him/herself so we can get rid of it. Otherwise, this feels to me like trolling and trying to 'game' the rules: uploading an image you know won't be kept, but may not be possible to get rid of immediately without an admin breaking the rules.

Should we be asking WMF for an office action on this? They are not bound by the usual limitations on speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone has speedy-deleted it as being out of scope. Is that OK? I was not aware of that as a valid speedy deletion criterion. Many of the people who opposed the recent policy proposal at Commons:Sexual content specifically objected to it allowing admins to make judgments of precisely this nature, and gave the strong impression that such leeway is not currently available. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This may not be fair to admins, but I've always felt that for good reason we'll never agree on speedy deletions for being out of scope, but at the same time we have and will have a tacit acceptance of no-penis deletions and the like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, I'd say IAR. What is the point of a DR here? --Dschwen (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I deleted it per this. Please do let me know if I did wrong; I will revert. Kind regards. Rehman 03:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is not an acceptable image, by any means. I am surprised that people even consider debating this picture. KimvdLinde (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, this user is a concern troll who created a new account at en.wp and posted this image to the pedophilia talk page. This person is not trying to have a reasonable discussion (my god, what are you guys accepting here).KimvdLinde (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the deleted image I have to say WTF?! Of course stuff like this should be speedy deleted on sight. Are you kidding? "Rules" are to be ignored if they cause situations that are obviously detrimental to the project. Lawyering about speedy delete vs. regular DR seems weird to me in any case. Why make a fuss and generate work for something that is utterly useless for the project? It seems like shooting yourself in the foot because there is a rule that says so. I'm pretty convinced that a lot more work would get done and the overall quality of the image collection would be improved if administrators had more discretion with respect to speedy deletion. --Dschwen (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am convinced of the same, but when I suggested at Commons talk:Sexual content that a certain amount of admin discretion in these matters was in order, a lot of people - many of them very experienced contributors to the Commons - not only just about jumped down my throat, accusing me of advocating censorship. - Jmabel ! talk 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Dschwen. Speedy delete and block on sight this user. Yann (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to avoid confusion, the user has already blocked per this discussion. Rehman 08:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I mean I support the block. I also blocked his sock, and reverted his posts. We should have very little tolerance for such people who only intend is to disrupt the project. Yann (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah I see :) Rehman 13:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This user uses the proven tactic of concern trolling. He is concerned that ...., and to demonstrate that, he made an image to prove his point. The response of the community has fortunately been healthy so that his concern that people can license mutilated images of child porn or bordering to commons has been proven incorrect. Admins are chosen to do the dirty work and we expect them to exhibit a healthy dose of common sense. In this kind of cases, they should not need permission by the rules, they already have permission by the spirit of the project. Abstract discussions about whether an admin can do this without an concrete example generally results in conservatism and knee-jerk reactions, reality is a whole different ballpark.KimvdLinde (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just hope that if I choose to be bolder on this front and receive in the concrete the same criticism I received in the abstract, that some of the people posting here will step up and defend me. Unless I'm mistaken, none of these are names I saw weigh in on the discussion about the issue in the abstract, and almost no one weighed in on my side in terms of admin discretion except the ones who basically liked Jimbo's rampage last year, but I realize not everyone can be following everything on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I haven't followed any of the discussions, I just came over from en.wp because of a vandal. But yes, if there is a comparable issue next time, allert met en.wp and I will back you. KimvdLinde (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also hidden two of their comments, there is no need to degrade or attack other editors and it has no place here (like the deleted image which I support the speedy deletion). Bidgee (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bidgee, don't be overly sensitive, there was no need to hide those edits, just revert them. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, those are were off simply reverted... Rehman 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New socks

A couple of new socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 have been confirmed by CU at en-wiki, namely User:Hamid.Vahedi and User:Nicolas.1967, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. They have uploaded a bunch of files here at Commons, and I'd appreciate if these accounts are blocked. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked the usernames. Let me know if there are any issues with the images, and I shall delete. Regards. Rehman 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed for what it's worth. No sleepers found. Tiptoety talk 04:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at the User:Rockstory - he popped up today and started removing deletion tags from a bunch of Iran-related images that appear to be related to the Amir.Hossein.7055 sock farm. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Francabpirata (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading copyvios

Francabpirata (talk · contribs) was blocked for 2 weeks back in December for uploading copyrighted images despite multiple warnings. The block has expired, but the user is still uploading problematic images. A longer or permanent block? BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, Ok, you gave the warning. I'll block upon the next violation. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Berliet kid

Please block this user and delete the uploads, vandalism-only account already blocked in en and fr wiki. --Denniss (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Aktron (talk · contribs), Tlusťa (talk · contribs)

A couple of users sabotages categorizing of an image of a dominant and markedly yellow structure into the category by color and reverted this categorization without an adequate reason. The discussion with the first one is fruitless yet and the second user is a notoric revertist which ordinarily ignores discussions.

The first reason of Aktron in the first edit summary was "každá fotka má nějakou barvu něčeho někde, budeme takhle kategorizovat všechno?" ("Every photo have some color of something somewhere, will we categorize all this way?"). The second revert had no summary, as well as the revert by Tlusťa. The second reason of Aktron is that if there is no specific subcategory for this subject in the main "yellow" category, it cannot be categorized as "yellow". I noticed no other relevant reason in Aktron's replies, and those two i consider as clearly wrong. Tlusťa stated no reasons.

My arguments are that categorizing of subjects and structures by color is common and used at Commons and many users consider it as useful. This structure is dominantly yellow and is the dominant of the photo - it is not an accidental color "somewhere" on the photo.

If somebody doesn't like categories by color, he can propose them to remove, but not remove an individual image which clearly belongs to it. The reason that some type of yellow subjets have not a more specific subcategory in the main color category yet cannot be a valid reason to remove it from the yellow category - files which haven't a more closely subcategory should be categorized into the most close existing category which is "yellow" in this case. --ŠJů (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Agree. This image suites the category, considering the current contents in that category... I've added it back. Rehman 11:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

70.246.149.24

70.246.149.24 keeps removing warnings from User_talk:Hohm MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. He/she has also removed warnings from his own talk page. I'll keep an eye on it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Uncivility on my talk Revision of User talk:Morgankevinj MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mananadesapos (talk · contribs)

I've indef'd this user after his first upload was a portrait image with an purely demeaning and IMHO racist description and after he posted part of that description to his userpage. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly trust your judgment. I have not bothered to undelete the image to take a look, but if the Google translation of his user page is halfway close, he doesn't look like a serious editor. Indef for an offense on his first edit, however serious, might be a bit much, though.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The users original description under a portrait image (filename: DON FERNANDO) showing an identifiable person (though unknown to me) was "ESTE OMBRE ES MUY CABRON SABEIS PORQUE PORQUE ES MEDIO JUDIO POR LA BARBA Y MEDIO SADAN JOSEIN PORQUE ES MUY CABRON". As a native German I may be a bit oversensitive with such a theme, but IMHO this is beyond a school prank. --Túrelio (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I see it has gone which I agree with. User page also gone as I didn't like the babelfish translation I got. --Herby talk thyme 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As a native Spanish speaker administrator: Indefblock is correctly placed (also the deletions) & I would have done the same in the event I've encountered this. Uploading a photo of a person and inserting a stream of insults in the description can not be allowed. --Dferg (talk · meta) 18:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bapti and his tagging again

For the previous episode, see here. Now Bapti (talk · contribs) has taken to harassing Moreau.henri (talk · contribs) with unnecessary no-source tags. I have twice removed his tags from paintings in Category:Paul Sérusier, dead 1927, clearly PD-Art, but Bapti refuses to take this to a regular DR, and has restored the tags that I had removed. The same is true for some other uploads by this contributor. Such actions just chase away contributors. He should not be able to do this with the added authority that his adminship gives him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't looked into this, but from your description my suggestion would be that you come up with a better suited tag for these images. Something like unsourced-but-PD. That way the tagging can continue, but (presumeably) it won't lead to deletion. Would that satisfy both parties? --99of9 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If one leaves the source field in the infobox open, it automatically generates: "This file is lacking source information. Please edit this file's description and provide a source." That should be good enough. Trycatch has now organized the basic info that uploader had provided and made it more detailed, in the spirit of the project. The message does not say: "Please tag this file for deletion," which is what Bapti is doing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you talked to the uploader about sourcing his images and giving them a good license (CC is wrong here and copyfraud). --Polarlys (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Châteauneuf-du-Faou Montreur ambulant.jpg: The uploader is obviously not the author. The license template is obviously wrong. I have no idea how to trace the source of the image, get information on the date of creation, the subjects and the author. Simply impossible with these information. --Polarlys (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader says this is a 1903 photo from the gallica site from a work by fr:Gustave Geffroy (dead 1926). No reason to harass the uploader with threats of deletion. If the arcane formalities of Commons have not been fulfilled according to Bapti's requirements, the proper action is that he can improve the fields in the information box. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this to me. Believe me, I had absolutely no idea how to interpret the uploader’s statements. We should encourage the uploader to add the following: no wrong own-work template but the name of the photographer and the year of his death, a link to the website and a proper license. All in all we want to secure these uploads for years and decades. Do you help me, retagging them? --Polarlys (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

probleme avec User:Adelbrecht

-Je n'écrit malheureusement que dans ma langue, le français- Bonjour,

l'utilisateur User:Adelbrecht réverte sans arrêt cet image File:Meuble héraldique Fleur de lys.svg dont je suis le créateur (et Yorik l'a véctorisé), cet utilisateur a déjà été prévenu, et a visiblement déjà participer a plusieurs guerres d'éditions. Cette image doit rester identique au moins pour rester en cohérence avec les pages de blasons qui l'on utiliser dans leurs constructions comme File:Blason_ville_fr_Orbec_(Calvados).svg par exemple. Rinaldum (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

voila un extrait d'une autre discution "Adelbrecht, you have participated in several edit wars; concerning your part in the wars: you must respect original, finished designs of other users. As a criterium: if others want to have separate files, do it. Therefore, I invite you to make separate files for the disputed ones. Once made, give me a sign and I shall do some version cleaning on the warred files. Greetings, --Havang(nl) (d) 10:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)"

In case anybody is having problems following this, it mainly has to do with French Wikipedia people objecting to Adalbrecht not respecting the requirements of fr:Projet:Blasons (which in many cases -- such as the phoney pseudo-reflective gradient -- do not lead to very aesthetic images, but are mandatory for many coat-of-arms images to be used on French Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Non, cela n'a rien a voir avec les règles du projet blason ! j'ai crée une image qui a son utilité, si elle ne plait pas a Adelbrecht, Sodocam ou AnonMoos alors il faut recharger l'autre image sous un autre nom, c'est tout !Rinaldum (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding english translation:
No, this has nothing to do with the rules of the fr:Projet:Blasons! I created an image that had its usefulness, if it does not please to Adelbrecht, Sodocam ou AnonMoos, then they can reload the other image under a new name, that's all ! Rinaldum -- translated to english by Esby (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to comment that there were works based on this version of the image, so technically speaking, the situation has to be clarified somehow. Esby (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
And strictly speaking, if we apply the commons policy to the letter, Aldebrecht upload should have been to a new file from the start, even if this was supposed to be a "Superior version by Sodacan.". Now, I suppose we have derivated works of both versions? Esby (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See File_talk:Meuble_héraldique_Fleur_de_lys.svg#Files_using_the_Adelbrecht_version, there are 6 files using Aldebrecht version and 140 ones using the old version. Honestly, I'd transfer Aldebrecht version to a new file and I'd fix the dw status for those version. Esby (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
While there might be problems with Aldebrecht, can we get a consensus about what is needed to be performed:
  • Put Sodacan version to a separate file. (which is the one Aldebrecht uploaded.)
  • Fix the information (mainly attribution) for both files.
  • Fix the 3 derivated works(the 3 others are png version) of the Sodacan version to indicate the correct newly created file for the derivated work status. (Instead of fixing 140 files...)
Esby (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

These are duplicate files of the original version. This file is also very simalar. That was my reasoning when I first uploaded the Sodacan version. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Français: Se ne sont pas des "duplicate" il y en a un avec un trait plus large, pour l'utiliser lorsque l'on utilise plusieurs fleurs de lys dans le même blason (un semé par exemple) qu'ils sont donc plus petits et le trait deviens donc trop fin avec le modèle normal Rinaldum (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

21 coats of arms images I uploaded to commons are derivatives of the original image. Odejea alerted Adelbrecht on december 23 to the fact that the original image was widely used in other images here on commons. So I agree with Esby that the original image has to be restored and Sodacan's image should be moved to a separate file to which it's five (or six? irrelevant what format they are saved in) derivative images are then linked.--Caranorn (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I also just left a note on User:Sodacan's talk page as he is apparently the author of the image Adelbrecht uploaded and I thought he should be notified as well.--Caranorn (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What!? this have nothing to do with me, I upload files, others cut and edit the way they want. My two cents would be that the user should respect the wishes of the French wiki, so they can use whatever file they want to. I cannot comment on others, but I no longer upload my work over another person's work, this is because I think that there is enough room here on wikicommons for more than one file of the same thing. Plus I think it is a good thing that there are a variety of styles in the heraldry category. Wikicommons is a library of images and it is up to the readers of wikipedia and the internet (in general) who decides which image is more useful to them, and not just the editors and users who gets to make that choice. I would never say or agree that my image or style is better than others, art is subjective and people will always have different views, I'm not here to change that, I made this clear when I wrote this message to User:SanchoPanzaXXI. Sorry I dragged on, and off the point, but please do not involve me in the issue, I'm just here to create good art and upload them (free of charge) for the glory of wiki, not this. Sodacan (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a new file name for the sodacan version. I fixed links for the derivative works that were using it. I also restaured the description and licence of the file prior Adelbrecht upload. The problem should be more or less technically fixed. U just have one question left: Should I delete a few file from the history wheel war? Esby (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please change the name to something else that does not use my username? I made the image not on any personal style, but a general one. The style is not inherent to me and is not something I invented, others should be free to use what they wish. Furthermore as I have stated I don't want anything to do with the issue. Sodacan (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather see the split done by an administrator who can edit page histories (the Sodacan file being entirely removed Yorick and Yorick derived file). By the way, Sodacan I did not mean any offense when I notified you of this discussion, nor do I mean such when I call one image Sodacan's.--Caranorn (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Tlusťa, categorization

I would like to ask for assist in the long-run controversy and revert-war regarding categorization of File:Vyšehrad 076 - veverka.jpg.

It was originally categorized by location (Category:Vyšehrad] and by biotaxon of the squirrel. As time goes on, I moved it from Vyšehrad to Category:Unidentified locations in Vyšehrad (within maintenance of Vyšehrad category), and added categories Category:Feeding animals, Parks and gardens in Prague, PET bottles. Mammals of the Czech Republic. Tlusťa fivefold removed the category Unidentified locations in Vyšehrad and twice removed categories Parks and gardens in Prague and PET bottles. Recently, Egg once repeated Tlusťa's action.

Arguments for removal:

  • [8] (no argument)
  • [9] "je to veverka, ne misto a navic: "veverky nejsou umisťované na konkrétní pevná stanoviště" (it is a squirrel and in addition, "squirrels are not placed to concrete stable standings") ([10] no new argument)
  • [11] nejede ani o misto, ani o park a ani o petku, ale o veverku. kategorizace nejsou klicova slova. pak by jeste slo pridat ketagori neznamy ker, provazek, jidlo,... (the point is neither the place nor the park nor the PET bottle but the squirrel, categories are not descriptors. Next there could be added even unknown shrub, a whipcord, a food...
  • [12] uprava kategorii - na fotografii neni park, ani petka, ale veverka (category correction - neither a park nor a PET botlle but a squirrel is on the image)
  • [13] no argument (Egg)

Arguments for categorization:

  • [14] rv, to není abstraktní kresba veverky v imaginárním prostředí, ale fotka konkrétní vyšehradské veverky u konkrétního krmítka v konkrétním parku na Vyšehradě (revert, it is not an abstract drawing of quirell in some imaginary surrounding but a photo of a concrete squirell from Vyšehrad next to a concrete feeder in a concrete park at Vyšehrad) ([15] no new argument)
  • [16] Rv. Kategorizuje se podle všech relevantních kritérií - to, které je zmíněno v popisu i názvu fotky, je stěží opomenutelné. Toto není abstraktní kresba veverky, ale fotka z konkrétního místa a situace (revert. The categorization should be made according to all relevant criteria - this one which is mentioned in the description of the photo as well is in its name is hardly neglectable. This is not an abstract drawing of a quirrel but a photo from a specific place and situation.
  • [17] [18] rv, PETka na láhvi je dost dominantní, veverka je tam zcela konkrétní v konkrétním parku a ne nějaká abstraktní kresba (revert, the PET bottle is enough dominant, the squirell there is quite concrete in a concrete park and not some abstract drawing

I ask for a judgement:

  • is the PET bottle used as a feeder on the photo enough remarkable to be reflected in categorization of the image? Can be such usage of the plastic bottle interesting for somebody of those who use category PET bottles?
  • should be photos of animals or plants in their environs categorized also by location? Can be detail photo of local fauna or feeders useful and advisable for somebody of those who use category of a park or city district?
  • if a category is not erroneous but is considered as useless by several users and usefull by other users, what should be the right solution?

--ŠJů (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever have the idea to ask a admin to block you for a time instead of bothering here the colleagues with such murx? Sincerelly, -jkb- (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

series of copyrighted uploads

I don't know the proper procedure to report that Cavic (talk · contribs) has apparently uploaded a whole cache of copyrighted material from http://www.basketballphoto.com. I just tagged File:Erving Lipofsky.jpg for deletion [19], but don't want to have to tag each individual image when they're all sourced to the same copyrighted source. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not. I think User:Cavic is Lipofsky, the photographer. The discussion on his talk page is not completely clear, but several of us have looked at the situation and apparently think it is OK. In any event. these should not be speedies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The talk page discussion looks clear, with an admin saying that he spoke with the user. Still, this is not the standard procedure for validating the republication of images already published elsewhere, and I think that normally at least a blanket OTRS validation email confirming the account would be required, to reduce the risk of misunderstandings or difficulties. Especially since this user has had issues with the free licence terms and has been edit warring about watermarks, although his more recent additions of images apparently means that he has accepted the terms. Still, the normal precautions might be advisable, if only to make sure that this will not turn into another Xanderliptak type of story in the future. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. That's more or less what I had in mind, but you described it more clearly. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I fouled anything up. I just went to the source as listed on the photo's page ("http://www.basketballphoto.com/basketballindexz.htm") and eventually found the actual photo used (http://www.photoreflect.com/store/Orderpage.aspx?pi=02LF009Z020005&po=6&pc=29) which plainly made copyright claims not matching the {{GFDL}} used here. I don't exactly follow what's happening on the user's talk page, but hadn't drawn the conclusion that the user here was claiming to be the copyright holder. My apologies again. — Fourthords | =/\= | 18:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No need at all for you to apologize. The question was inevitably going to come up as the talk page discussion is not completely clear. I and, I think, Asclepias, are not completely sure of the situation, which is why we are letting the DR proceed, to clarify the situation hopefully for good.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with foreign language [non-english] user

Cycloneloco (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded several promotional photos related to bands and musicians with a a couple of logos to boot under various free licenses see contributions. He is (for the most part) claiming to be the copyright holder or claiming the holder has released the images. I tagged them as no permission, but the user later removed the tags with no explanation and made no attempt to address them, some cases changing the licensing altogether [20] [21] [22]. After reverting and further questioning the user [23] he added further confusing copyright tags to the images [24] [25] [26]. He then left me a Spanish(?) comment on my talk page [27]. I take this to mean the user doesn't understand what I'm saying to him - I request that someone else try and communicate with him or deal with the images, some of which are likely blatant copyright violations. Rehevkor ✉ 13:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole image description is brainless copy&pasting. Source: "Transferred from http://www.soundunwound.com to transferred to Commons by User:cycloneloco" Author: Original uploader was http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/A1WrzP3zQuL._SL600_.jpg. Thats copy&pasted and constructed from some bot transfers, aditionally he is farming some license tags on the file description. Apparently its a sockpuppet accont of Killingme (talk · contribs) who did the same nonsense in File:Kse promo 05.jpg. Speedydelete them, if anyone feels appointed to instruct him he may try so. --Martin H. (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I left some kind of instruction, Spanish with English translation. Jcb (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Martin and Jcb. An example, File:Times of grace promo.jpg was clearly just ripped from their website. Rehevkor ✉ 13:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

He's now edited his talk page possibly highlighting some more problematic images [28]. Rehevkor ✉ 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We try our best to identify such bad uploads, we cant always find it imidiatly. I deleted the images he pointed out as clear copyright violations. Just because others do bad things here on Commons does not allow him to do the same. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thanks again, Martin. Rehevkor ✉ 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexander Liptak and User:Xanderliptak

As per [29] and wmf:File:DMCA_LIPTAK.pdf, Alexander Liptak has resorted to legal action against the WMF. I think we should write off the images, but more apropos to this page, I think this should earn him a permanent block. We can not have editors who will send us legal notices on the images they uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment see w:Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat. --  Docu  at 07:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you/we have to direct to an :en page, because Commons has no such page, suggests that we should consider to formally adopt this policy as Commons' policy. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess (based on a sample of two out of the 47 images listed in his letter) that WMF has deleted all of them. He is disruptive, he doesn't obey the rules (by trying to change his license after the fact), and he has served WMF with a takedown notice. There must be penalties for such behavior and an indefinite block of both accounts seems appropriate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait, maybe I don't know the background here, but it seems to me we have a copyright holder who asserts the violation of his copyright. If the claim is valid, I see no reason why he should be blocked. That's not a legal threat, it's a formal DMCA takedown request. Powers (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For images he uploaded. Regardless, standard protocol on other projects is clear: if you're going to resort to legal recourse, you can do that offline, directly with WMF through e-mail, phone, etc. - there is no reason to edit online. Wknight94 talk 13:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, one of us should have explained a little more. We are not violating his copyright -- he licensed images here and then decided he wanted to change the license. When he lost that discussion for the second time, he filed the takedown notice with WMF. Since he has repeatedly blanked his talk page, it's hard to get the whole picture unless you lived through it, but the essence of the discussion is here and here for the other sock. Note also that both names are indefinitely blocked on WP:EN for disruptive behavior.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Disruption" is a good word. How much time was spent - or could have been spent - on all the projects adding his images to pages all over, only to have him invoke DMCA and delete them all? Countless hours spent just doing that, let alone in the endless subsequent arguments. It is time for a formal ban. Wknight94 talk 14:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit incoherent to me. The images have been deleted by the WMF, which means they consider the DMCA to be valid, in which case there is no reason to block him; he was just enforcing his copyright in a completely legal and acceptable way. If on the other hand we want to argue that the DMCA was invalid (which I think is the case), then it should be made clear that we do not believe that claim to be valid, the images should be restored, and only then should he be blocked for issuing a wrongful DMCA and thus acting disruptively. Otherwise we're really sending the wrong signal: try to enforce your legal rights and you'll get blocked. –Tryphon☂ 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
He uploaded them freely, and when he couldn't "own" them, he found a way to get them deleted. The WMF was tricked. Not banning the guy is what would send the wrong signal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
@Tryphon, The WMF has not judged the DMCA claim to be valid, they are enforcing the DMCA request, so that they are protected under the safe harbor provisions. It is up to the "uploader" to reinstate the images and file a counter claim. Unfortunately, the uploader is the DMCA claiment, so he found a good way to abuse DMCA to get his own images taken down (DMCA does not protect unrevocable free licenses). TheDJ (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, User:Beyond My Ken could challenge the takedown on behalf of File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak altered.png , or User:EJavanainen could challenge it for the SVG conversion File:Coat of arms of Ghana.svg , etc. Anyway, the real reason why Liptak had to escalate to the DMCA (rather than going through normal Commons processes) is that it was extremely important to him to maintain a façade of 100% absolute personal infallibility, and never admit to having made any mistake of any kind at any time -- and if he had asked for his own files to be deleted in an ordinary request, then he would have had to admit to not understanding what a CC-BY-SA license was when he uploaded. The DMCA was much easier on his personal infallible self-image (sad but true)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of challenging the takedown. Xanderliptak's shenanigans put the WMF between a rock and a hard place, and I have no desire to complicate matters ever further. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The guy tried every tactic he could think of to "own" his drawings, and when he went with a bogus legal threat, those who didn't know the guy's history caved. A thoroughly useless editor in the final analysis. I doubt he'll ever be back here, but let's just make sure of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. What's to stop him uploading more images, generating more drama and then filing another takedown when things don't go his way? ("under penalty of perjury" lol!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support block all accounts, ban user AND ban his materials from being uploaded by 3rd party users. TheDJ (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Tryphon. I would surely like to fight him, but I cannot suggest to WMF that they spend thousands of dollars to save 47 images. That doesn't please me at all, but it is one of the facts of life -- WMF probably can't afford to call the bluff of bad actors such as this one. In a perfect world, the court would find in WMF's favor, including awarding costs and legal fees to WMF -- it seems pretty clear cut -- but the world isn't perfect and it's not worth the risk.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The guy seemed to think his little illustrations were gold. I could imagine his next step being to try and upload them again, with a license requiring attribution. Before he tries that, he needs to be banned, so he can't abuse Wikimedia any further. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • WMF has nothing on the line here. What's needed is a counter notice. As AnonMoos points out above, anyone who had created a derivative of any of these works can protest the removal; the WMF will restore the content, and it carries no liability because it has complied with the law. The person who files the counter notice is the one legally on the line for it should the original claimant actually manage to convince a court of law that he didn't really mean it when he released that content into public domain or licensed it under CC-By-SA (as he did some of both). The question is: is it worth it? The person who seemed to be advocating the hardest for the use of these images across projects was Xander. Admittedly, I'm not involved in heraldry, but the first time I heard of Xander it was in response to complaints on en:Wiki about historical inaccuracies in his images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the user. Multichill (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support indefinite block. Nobody should even consider unblocking this user. Collectively, we have put a lot of time and effort into this user with no significant improvements in his behavior. Consequently, it is appropriate to document a community consensus for a permanent ban. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block/ban. A very disruptive user whose mindset was not conducive to working on a cooperative and collegial project. Fortunately, his heraldic style is very recognizable, so if he ever changes his mind and tries to return, it'll be easy to spot him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban for disruptive behavior. I offer no comment on the validity of his DMCA claim, since I feel it is ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is that this user has clearly and amply demonstrated that his contributions are more trouble than they're worth – indeed, since the files were deleted, their value is now zero – and that we should not accept any more of them. I'd like to think that Mr. Liptak should have enough sense to stay away from Commons on his own from now on, but then again, he hasn't exactly shown much common sense in the past. I feel we should establish a reasonable community consensus for a ban now, so that, should he some day try to upload more files to Commons, we may kindly but firmly show him and his files the door. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support no net good came from this guy. Threatening litigation is just the cherry on top. This is clearly a user who does not want to support the project goals. Please indef ban and forget. --Dschwen (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Legal actions" should be a reason to block? How miserable is such country and culture where legality, laws and justice are considered to be wrong and inimical. If "legal actions" are undesirable, "illegal actions" would be better? --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Users may suggest changes to policies and guidelines on their talk pages. Please discuss user problems here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The English Wikipedia page specifically excludes attempts to work with Wikimedia. It's the "do it my way, or I'm going to sue you" that's a problem, not "I think this is a problem".--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • @ŠJů, the DMCA notice is just the final chapter of a very long difficult relationship between several Wikimedia projects and Mr. Liptak. And now that he has fully negated almost everything he's accomplished here, it's best not to let him start over. (You do realize he himself uploaded all the images he had taken down, right?) Also, {{Copyvio}} is not a threat to take legal action, it is a threat to delete an image because it violates our policies, and our policies try to be related to legal standards. Very big difference. Wknight94 talk 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bad Boy97

Hi admins. Bad Boy97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is apparently not getting the point despite a flood of messages on his userpage. Can I ask that an administrator give this user a block with instructions on how it can be lifted? We might need kiddie gloves (literally... for the kiddie part, not the gloves part), as the username suggests an age of 13 or 14. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that his latest activity was in October 2010. I've deleted his last fair-use upload, but for a block there seems too little activity, IMHO. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Benjamín Preciado

... [propably you forgot to read that, that's why i moved here] ... Hi, i regret to ask for your assistance referring to that user, but imho there are some reasons to do so:

  1. User:Benjamín Preciado has been serveral times contacted referring to Commons:Categorisation on January 13, 18, 19 and 20, 2011, on User talk:Benjamín Preciado. I really do understand that newbies will have problems to categorise, in general no problem. But all hints and (many, many) re-categorisations of his claimed to be own work uploads did not result in any reactions, questions or an effort in the misleading categorisation done by him.
  2. By the same contacts, the user has been noticed that he please may avoid {watermarks} (same: no reaction).
  3. Imho the user hast two accounts — User:CEAA-India (see here) and User:Benjamín Preciado (please also see User talk:CEAA-India 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
  4. Tags done by an Admin (not me) referring to possibly copyright violations are removed by User:Benjamín Preciado without any discussions, please see p.e. here.

Thank you for taking notice and for mediation and/or actions, 84.75.160.122 20:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Your information gave me a reason to check if the users are the same, and yes, most likely they are. From a checkuser pov I'd say Confirmed. The check however helped me to confute my own 'worst case' theory that someone is abusing an scholar name to push non-free imagery to Commons. The editing comes from an institutional IP network. However,
2) action is required. The images are not from one person, not even from one institution, but collected from various sources. With the attribution to one person the uploader realy not did correct since neither him nor the claimed author nor anyone else from that institute appears to be the copyright holder. I dont believe the claimed author himself is editing but someone related to the work is doing bad in his name I think. Imagine you publish an article in Science with a photo with the caption that this is a photo you created during research or whatever. This wrong claim uncovered as wrong will result in an terrible loose of reputation. Uploading to Wikimedia Commmons also is a publication of something, false claims like this here can have the same effect. Therefore I strongly doubt that any scholar will make such bad things, likely someone who first used the CEAA account is now using a name in a very bad way maybe to give the account a little better standing, and is uploading tons of copyright violations with wrong authors, sources and licenses. Action is required.
--Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User:Benjamín Preciado is going on its "work" as mentioned, and does uploads and uploads as reported, without any reaction or interest to "improve" his categorisation, more detailed description of his claimed "own works", as recommmended before, and once again did redo a remark of a possibly copyright violation ... :-((
Personally i share the opinion of Martin H., i.e. maybe "hiking" of the name of a real scientist (Dr. Preciado from Mexiko) in a very, very bad way etc.
That user has been pointed before that a scientist should be able to give more specific information about his uploads, as well, no reaction.
Please URGENTLY take action, imho (indefinitely) block those account to avoid at least "bad reputation" to the propably "real" Dr. Preciado !!
Thanks, 84.75.160.122 18:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi admins, as asked THREE days ago, please URGENTLY take action, imho (indefinitely) block those account to avoid at least "bad reputation" to the propably "real" Dr. Preciado !! User is going without any reaction, "emptied" his talk (he may of course) and uploads without any mind to co-operate / discuss (pointed to that fact once again on his discussion page).

To say it without any doubts, imho a undefinite block should be considered. Thanks, 84.75.160.122 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please URGENTLY take action, user once more has been pointed on its 'bad behavior, without any reactions, thanks, 84.75.160.122
How about mass COM:DR? Wknight94 talk 18:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Šjů

The request for Administrators: Please check the contents of this galerie(1) galeie(2) and next. Specifically, black and white photographs. These come from the archives of the transport company in Prague and construction company Metrostav. That is not public domain but the work of an unknown author. According to date is not in the public domain (the limit of 70 years is not met). --W.Rebel (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely not. I hope, photos made by the Transport Company of Prague and Metrostav would be more professional :-) The source, author, date of taken and license are clearly and truly stated at the file pages. Some of photos are taken from publicly accessible places, some from public visiting days at the metro construction etc. I keep also negatives of these photos. I suppose, W.Rebel tries to revenge because I requested (see above) sources and correct description for File:Praha tram 1938.png (which is evidently not drawn from his own memory without a source but rather it is a copy of some old printed work removed and corrected--ŠJů (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)). But W.Rebel is right that it's not 70 years past my death yet. (Btw, Category:Scanned photographs by ŠJů is a better link for my scanned old photos, in addition chronologically.) --ŠJů (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Some of photos are taken from publicly accessible places => It also means the Internet, photo archives without a free license.
Can prove having of negatives? --W.Rebel (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read carefully "The source, author, date of taken and license are clearly and truly stated at the file pages." Then you can understand that "to taken a photo" meant "to photograph", not "to find and reuse". If there will occur an serious doubtfulnis, I would give some proof. For the present, the scanned photos and their description are a sufficient proof. --ŠJů (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is no-proof whatsoever. Source and originality is very uncertain. --W.Rebel (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing no evidence that they aren't what ŠJů claims them to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like his photos. Of course we never know whether user upload his photos or photos made by his unce, girlfriend or classmate but here is no proof or indication of copyfraud. --Dezidor (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all got that conclusion pretty quickly too. Šjů is in good standing here for a very long time. This is clearly a revenge section and should be closed as soon as possible. Wknight94 talk 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure of file deletion discussion

A deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Myiopsitta monachus -pet perching on cage-6a.jpg was started for the image File:Myiopsitta monachus -pet perching on cage-6a.jpg, but after less than two and a half hours into the discussion the image was deleted when the voting was 2 to delete and 2 to keep. It is possible that the administrator who deleted the file did not know about the image deletion discussion, as he did not edit or the discussion and he did not refer to it in his edit summary, thus causing me some confusion. A non-admin User:Huntster then closed the discussion shortly afterwards saying that the conclusion is to delete; however, it seems to me that there was no overall consensus and the conclusion certainly should not have been to delete. A logical conclusion would have been "no-overall consensus" at this point and this discussion permitted to continue. I thought this was a mistake and restored the discussion, but User:Huntster then closed the discussion again. In his second closing remarks the non-admin stated that the deletion was controversial, which should have indicated to him that the discussion should have taken a longer course. I am asking for opinions here on the early closure of the discussion by User:Huntster. See Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Regular_deletion - "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days." Snowmanradio (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests, as the file was deleted per AN discussion here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Move_without_My_Permission and not as a result of User:Huntster's closure. MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, getting the file undeleted is a different forum. Here I am asking for opinions of the early closure of the file by a non-admin that does not follow the guidelines at Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Regular_deletion. What if all controversial deletion discussion were closed after half a day? The discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Move_without_My_Permission is still continuing and the suggestion there was that the file should go to speedy deletion request, which I then changed to the normal deletion discussion, as per the template instruction. It is not usual to delete an image in the middle of a deletion discussion. I think that the correct housekeeping would have been to ask the deleting administrator if he had seen the deletion discussion (there is no mention of the deletion discussion in his edit summary) and ask him to re-instate the image and let the deletion discussion take its course. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that bad, low res parrot image really worth the trouble? Amada44  talk to me 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: There is no problem with the closure of the discussion since the file had already been deleted. Basically, the deleting admin just forgot to close the discussion - it happens a lot. Someone just closes the discussion and everyone moves on. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me to be like the Wild West here. User Amada44 recommended that the image should go to speedy deletion, which I changed to a regular file deletion, and as far as I can tell another administrator unilaterally overruled this by deleting the file without participating in any discussion about the file or closing the file deletion discussion. There was no over all consensus in the deletion discussion when the file was deleted. How is it possible that the the result of the deletion discussion was "Delete" when the opinions were 2 to keep and 2 to delete after less than 4 hours? To quote again; "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days." Snowmanradio (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Per Amada, I think we're all bored with fighting over a pretty pointless photo. Adjourn to COM:UNDEL please. Wknight94 talk 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
One person above says above that the deleting administrator deleted the image because of the discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Move_without_My_Permission if so, what was the point of the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Myiopsitta monachus -pet perching on cage-6a.jpg ? Another person above says that the deleting administrator forgot to close the deletion discussion. Surley, this way of deleting images without participating in discussion has caused confusion. The message that I am getting here is that it is OK to delete images about four hours after a deletion discussion has started, it is OK to override what an administrator has suggested, it is OK it disrespect the views of two uses who expressed an opinion to keep the image, it is OK to ignore the guidelines that deletion discussion should last about seven days, it is OK to imply that no overall consensus (2 vs 2) is a delete. To me this seems to be worst outcome and I am disappointed in Commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Snowmanradio. Please don't be disappointed. I don't want to argue with you and if it makes life better for you, well then I could imagine that we undelete the file and let the DR run its course. The DR was 4 to 2 by the way. You forgot the Nominator (that was the uploader) and the deleting admin. Also at DR's the the deleting admin can take the voting as an recommendation and still delete or not delete a file regardless of the outcome. Yes, the DR was closed early and for nearly any other file this would have been a problem. But it was still a uploader request, the image was not used on any project and it was fairly bad quality. The reason why I didn't delete it on the spot was, that I had a feeling that it would bother you (as you took the time to rename it). Now if we go through the process of undeleting that file and so on, imagine how happy the uploader will be. We'll have him writing here how disappointed he is. Is that really worth it? Is it really worth being disappointed? Amada44  talk to me 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it would not be appropriate not to undelete the image, and we will never know the final outcome of the deletion discussion if it had ran the usual course of about seven days. In any case, I have asked for examination of the process rather than an undeletion. I think that the end does not justify the means. I think that you are counting the uploader twice because he voted, and I thought the deleting administrators were supposed to give a neutral opinion and not vote. My calculations make the opinions 2 vs 2 when the image was deleted. Can we examine communications that the deleting administrator could have made to reduce confusion? Snowmanradio (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:And zykon 89

Please check the contributions of this user, at least 20 images have google as source and should be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:AnthonyWAngrywolf

I just stumbled about some copyvio images uploaded by this user. After visiting the pages using the images at the en wiki I noticed he is blocked there as sockpuppeteer. We may need to have a look at the sockpuppet usernames blocked at en wiki an block them here as well. See en:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Onelifefreak2007 and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007. Maybe we also need a checkuser to find/eliminate more socks. --Denniss (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - one likely extra account now blocked. I'm inclined to agree this is an issue BUT one I looked at quickly did have exif data. That said the OTRS pending could be looked at - not got time now but maybe later if no one else gets there before me. --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This looked like textbook case of using OTRS pending tags to hide blatant copyvio so I nuked the five or so remaining (many more were already in deleted contribs). Denniss found one on Tineye which supports that theory. I left an {{Endofcopyvios}} tag. Wknight94 talk 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Likely a sockpuppet with 100% likelihood @Herbythyme ;) Sorted out, SUL accounts blocked, agree with Wknight94. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Holderdarien (talk · contribs)

Holderdarien (talk · contribs)'s contributions consist solely of uploading content from radio station websites and they have continued to do so in spite repeated notices and warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Already blocked for 3 days by Martin H. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ness1un0

Ness1un0 (talk · contribs)'s contribs consist solely of uploading various car images from the web. Disregarding all warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Deanb

Per en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Please help find and clean up copyvios, we seem to have a long-term issue with serial copyvio uploads by Deanb (talk · contribs) (cf. en-wiki upload log [30]). There are multiple parallel uploads of his here on Commons [31], but unfortunately also quite a few that have been transferred here by others in good faith (search page). I just marked two whose sources I could find [32][33]. Recommend deleting all contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Added {{subst:end of copyvios}} to the users talk page to warn them of the blocking policy. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. What about the actual deletions of the remaining files? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:PenguinBot

This bot is in need of modification. It does not have a bot flag (as far as I can see, shows up on my watchlist despite bots disabled there) and it uploads more than 10 images per minute. --Denniss (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that too, and, it continues [34]--Theda (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It's stopped; while I don't know why it stopped in this case, a lot of bots will stop if you post to their talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot owner states on his/her userpage that " I'm a bot (at least at the Danish wikipedia)" but doesn't say they are one here.--71.30.193.189 00:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Isnt it usual to do uploads without bot flag? We dont want uploads hidden, also User:Flickr upload bot, User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) not have bot flags for a good reason. So the only question is the speed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the operator of the bot. First, it stopped because it is finished with the first batch :) There are about 1.000 pictures left which I plan on upload later today - after checking if there is any objections here, of course. PenguinBot is indeed a bot at dawiki but not at commons though. With regard to the missing bot flag: It seems like the API for edit allows a bot flag (which I use for edits at dawiki) but there isn't a similar flag at all when using the API for uploading. Not that I suspect that it matters, as PenguinBot does not seem to have a bot flag at Commons - guess I thought it was inherited. I hope this clarifies the matter. Is more information needed or would it be okay to continue the upload? As mentioned, there are about 1.000 pictures left. --Penguin (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with this bot at all. If anyone is to blame please blame me because I knew all about this bot and the upload and I never told Penguin to ask for a flag. The reason for this is that I do not think, that the bot should have a flag.
The thing is that we have a permission to upload a few thousand files from a website and the bot does that. There may be a few COM:DW among the files so it would not be wise to hide the uploads. Also the categories are bad so they could need some attention. So far the files are only categorized with the name of the church. But not if it is a window, a altar etc.
Personally I do not see the speed as a big problem. --MGA73 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Roger. I'll continue the upload of the rest of the pictures later tonight. About 1.000 pictures. I can throttle the upload if necessary but they are all part of the same bulk. --Penguin (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dasyatis kuhlii

The Category:Dasyatis kuhlii must be moved to Category:Neotrygon kuhlii. The name of th fish is Neotrygon kuhlii, according to FishBase. Please move the contest of the page. -- Ykvach, 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:W.Rebel

Please check reverts of File:Praha tram 1938.png, especially this one. I think, to know the origin of depicted information is needed for educational and encyclopedic purposes (for verifiability) as well as for assessment whether it is or isn't copyvio. It doesn't seem to be own work of uploader from 2010-11. (Btw.: W.Rebel is a new nickname of the uploader Hapesoft).

See also File:Simplon tunnel E.jpg, an image originally claimed as own work of uploader from 2011-01, two days later as from "unknown source" and "unknown author" from 1898-1906 (see User talk:W.Rebel#Autor]. --ŠJů (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sju users looking for unnecessary trouble. His reasoning is only "gravy" and empty talk. It is unnecessary trolled. Tram map was redrawn under the base in 1938. Figure tunnel was invented more than 100-105 years. Conversely watch Sju users, creating absurd category and making any unnecessary movements. --W.Rebel (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
... see next write the same user. --W.Rebel (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Tram map was redrawn under the base in 1938. – Should that mean it's a "derivative work" without specifying source and author? As I see, it is hardly "redrawn". It's simply a copy of a printed work from 1938. Without a true description. --ŠJů (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The original plan includes details of: houses, streets, boundaries of the city, street names, names of districts, the names of the square, the names of important objects. This is a selection of information to redraw the map, not a complete map.--W.Rebel (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's surely not difficult to specify the original plan you used for your derivative work. But I appreciate how perfectly you can imitate contemporary graphics and how accurately you rewrited placenames etc - other your graphics and texts are not a quarter so good as this one :-) --ŠJů (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to plan the color purple and green lines? Before now, the map was corrected. Do you still think it is a scan or copy machine? --W.Rebel (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Specify the source you used. That's what i want. --ŠJů (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I agree, the errors you corrected now are a good proof that you redrawn it. As I said, a good work! But the source (or sources) should be mentioned. --ŠJů (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is no reason, why not to place there a source. As there had to be source.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
On my own work, drawing not need state permission. Custom artwork created according to the specimen which can be eg, photographs or anything else. --W.Rebel (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Foroa

Seems to be wheel-warring with other administrators, see Category:English_photographers. It was restored after an undeletion request and now re-deleted by Foroa. --  Docu  at 20:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but before it had already been deleted twice by other admins. --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In 2011, it was just deleted, listed for undeletion, and undeleted accordingly.
Then Foroa re-deleted it with an incorrect edit summary. --  Docu  at 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Accusing an administrator of wheel warring is a serious accusation. You bring this accusation here without any clear evidence and you neglected to inform the administrator. This is damaging for the adminstrator. Now would be a good time to apologize to Foroa. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is that considered a bad redirect? Wknight94 talk 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleting something that was just restored by another administrator is wheel warring.
Foroa wasn't notified, as Foroa requested not be notified. --  Docu  at 02:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories for a discussion related to this. I think it would be helpful to make Commons:Category redirects suck a guideline, rather than an essay. That would be a better place to have this discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That discussion is closed so I'll comment here. The arguments for deleting redirects are not very persuasive. "The system will explode"?! Be serious. Nothing is going to explode. I am running a (very slow) program that is finding dozens or hundreds of broken links from en.wp to Commons alone. Do you think the millions of readers of en.wp will care about the category naming rules of Commons? Or the essays about redirects suck? Of course not. They just want to get to a gallery of images on the subject. And if the linkage is broken, most of them will never get here, and moreover, they will think we are a bunch of amateur idiots, and simply stop using the system. I am totally in support of whatever is easiest for the casual readers which outnumber the editors here millions-to-one. Wknight94 talk 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better to discuss the substance of this matter at Commons_talk:Category_redirects_suck#Changes_needed_to_turn_this_into_a_guideline. Some are treating it as a guideline but it does not have broad community support and I think that is causing conflict. Foroa, Martin H., Rocket0001, ZooFari, AFBorchert, Jameslwoodward, all Commons administrators, and others, may be willing to contribute. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
We are heading for more than 2 million categories in the coming year. Do we accept a category redirect for all the spelling variations, naming rule variations and downright spelling and capitalisation stupidities? That means that we are allowed to start a bot that creates redirects for all the spelling variations in the 270 languages Commons support. Or is it only allowed for variations in English ? Within 1 or 2 years, HotCat will become saturated (only used by 15 % of categorisation anyway); the more we create redirects, the quicker it will become useless. We have only 1000 + cats that start with "American ..." (whatever its means), En:wikipedia has 5000 or so, you want a couple of tens of thousands ? And who will maintain those redirects. I am deleting 100 broken redirects per week and creating a comparable amount of useful redirects (alternate names, names in other languages) per week. Once you have millions of them, who will maintain them ? --Foroa (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, given that this was undeleted through the appropriate process, can you undelete them and confirm that in the future, you wont use your administrator tools this way? Further, as you noted that the redirects mentioned in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories were created just before, can you confirm that you wont speedy delete such redirects without prior discussion? --  Docu  at 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories mentioned above shows more problematic behaviour by Foroa: they deleted other user's contributions without any prior discussion based on an outdated personal essay. --  Docu  at 04:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Foroa deletes many categories.[35] Almost all seem reasonable to me. I don't see a pattern of problematic behavior. That said, a clear consensus is documented for the undeletion of Category:English_photographers. If the undeletion request process is to be meaningful, its undeletion by Yann should stand. Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories_.282.29_deleted_by_Martin_H.. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at Foroa's deletion log from January 1, you will notice that the series there was limited to the categories listed at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various_categories which I had created earlier that day. IMHO, this is a clear pattern indicating that Foroa followed my edits and deleted them specifically without any prior discussion. This is somewhat hidden as Foroa's deletion summary suggests that these were categories they just moved. IMHO, it's clear pattern of problematic behaviour. --  Docu  at 22:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As everybody can see, Foroa infringed rules for movings and category redirects, for a long time and despite of several advices. Sometimes (if he moves a category) it can be explained as a laziness, but in this case no legitimate reason for such wilfulness is foundable. --ŠJů (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unusual commenting

I have seen an unusual way of commenting over here Pic-1 and here Pic-2 and if i am not wrong its not matching with WP:POINT ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop whining. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. If your concern is formatting, DR comments on Commons are very free form -- some of us use bullets, some colon indents, other just paragraphs.
If your concern is content, I also see nothing problematic. You, ...Captain......, have threatened to use DRs as reprisals, so an editor's raising the possibility should not surprise you. Unfortunately, having made threats, you must live with the possibility that others will see even legitimate DRs as the result of those threats.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Elasticizing a comment into an entirely different talk page is not a good idea, if the user has some problem user can report into the admin's notice board..???. If user is making this in one page community will be able to understand that....but its being repeated, so that it has notified on this board, and this has been diverted to the recent 'threat'...rather than a reason and it can be repeated on every DR...but it will not stop anybody from filing a reasonable DR...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Corporate username

Council of the Baltic Sea States (talk · contribs).

User blocked on en-wiki as an account of an organization. User claims author's rights over the logo of the CBSS. Is the proposed Commons:Username policy live or dead? I was under impression that such accounts are no-no on all projects. NVO (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. User names and accounts should belong to people, not organizations of any sort, for profit or not. An organizational user name is inherently promotional, just from its existence, [COM:ADVERT|and we prohibit that.]]      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought they were authorized here, but would need an OTRS tag to make sure it is really an account sponsored by that organization. As such, we got User:Bundesarchiv-B6. --  Docu  at 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing of deletion requests without any valid reference, or subject to commons FoP situation

User:Jcb is closing the FoP deletion without a valid reference and only based upon his point of view, I suggest a better interpretation of FoP need to be advised to the user for sticking with current situation regarding the FoP..below listed files are a part of its result..User already informed on the same but no response was came after the last comment User_talk:Jcb#Image_kep

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dubai_051.JPG
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jebal Ali Dubai.JPG
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis palm EDITED.jpg

Due to the above said reason's i started the DR again...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Jcb about this discussion. I have to say I'm also rather puzzled by some of these closures, and the reasoning given by Jcb to justify a keep result. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis palm EDITED.jpg seems a pretty clear cut case in favour of deletion to me, and compare this other Atlantis DRs such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis, The Palm from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg. The keeping of one and deletion of the other makes little sense, particularly given that the one which was deleted was more borderline. In my view, both examples should have been deleted. CT Cooper · talk 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
@Captainofhope, if you don't agree with a keep closure, please make a new deletion nomination instead of making something personal of it against me. This is about the images, not about me. Also for example Dubai_051.JPG had already been nominated for more than three months. If it would have been that clear as you suggest, another administrator could have deleted the image in the meantime. If you are willing to switch to deal with the subject instead of with the person, I will be prepared to explain my decision more comprehensive as well, but a personal campaign against me, I will just leave alone from now. Jcb (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for giving a bad feeling of personal claims....Its simply because of the closure of deletion requests....as it seems that there is a doubt is not cleared about the 'architecture' and 'building'...If you are not clear about the FoP judgements, i would like to advice you for keeping those DR for other's consideration..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed the same thing a few weeks ago: User:Jcb closes deletion requests because "he thinks that something is like this" and "it is likely that" or "it is unlikely that". User:Jcb must learn that such things don't work on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Jcb told me that "As far as I know if it's PD in the country where it was created and first published, it's also PD in the US." When I pointed out why that is not true and against policy I was told he doesn't care. Could someone bother to appear on the user talk page and point out that the official policy is that works have to be free in both source country and the U.S. per COM:L? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jcb asked me to state that "he doesn't care" is my reading of his comment. Hekerui (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Some more issues are coming to this board...Jcb need to act accordingly to avoid such type of complaints.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
We can all make a wrong closure so a few mistakes is not a big problem. Generally it is a good idea to tell why the DR was closed as kept or delete if it is not obvious to everyone. And if someone askes you "Why" you should answer. Either where the user asked or by adding a better summary to the DR. As far as I can se the captain did not get a good answer to the question "why". If I understand Jcb correct he is willing to give better arguments when closing DR's in the future. I think that is a good start. I expect that Jcb will follow the outcome of the new DR's of the files and will act according to the result in future closures.
As for the other issues please provide links or diffs so we do not have to look to find it. Especially when the accusations are so serious. --MGA73 (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As an admin others expect little more clarity in his closings...that's all. If he cannot provide such clarity let the DR be opened for a while, others will look at it......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Captainofhope is right. It is absolutely unproblematic to have a DR open for some months in order to give more competente users the possibility to take part in the discussion or for competent admins to close it. --High Contrast (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Several months is too long, when there is no debate at all. Jcb is trying to do something about the enormous backlog, and he is quite good at it. /Pieter Kuiper 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I am in favour of the "no-fop in Arab emirates" (at least until an emirati lawyer provides us convincing evidence to the contrary) point of view and finding some of the DR closures by JCB a bit strange. However it seems that JCB is quite open to the possibility that somebody reopens a DR he previously closed. In that sense, I think it is possible to find a peaceful conclusion to the existence of different points of views on such issues. Teofilo (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fastily

This user edits their contributions on talk pages (diff after other users commented on them. This makes it complicated for other users read them later. The edit is not visible through a timestamp or another annotation. Apparently this appears normal to them (diff).

It's the same user who started a thread on COM:AN where they failed to mention that an explanation was given and reviewed by another administrator before. Their way of providing diffs and permanent links even linked to the relevant pages omitting this.

The user already moved around pages I created for purely cosmetic reasons earlier.

Reviewing the log of their edits and their approach looks hardly constructive. --  Docu  at 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather confused. Each incident/diff you cite is an occurrence where you've been egregiously wrong and where I have had to correct your mistakes. Of course, should the community decide otherwise after reviewing the aforementioned incidents, I shall gladly comply with whatever conclusion is reached. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you guys not hear the newbie, he is frustrated. You should both try to demonstrate not bad influence in front of them. --ZooFari 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Better yet, I think they should avoid each other entirely. Powers (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that too. Amada44  talk to me 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thirded -FASTILY (TALK) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Happy10171

This editor continues to upload copyright violating images, despite multiple warnings over time. Editor also has a history of ignoring policy and guideline on en.wikipedia.org. Would an administrator please take a look? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nagy has taken care of his uploads, all gone. --Túrelio 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Certainly. That's not the ongoing issue though. The editor, despite multiple warnings (1, 2), continues to upload copyright violating images. The editor is apparently 10 years old (see his en talk page, search for "i am only 10"), and is either unwilling or unable to understand copyrighted vs. free licensed content. What I was hoping for was a stern warning from an administrator that an indefinite block would be applied the next time he uploads a copyright violation here, or something similar. Warnings, discussion at en, and various template notification tags of impending deletion for copyright violations are having no effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would appear this editor is evading a block. See User:Happy6057, which account has similar editing history on en. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike da man212 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user continues to upload copyright violations despite several warnings and being warned about the blocking policy. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Turelio beat me to it -- blocked for a week. Then we'll see.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Trmchina

Yes, another promotion-only account. User page was deleted for this reason. Take a look if you would at their contribs: not only image descriptions are loaded with SEO-soup (curable), but there are huge promo-banners across each. As Steve Buscemi would say, "it's a geiser ..." of a "watermark". Delete? NVO (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. They were also copyvio -- the source site was explicitly (C).     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Look2See1

Clearly does not accept Commons:Categories as exemplified here, here, here and in dozens if not hundreds of other edits. What's most concerning is that the user is bringing over from en.wiki a behaviour of deliberate ignorance of wiki guidelines despite of being warned numerous times by numerous editors. His systematic strategy on en.wiki has been to invoke to be following other examples, to claim that a small number of errors among many good faith edits should be acceptable, eventually to apologise and than carry on with miscategorisations exactly the same way with the same speed. --ELEKHHT 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think your explanation about the categorization of File:Tomb of Unknown Soldier Egypt.jpg could be a bit more detailed.
The explanation of the reversal on Category:Swimming_pools_in_California is fine, but maybe the user hasn't read it. --  Docu  at 08:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The three that are linked are all certainly backwards. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PetrS. - copyvio

All this image: Images from the printed publication or a magazine, photocopy or scan. PetrS. is not author of source.

File:Balm28-05274krc1991.jpg

File:Balm28-05201smichov1991.jpg

File:Balm28-05195vrsovice1991.jpg

File:Balm28-05179smichov1991.jpg

File:830049branik1991a.jpg

File:Balm-krc1991.jpg

File:830049branik1991b.jpg‎

--W.Rebel (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

@W.Rebel, to me these images don't look like a scan from paper print, no Moire etc. Why do you think that they are not originally own shots? --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe their identity (photocopy or scan). "Moiré" may not always be apparent. According to the type of printing photos. Different types of printing = different image quality. Offset printing, Photo printing, pigment printing, each has a different quality, better or bad. Printing photos "Sepia", used recently for technical books and publications. There is no need for high quality but low price.
The aspect ratio of photographs (from first, next, to last) ... 1:1,56 - 1:1.7 - 1:1,69 - 1:1,93 - 1:1,43 - 1:1,47 - 1:1,54. Ratios are different. Standard photographic materials (negative) have an aspect ratio of 1:1 (6x6 cm) and 1:1,44 (6x4,5 cm) for roll film. For cine-film (24x36 mm cartridge) 1:1,5 . Other formats for negatives are very unusual or very outdated. Also images are different sizes, presumably to finish printing in books. These dimensions of these images are only approaching but not the same. Such measurements are due to cropping of the original text from the image. Also copies of the image, if this has been changed in size for printing and formatting text in the book. Specifically this picture: File:Balm-krc1991.jpg (964 × 652 pixels). The "old" image is missing (have an error): film grain and minor processing errors (speck, the groove of old negatives, etc.). These pictures were not processed out on matte paper. But the glossy or coated paper (book). Homemade pictures naturally age. Poor contrast, fade, but the cracks, fingerprints and/or specks. Homemade processing of photos were black and white version "Sepia" is substandard and home archive unfounded. The photos are missing part shade, shade transitions. This error has been gradually established. The first fault in printing to the book, the second fault when copying (scan or re-photo). Homemade photo looks like this: File:Fučíkova 1983 (206).jpg the signs of aging and domestic work, also the same size of others. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no symptom that these photos would be copyvios. Btw. it is very improbable that photos of such quality would be printed in some book, it looks like amateurish photos. The aspect ratio, contrast and one-colour tone can be easily effected by everybody, it's not a specificity of printed photographs. However, I have suspicion that this copyvio accusation is only a trolling as a revenge for the fact that PetrS. requires that W.Rebel should state sources of his derivative images. --ŠJů (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Túrelio and ŠJů that these could well be scans of the the editor's own prints, although I note that at high magnification there is an artifact on the right side of the first two that suggests they might be from a book. Certainly the variety of shapes means nothing -- I usually crop my images to a shape that pleases me before uploading.
In any event, this is not the place for the discussion -- that is why we have the Mass DR procedure.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the 2nd time (that I know of) that W.Rebel has brought totally unfounded accusations here as revenge for action against him elsewhere. Maybe time for a block for disruption and wasting people's time. Wknight94 talk 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
At the request Túrelio, I explained my views on plagiarism. I explained my views on the above images and do not see it in the public domain. You have no obligation to subscribe. Your opinion may vary. It is a plurality of views. This view is as relevant as the opinions of others who do not like my work and his intention is to cause controversy. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If it is necessary I can try to find negatives and make an experiment with scanning of them. Photos of the same time (cca 1991) I have also in categories Category:ČSD Tatra coaches from 1950th, Category:ČSD Class Z, Category:ČSD class Bpjo and Category:ČSD Class DPost. --PetrS. (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources of drawings

Hi, in the talk to the W.Rebel´s animation of jaguar skull File:Panthera onca jaw.gif I asked author for the presentation of his source for possibility of copyrights evaluation and also for evaluation of the correctness of this animation. To this time are there only sly Rebel´s answers. I have already opinion with correctness of this picture: File:Schöllenenbahn HGe 2-2.svg where are missing the covers of gears as there are seen here: [[36]] and also the air reservoir on the roof is on the opposite. I tried to ask W.Rebel some weeks ago to repair this picture but without success.

But the statement of sources of drawings and animations is a common problem of many pictures on commons. I thing it should be solved generally. --PetrS. (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryandevans (talk · contribs)

Ryandevans (talk · contribs) has been uploading the catalog of software from http://www.advantagers.com/. They may be connected to the company (created user page on Wikipedia is spam promotion for the company) but have ignored all warnings. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Zero contribution..???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
User:str4nd deleted eleven files.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed file mover rights for a user

Hi! This is just a notice to inform that I removed file mover rights for a user after a warning to respect COM:RENAME#What_files_should_be_renamed?. I also talked to the user on IRC and asked him to start a discussion if he did not agree with current reasons to move. Further information here and next heading. You are welcome to check if you agree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I would add that we expect users to learn from experience and that DragonflySixtyseven may request file mover rights at some future time after a commitment to act in accordance with guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Since usage was not being replaced, it does seem the user was in too much of a hurry, and therefore was being careless with the tools. But many of the original names here were indeed meaningless (rename criteria 2). I'd say only about 10-20% were meaningful enough that moving them was a mistake. So I agree with Walter, IMO a clear commitment to usage replacement and caution would probably be sufficient to restore the rights. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the Delinker - mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Didn't realize how important it was at first, and then didn't take the time to figure out how to submit my own requests. I'm trying to get things worked out re: the script (which doesn't take into account the fact that not everyone uses Vector or Monobook). As for the 'mistakes' - I strongly disagree with that, because images with ambiguous, confusing names are more difficult to use. Commons is intended for use by humans. <Logan_WP> the search function is essentially worthless due to the ambiguous file names that Dragonfly6-7 has pointed out.

<Dragonfly6-7> I don't rename files if I can't figure out how to make them better.
<MGA73> You should provide a reason when you move files. "Better" is not a valid option.
<Dragonfly6-7> Please explain to me why, in your opinion, "brooms.jpg" is a better name than "brooms for sale in Japan.jpg" ?
<MGA73> Brooms - which reason is valid ?
<MGA73> Better is not a valid reason to move.
<MGA73> Brooms for sale in Japan IS better but it is NOT a valid reason

<Dragonfly6-7> I want to minimize the risk of people uploading (new image) over (old image) because they unthinkingly used the same short filename
<Dragonfly6-7> MediaWiki is not DOS 3.0
<Dragonfly6-7> we can have long filenames
<Dragonfly6-7> in fact, I dare say we SHOULD have long filenames

<Dragonfly6-7> anyway, I concede that not all images with names 6 characters or less need to be renamed
<Dragonfly6-7> but many of them do

<Logan_WP> I agree that many of the filenames are too short and general, but the policy on Commons is not to move every single file that may be ambiguous

<Logan_WP> on Commons, people locate images via categories, and not file name <Logan_WP> thus, file name is not as important
<Dragonfly6-7> Logan_WP - you're forgetting what happens when people upload new images
<Dragonfly6-7> and when people try to include images in articles
<esby> Logan_WP: you can locate by the filename
<Logan_WP> when people upload new images, it warns them if they are overwriting another file
<Logan_WP> sometimes people ignore this warning, but that's their problem
<Dragonfly6-7> Logan_WP - their problem and ours
<Dragonfly6-7> because they're overwriting our images

Whether or not I'm given Pagemove again, the filenames are a serious problem. I feel it's important that people be able to tell the difference between Carrot.jpg and Carrot.JPG without looking. Camelo.jpg, Camels.jpg, Camel1.JPG, Camel2.jpg, Camel.JPG, and Camel.jpg - which one is the skull? Car.jpg, Car.gif, Car.png - one is a galaxy, one is a vehicle, one is a military decoration. Which is which? DS (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your argument may be persuasive, but please make it at Commons talk:File renaming. If you succeed, you will not only avoid censure, but others may help, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The best way to make filenames unique would be to add a (unique) number to each filename. In the current system the length of a filename isn't a reason to rename a file. --  Docu  at 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is better that this user is limited to improve the description fields in the information box. If he wants to add a description in English, that is the place to do it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It would have been better if wikimedia software would have required to use an automatically generated sequence number in stead of file names. We would have got no such discussions, no problems with languages, fonts and never ending discussions about the optimal name. The place to clarify is in the description field, not the file name. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose once in a while I should state in a forum that I frequently agree with Foroa. --  Docu  at 08:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
And vice versa but sometimes at another frequency. --Foroa (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

All of User:Jay2602's images are copyright violations taken from random websites. Can an administrator warn him and delete them en masse? thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicago high school photos

Recently, User:ChicagoHistory1 uploaded a bunch of pictures of Chicago high schools that were copied from other websites. Most of his contributions under that account have been deleted, but it seems that he is still uploading copyvios as User: N Wilson01. Compare [37] with [38]. Zagalejo (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to mass-delete this as well as contribs from Chicago Public Schools299 (talk · contribs). Obvious copyvio sock ring. Wknight94 talk 02:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Negromacondo (talk · contribs)

This user continues to upload copyright violating images, (CD covers, images from books, etc.) despite i've warned in his user talk page here and in his user talk page at wikipedia.es but he has briefly replied "everything is in order". Would an administrator please take a look? Thanks. --Zeroth (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through Negromacondo's uploads. I deleted several that were blatant copyvios -- Tineye found sources that showed the photographer's name and (C). I have marked several others with DRs as they appear to be problems. I am frankly suspicious of all the uploads, as I don't think this user understands "own work" means he or she had to have taken the picture, but in several cases, Tineye did not come up with a match. User:High Contrast has added a copyvio warning to the user's talk page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Sefer ibrahim

Hello!

The photos that were uploaded by this user come from a "black listed" flickr user. What does that mean? Flickr file washing? 80.187.102.33 20:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a flickr washing. After numerous warnings, explanation, deletions the user again begin to upload blatant copyvios. I've blocked him indefinitely. Trycatch (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
What about the rest of their uploads? A lot of them are tagged as own work and yet have a {{PD-old}} license tag. –Tryphon☂ 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Photographs w/o EXIFs are almost certainly copyvios harvested from Panoramio and other sites. Author of the photos taken using Canon EOS 550D is "Samir Rəsulov" -- I don't know who he is, maybe these photo require an OTRS permission. Nokia 6120c photos very likely are created by the user himself. Trycatch (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I aggree with Trycatch: the EXIF data indicate that these files are copyright violations. --High Contrast (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, see at File:GBT-Faido.png, File:GBT-Sedrun.png and File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.svg, resp. File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.jpg. Author - W.Rebel periodically deletes templates Copyvio, although it is clear that there are derivative drawings and it is necessary to prove the licenses. --PetrS. (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've converted your speedy to DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:GBT-Faido.png, to allow for a discussion whether it is a derivative or not. --Túrelio (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is better. I have not big experiences with this instruments. --PetrS. (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For such situation's Normal DR is better...it will give time to both for a clear view.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.jpg User:PetrS. displays works without a free license (2. background - mechanical drawing) --W.Rebel (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal -- I think it would be best for Commons if you two stayed away from each other. I propose that unless our colleagues disagree, that you simply stop doing anything with each others' material -- no {{Speedy}}, no {{Delete}}, no comments on each others' DRs, nothing. If you violate this, you will be blocked.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  •  Comment Should be this proposal binding on everybody who doesn't agree that W.Rebel does conceal systematically his sources? I'm not sure how it is with copyright of technical drawings and their derivates but I'm sure that every redrawn image should be documented with source specification, indepentently on copyright status. Intentional concelaling of sources is very harmful and suspicious. See also this and this thread. --ŠJů (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@Šjů, no, the interaction between these two is highly problematic, even though the mutual criticism might be correct in some or many cases. But, it would be better if other users tag files who are suspicious of being copyvio or derivative. --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This section is simply ridiculous. COM:DR is one click away. Why COM:ANU for the deletion of a single image? Starting frivolous COM:ANU sections is disruptive and blockable as Jameslwoodward says. Wknight94 talk 00:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
@Wknight94, the problem is that these 2 users (PetrS. & W.Rebel) aren't able to cope with each other; see the other 3 threads further above. --Túrelio (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that W.Rebel is bringing every deletion here - and PetrS has now learned the same. I recommend the next time either starts a thread here that belongs in COM:DR, he be blocked. Bring behavioral issues here or edit war issues and the like - not individual deletions. Wknight94 talk 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please start regular DR's instead of starting edit wars. And please do not be insulted each other. --High Contrast (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I must apologize for yesterday reverting war. I seems that here is more quiet atmosphere then on czech wikipedia and also it indicates much lower vigilance of administrators here (higher is not necessary?). On the czech wikipedia we would have been already three times blocked. To deletion requests: To this time I found no way to induce W.Rebel to state sources to his drawings. So I tried this complicated and not very pleasant way. When I found the source I also let you to say if the usage of the source is correct. On technical drawings is usually inscription that it is copyright protected. There is a way, how to use it - from drawing and own opinion make a different drawing from some other point of view, sectioned in other levels etc, more or less detailed etc. Simple redrawing to the last screw is copyright violance. --PetrS. (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Petrs. beautifully written, but like here, on the Czech Wikipedia searches disputes. He says that ... On technical drawings is usually inscription that it is copyright protected. However, it is manipulation. Somewhere no evidence that the original drawing that sign. His argument is only an estimate, he is quoted as fact. In such estimates it creates controversy. Here and elsewhere.

Wars and revertace not good. It depends on the willingness to accept the creation of art and someone else. Specific file File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.svg was recorded April 2010. All year no one cared or Petrs. been without criticism, this familiar image all the time. Only last time, why? I do not need to attack anyone, but if Petrs. transfer disputes in the Czech wikipedia commons, it is wrong. His images are not entirely clear, the sources also are not true, referring to alternative sources, rather than the original. According to sources, he presents can not draw a picture. The missing details of the sources drawn in picture. --W.Rebel (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But what to do with File:Beugniot bogie.png, File:Krauss-Helmholtz bogie.png and File:Schwartzkopff-Eckhardt bogie.png? This is my own work based on stated sources but W.Rebel modifies periodically the description with notices as: "incorrect source has been created according to this source, unknown copy", as usually by that person without any proof nor indication supporting this his meaning. Can you help me?--PetrS. (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
These sources do not provide information to draw these pictures. Cartoon images contain more detail (parts, components, mechanical relations) than the details of the source. Therefore, they had to be made according to another source. According to the link source is not possible to draw such a picture. What is this source? It is copied from non-public sources, the author of this source did not give permission to use. --W.Rebel (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've now blocked W.Rebel for a week for merciless edit warring on the three images PetrS. mentioned above. I looked for evidence of the speedy copyvio that W.Rebel tagged with and found none. I recommended a COM:DR instead and he refused, instead re-adding his speedy copyvio tags more than once. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lyes L

Hello,
This user has continuously uploaded images under copyright from the Web. After several warnings, he has been blocked for one day. However, he continued to act the same way today. I would request to block his account for a longer period. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1 week. --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved administrator review the discussion of the rule change for featured picture candidates and edit Commons:Featured picture candidates accordingly, please?[39] Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Need some thought..

Please see User_talk:Latebird#We_need_to_do_something_about_these_idiots...?????? --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeat copyvios from User:Nfjb

User Nfjb (Special:Contributions/Nfjb) has uploaded a whole host of copyvio photos of old Volvos, focussing in particular on Canadian production. I haven't had time to check every single contribution, but so far everything I have looked at has been a blatant copyvio. The same user used to upload as Nbritto (Special:Contributions/Nbritto), as stated by him/herself here. Nbritto has also only ever uploaded copyvios, and as is evident here, doesn't comprehend the idea of copyright ("Photo was retouched and edited. Therefore own creation").

I vote for a weeklong block, and the rapid deletion of all uploads from both of this user's accounts unless he/she can prove the provenance of any photos. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Quite a few deleted - one of those "own work"="it was on my computer from somewhere" I think. The rest should be reviewed. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
User already had a whole host of photos deleted, which I hadn't even realized: [40] He/she still kept uploading in the same fashion. I have tried to engage this editor over on the mainpages, but he/she has not been really willing to communicate. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Moderniranianlanguagesmap.jpg

Could s.o. have a look at the history of this file. Looks like a long term whele war. Would be nice if it could stop. thx. --JuTa (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything seems cool now? Rehman 06:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No 2 more image-version-reverts today. --JuTa (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. Reverted to version before edit war began, and protected. Let me know if any issues. Kind regards. Rehman 10:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thx a lot. --JuTa (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios; User:Vdn12

Hello,

User:Vdn12 constantly uploads copyvio-pictures (en, commons) and puts them in mentioned article. No response to talk page messages. He also uses IPs to vandalize his copyvio pictures in to the article [41]. This has an international dimension, because after uploading he replaces existing pictures in nearly all language versions with his copyvio-ones. When his copyvios get deleted, CommonsDelinker deletes all the references to the pictures, so the article becomes picture less. Please block the user and semi-protect the article. --bluNt. 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: this was listed at the enwiki ANI, but the root of the problem, of course, would be in his uploading to Commons. An admin has blocked on en-wiki, but I wanted to bring the situation to your attention in case you decided that some kind of action is needed here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, deleted, blocked - thanks for the info --Herby talk thyme 13:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

{{speedy}} deletion request by User:84.75.160.122

IP user 84.75.160.122 (talk) is issuing {{speedy}} deletion request without creating account. I already asked to him/her to create the user account, but he/she said no need, and continue to issue the request.

To discuss about appropriateness of this user's {{speedy}} deletion request, account creation is highly needed.

Please suspend his/her deletion request, and advice to create account. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from 84.75.160.122

Hi, please also consult User talk:84.75.160.122 as of 03:00, 19 February 2011, when i recommended to Clusternote to involve Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Thank you and best regards, 84.75.160.122 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: Personally i'll appreciate if Clusternote avoids any further contacts – additionally done 03:10 + 03:08 + 03:07 + 03:05 + 03:00 + 02:59 + 02:57 + 02:56, 19 February 2011, i.e. the forum has been already contacted for mediation – until this forum did make a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.160.122 (talk • contribs) 03:23 and 03:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Note to Clusternote : as pointed before, so mediation is called for, imho we should suspend any contacts until a decision by the forum is done. At least, that's my way to avoid a potentially edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.160.122 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from other users

I noticed two categories which were emptied by 84.75.160.122. His edits causes that consistent structure of subcategories of Category:Municipal police was harmed and Automobiles of Stadtpolizei Zürich drop out of Municipal police automobiles. An user who have no notion of purpose of category structure and cohesion shouldn't tamper with restructuring them. Emptying and deleting of categories without previous discussion is a clear circumvention of rules and pertinency. --ŠJů (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

However, most of his edits are well-seeming. These speedy-delete reqeusts seem to be some excess. --ŠJů (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"To discuss about appropriateness of this user's {{speedy}} deletion request, account creation is highly needed." -- Why? IP users have talk pages, and you are certainly welcome to use them to contact the user if you have a problem with their tagging. Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FPC page

Hi,

could any administrator revert last change by Tomascastelazo on COM:FPC. That user took a poll with 10 supports against 9 opposes as consensus reached and reverted back rules which were clearly accepted just a month ago. We can't change them back without a clear consensus, and we can't afford to start a "undo" war for the FPC rules' stability sake. In short, what I'm asking:

  1. revert changes on FPC to my last changes (I won't do that myself, since that would be 3 reverts)
  2. block the page so that only admin can edit, just for a while, time for us to settle the case.

Thanks - Benh (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • It would be nice to put all sides of the story. I posted a proposal to the community, posted it at the project page to undo changes made that were definitely not done with the trannsparency of my proposal. Plenty of time for people to voice their opinion. The user who started the reverts was Benh, not me. I just conveyed the will of a majority vote. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We're 4 to agree that this isn't a consensus, and you're alone to think that. Another admin think something went wrong with your process. And Why voting back on something that was settled a month ago, and much more clearly than that ? Anyways, it's not that the rule really bother me, it's how you came so fast to that conclusion. - Benh (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Benh, I find your zealousness in this issue particularly curious, considering that you did not participate in the original debate that led to the ridiculous rule of limiting participation of new users, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. A rule was imposed that would have obstructed your own participation at one time, and a rule that has already shown to be effective in blocking participation by new users, without showing any evidence of working in dealing with suspicious accounts, its stated objective. Furthermore, you keep bringing up the word consensus, when what we have is a majority. Fast conclusion? What do you mean? I´ve seen much faster conclusions by some others in other issues and you did not seem to care. My proposal was made in the open, calling on people to vote on the project page, unlike the rule change subject of this debate, where people were not aware of, or at the minimum was presented almost as a consumated act. Whichever flawed way the original rule change was presented, this new vote was very simple, repeal or keep. The vote was very clear, repeal. Participation by the community was more representative than on the previous vote. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I find it curious that you point me to the fact that I didn't participate in the previous vote, when you voted for any user to be able to vote on FPC, regardless of their past contributions. This doesn't lower my opinion compared to yours I hope. I also find it curious that you always omit that other people agreed with me. Anyways. Let the admins settle this for good. Whatever will be decided, I'll accept. As I said, the rule itself doesn't really bother me anyhow...- Benh (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I objected the first proposed change. The record is there. I believe that there should not be any preconditions to participate in FPC. Where you subjected to those rules? No. So why should others? On account of who were they proposed? And why should the admins settle this? 8 people agreed with you, or should it be that you agreed with 8 people. I agreed with 9 people. That is called a majority, it is not a call for admin participation. Besides, who are you to decide against a majority opinion? Your voice counted, with the same weight as anyone else, why should your voice be considered more valuable than the others? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this request.... Why bring it up as a user problem? Is there a problem with bringing up a community concern up to a vote? Is it a problem to have the vote represent a majority? Is it a problem to convey the will of a majority? What is the problem anyway? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 Comment I have reverted the changes prior to the conflict and left a note on the FPC talk page. I think the best thing to do now is not argue about why or how the conclusions were wrong. Instead the issue should be discussed more and have a neutral person make the changes or ask a bureaucrat. Thanks, --ZooFari 04:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Tomascastelazo, I brought this matter here originally because I thought your close of the discussion on the talk page was improper.[42] You were clearly an advocate for one position in the discussion and in no way uninvolved. I didn't think it necessary to make that view explicit, at that time. I thought then, and I think now, that the proper approach was to request that an uninvolved editor review the discussion and make a decision based on that review. That is what has happened. I understand that you are displeased by the result, but I think it is time to accept it and move on. You are welcome to bring this matter up again in a few months, if you wish. Part of effective advocacy is knowing when to pause and allow positions to soften and evidence to accumulate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Walter: What is the result? 10 people voting for a repeal of the rules, and 9 voting in favor of keeping the new rules. I would accept an opinion of an uninvolved administrator considering that she/he studies the issue from the beginning, meaning that the original proposal to change the rules be evaluated, the process, the problem, the proposed solution. You are all defending your opposition to a majority vote, yet seem to distance yourselves from the main issue, that the rules were instituted to deal with suspicious accounts, yet from the very beginning proponents of that rule have not defined what are suspicious accounts, that as it stands right now, any new users, by rule, is suspicious. Who declared that to be a problem? Under what authority is a new user branded suspicious? How was it determined that requiring 50 edits and 10 day wait is a sign of nor being suspicious? Just consider the following:
  1. What constitutes a suspicious account?
  2. How many suspicious accounts were detected prior to the rule chance so that the issue could be declared a problem?
  3. How many suspicious accounts have been averted so far?
  4. How is the effectiveness of the measure being tracked?
  5. Who is keeping track of the effectiveness of the measure?
  6. What is the methodology for monitoring the problem?
  7. How many new users have been affected so far?
  8. What is consensus?
  9. Who determines consensus?

What I see is a lot of people justifying keeping in place rules imposed by a flawed rationale and process, justifying reverting a majority vote on the issue and keeping new users from participating in Wikipedia, in a little bubble of the project, contrary to its spirit and practices. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Commons works on consensus (see this Wikipedia policy for what the word "means"), and so do almost all activities on Commons (the big exception being copyright law). The rules of FPC are the result of consensus, the fact that individual FPCs are judged by a simple vote is a consequence of that (consensus is that is the only way that FPC can function). Majority rule does not normally apply. The original discussion did reach a consensus result [to add the rule]. Consensus can, and does, change with time, but consensus can not be overturned by a close majority vote. A yes/no vote is often the wrong way to do this as it polarises the community into two opposing factions, making any sort of consensus impossible. In this case, the timing has also made it harder to work out if there is any change. You can better assess how a new rule is doing if you give it time to work (or not) in practice.

Now some of the rules changes on FPC lately do seem a bit strange in some ways to the outsider, but they did have consensus support when they were implemented. In general, we do not change things unless there is a consensus for the change. The vote indicates no consensus for the proposed change to the rules (10:9 is not consensus in any way shape or form). It also indicates that the community is unhappy with the present rules, but that further discussion is needed to work out how to change them. In short: The closure as "no consensus" is correct and the right thing for the FPC community now is to discuss things and work out how to move forwards, not just call another vote or complain about the last one being improperly closed.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nilfalion for the explanation. Good interpretation even though the concept itself by wiki definition is still ambiguous... and even by these standards, original method of changing the rules would have fallen short for many reasons, that is my opinion. I take your explanation of consensus adequate for this discussion. However, the issue is still unaswered. How can there be consensus on an undescribed problem? How can consensus be reached without knowing what the problem is? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:OTRcincy

Persistent copyright problems here and on enwiki. 6 uploads already deleted, thought it would be wise to have someone more knowledgeable than me look at their remaining uploads.

One thing I did spot is that is that one of the images in this montage (File:Beforeafter12vine.JPG) appears to be this image (File:Over-the-Rhine-12th-and-Vine.jpg) although it's claimed as own work. January (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I warned the user about the blocking policy on the commons and made a mass deletion request here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Look2See1 (2nd)

Nothing changed since Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#Look2See1. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (from a sample of 10 or so edits. I suggest at least removing Autopatrolled flag from this user, as his/her edits cannot be trusted. --ELEKHHT 04:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol removed. I haven't looked into it deeply enough to see how best to reform this user. --99of9 (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No idea, but now is reverting my reverts without comment. --ELEKHHT 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The Category:Flora of ... edits on March 4 seem helpful to me.[43] The Category:Black_and_white_photographs_of_monuments edits were not.[44] The added categories were soft redirected. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it has good edits too, but a very large amount of bad edits. As stated before, what's concerning is the (a) systematic ignorance of categorisation guidelines and (b) systematic ignorance of other editors. Has been warned many times on en.wiki but I see no change of attitude. Maybe in botanics most of the edits are good, but in architecture and urban matters there is a huge amount of attempted nonsense, probably not fully aware of what is doing. My revert rate has been around 30-40% of the checked edits, but I only had time to look to a small number of them. --ELEKHHT 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. Trees are not furniture. Squares are not streets. So, what is the problem with the example edits? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The examples link to my reverts of Look2See1's edits: the problem is with the edits which have been reverted, and that after I corrected them, some were reverted by Look2See1. --ELEKHHT 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Look2See1 (talk · contribs) has 3000 edits to category namespace and very little discussion on his/her talk page.[45] Wouldn't we see a lot more discussion there, and more deleted edits, if a serious problem were present? Perhaps patience and more discussion would be helpful. I would encourage Look2See1 to do the same, and also to provide edit summaries and not to mark category edits as minor. S/he should avoid reverting the edits of others with no discussion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Artur Andrzej (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user is not correctly indicting the source of his uploads and was previously warned of the blocking policy after uploading several copyvios. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Peamm and User:Peamm2009

Please observe this user and his sock puppet. He is blocked in en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia, because of writing fake articles and legal threats [46] and loaded multiple copyvios to commons (see also User talk:Peamm and User talk:Ra'ike#Pictures). In my opinion, this user should be blocked on commons, too, in order to avoid the danger of further uploads of copyvios. -- Ra'ike T C 11:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the extra account anyway. I am never sure quite how much Commons wishes to follow other wikis and their blocks. Personally, given the legal threats, I would probably block the main one too - other opinions? --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is (the old) message the en-admin-noticeboard -- Ra'ike T C 12:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I've seen better translations I think but the gist is there. After reading it I am happy to here other views before anyone blocks the main account I think. --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the actions of other WPs are good suggestions to us that we should look hard at this person. What I see, I don't like -- aside from the threats, his actions at File:A08.jpg and File:Image002.jpg -- uploading completely unrelated unfree images over good images -- is simple vandalism. He has made no useful contributions here and his deleted user contributions list is significant. Not worth the trouble, as far as I can see.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Images of User:Mcarse

All images uploaded since 12 March by Mcarse (talk · contribs) appear to be non-free, taken from this Flickr account, and not own work (the images on Flickr are all claimed to be copyrighted by the artists who created the sculptures depicted, with photography credits to different persons). The uploader admitted on en-wiki that these are non-free and that the artists are in fact "protective of their copyright" [47]. Could somebody nuke these without me having to copyvio-tag all of them please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mostly ✓ Done. Remaining recent ones are {{PD-text}} or already in COM:DR. Less recent uploads also contain some questionable material with varying cameras, low resolution and lack of EXIF. Some or all of those might be good for COM:DR as well. Wknight94 talk 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

84.61.155.24

This IP user is creating multiple nominations of files for deletion with "French copyright law sucks", "Belgian copyright law sucks", "UAE copyright law sucks" and "Russian copyright law sucks" as the rationale. – Adrignola talk 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:84.61.155.241. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done, blocked, user did not react but continued with this deletion request reasons. --Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the same ISP that powers the highly respected "Sorry Duralex" IP (cf. [48], [49], [50] etc CU to connect them to a registered account)- I doubt that blocking one of its incarnations makes any sense. NVO (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

-> 84.61.186.139 (blocked on DE), well know troll on DE, active since 2005, see de:Benutzer:Seewolf/Liste_der_Schurken_im_Wikipedia-Universum#Unsinnsumleitungen_.2F_Buchstabendreher & de:Benutzer:Entlinkt/Troll --Hozro (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is he the same as former Fernrohr? or just coincidence? then if he is, why having asked for blocking his registered account then? New known IP seems to be 84.61.170.180 but he might have choosen "valid" deletion reasons (no more "law sucks" reason). Jeriby (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:QwenQwen

QwenQwen (talk · contribs) has been uploading things as "Own work", which are clearly not own work (example). I could just delete as copyvio, but its possible that some of the images are PD-old, so would appreciate someone else looking at it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Before knowing of this entry I had already asked him on his talkpage. As of his userpage over at :de, he seems to be a newcomer. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetamilmms

Thetamilmms (talk · contribs) has been uploading a large number of photographs of some Tamil actors, all tagged as "own work", although some also have other sources indicated, some are evidently screenshots, others are from different cameras, lack exif data, are of low resolution or show other signs of being likely copyvios. Some images have so far been deleted for a variety of reasons. The user has been unresponsive to requests like this (cf [51]) Would somebody nuke the rest, or do we need to go through all the process of nominating them for deletion? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned of commons blocking policy and a mass deletion request has been created here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Blocked by Herbythyme on March 17, 2011 for 1 day. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

TomZH3030

User:TomZH3030 uploaded three images which are almost certain copyvios File:NZ.jpg, File:WaidbergZH.jpg, and File:1 Bez naslova.png. Those are scaled-down proffessional-looking photographs. I vaguely remember the one [similar to] NZ.jpg being lifted from a photo competition website, and has been (or a collage containing it) deleted before. No such user (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A mass deletion request has been created here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Antônio Soletti

Antônio Soletti (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

All uploads need a review. Claims "own work" over a FIAT commercial, etc. (I strongly doubt that people actually involved in high-profile advertising will ever post a client's job here). Apparently it's the same as the deleted File:Fiat Ambiente.jpg, now called File:Meio Ambiente Web.jpg and File:1.jpg.

Off topic, shouldn't names like 1.jpg be shut and salted? NVO (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Created mass deletion request here and warned user of blocking policy. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
All of the users files have been deleted and the user has not uploaded any more files since being warned. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rehman/Docu dispute

(Heading renamed from "What really is wrong with this dude, seriously?")


For those admins that remember that ridiculous dispute between User:Docu and me, looks like s/he still has something against me... Look at this reply after my relatively nice and friendly note... Rehman 06:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know that Docu has had problems with you in the past, maybe you should stay away from his or her talk page? Powers (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Just trying to put past as past. Guess that won't work with this user... Rehman 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
For an inexperienced administrator looking for help, your question "What really is wrong with this dude, seriously?" doesn't look that friendly to me. --  Docu  at 05:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
May I remind both you and Docu about COM:MELLOW, please? Also, talk page headings should be neutral (fixed, now). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Trust me, I am being the nicest person possible, I have even tried "restarting" with this dude many times but to no avail. Like I proved in the link above, there is no use in trying to be friendly with this person. Wait a few hours, and there'll be another sarcastic/defensive/"inexperienced" comment below... Just look at their attitude (and what others think of them) in his/her last RFA, it proves enough. With all respect, I am done trying to fix things between us. It is really unfortunate on how such a senior person would turn out this way. Rehman 00:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just try to do things right and ask if you need help. Looking Yann's comments at User_talk:Rehman#File:Affiche_OMS-AIEA.jpg, it seems deletions are still new to you. --  Docu  at 05:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)

Qweasdqwe

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

Too many copyvio concerns (DRs and speedies) raised today. Earlier, the user had similar experience at Russian wikipedia. NVO (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Warned user about commons bocking policy and created a mass deletion request here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of image by User:Rama

Hello, This admin is deleting this image (File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg) because he doesn't like the content. There absolutely no copyright issue with this image. The 2 symbols (medical and nuclear) are obviously not copyrighted, and the rest is just a few words. Also the proper procedure was not followed. It was speedy deleted without any warning. Yann (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are blocking users with whom you have a looooong history of being 'enemy'. I call this behaviour more serious than Ramas because I am pretty sure I can find in your deletion history actions where you also did not follow the rules. -- Cecil (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I just checked Ramas edits of the last week. There was nowhere intimidating behaviour which makes this even worse. I would request you being blocked for misuse of your rights. The same time as you did to Rama. -- Cecil (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yann should be desysopped for this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine, sorry. I should not have blocked him. But enough is enough. Yann (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yann also abused his undelete rights in this case, undeleting File:Affiche OMS-AIEA.jpg several times, without following the normal undeletion procedure and (more important) being the original uploader. Jcb (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It is the deletion which is an abuse of right. There was not a proper procedure for deletion, so requesting that I use a proper procedure for restoration is completely unacceptable. If you do not agree with this image, open a deletion request. Yann (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the deletion was not done by Rama. It was done by Rehman. And instead of following procedure an either asking Rehmann or/and going to UNDEL, you simply restored the image despite not being neutral. Only then Rama acted and deleted your right-abusive restoring. -- Cecil (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not the first time. I had a quarrel with him about that already in 2008 where he restored one of his uploads after I had deleted it in a regular deletion request. One would think he knows about COM:UNDEL by now. It was mentioned back then that using UNDEL would have been proper procedure if he does not agree with a deletion and the deleting admin does not react the way he wants. -- Cecil (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You were given good advice at COM:VP.[52] Please try to resolve this matter among yourselves. I think the participants have been way too quick to use the delete/undelete/block buttons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WTF? Is this fight really needed? Shame on you. Go work on some backlogs for 1 week!
    • Yann made a mistake and agrees and said "I'm sorry". Rama is normally an understanding user so I trust that he does not want to make a big thing out the mistake Yann made. So I think we should let this be a warning to Yann not to do it again and let this case be for now.
    • Rama also made a mistake but I see this as a single mistake and do not think that we should put more wood on the fire now.
In short. Unless someone really thinks it is worth adding more to this case I think we should close it and get on with some work to make Commons better. Agreed? --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that Rama simply undid an unrightful restoring by Yann. Yann should have contacted Rehman (the deleting admin) or go to UNDEL. The only mistake (if you want to call it like that) on Rama's side was that he should have stayed away from Yann and simply notified somebody else about Yanns misbehaviour. -- Cecil (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That is why I call Ramas mistake "a single mistake" (even if he deleted it twice) and something we should do nothing more about. If a file has been deleted by a mistake there is no reason to delete it again just because it was undeleted by "the wrong admin". Funny thing is that after it was restored Rama reverted a removal of a speedy nomination [53]. If Rama agreed that the file should be speedy deleted why not delete the file? Probably because he knew that it was disputed and the correct thing to do with disputed speedy nominations is to take them to a DR. I even know a case where I should have done the same (I will correct my mistake shortly). --MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Just for reference, some part of this discussion may be found here. Per the "proper procedure for deletion" raised on my talkpage and above, shouldn't it actually be the tagging user that should inform the uploader (in that case Ludo29)? Kind regards. Rehman 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's true, uploader should have the opportunity to respond to a nomination. Also this is not an obvious case for speedy deletion, so a normal DR from the begining would have been more appropriate. Jcb (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since, apparently, it is impossible to rely on others to investigate issues before taking actions or talking, I regretfully feel forced to make a statement.

  • The image was marked as a speedy by User:Ludo [54] and very quickly deleted by Rehman. None of them notified the uploader. I have absolutely nothing to do with deleting this image nor with evaluating its interest or copyright status.
  • The image was restored by Yann, who is the uploader, in blatant violation of all rules pertaining to usage of admin rights. Yann has a history of similar behaviour, not only on Commons but also on fr: (see for instance Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/Poppy-Yann. I decided to revert his restoration which I regard to be seriously wrong (anyone who thinks that an uploader with admin rights should be entitled to summarly restore his own images is invited to clearly say so).
  • Yann blocked me for one month, without warning and without notification, after restoring his own image thrice in a row.
  • User:Perky removed the Speedy notice from the now restored image [55], without setting up a DR. I reverted this and informed her of the problem, telling her to put up a DR if necessary [56]. My position was backed by Esby [57].
  • Multichill replaced the Speedy notice with a DR, which he attributed to me. I corrected the error [58] [59] and expressed my displeasure at being attributed the positions and actions of others. I do not give a fuck about the image, I have never expressed any opinion of any sort on its validity or its status, and I initiated absolutely nothing about it. Nevertheless Multichill reverted my rectification [60], threatening me in the process. I denied ownership of the DR on the page [61]. I note that Multichill has also publicly attacked me on the Village Pump, in vague and insulting terms to which it is impossible to respond [62].

From these facts, I conclude that:

  • Yann's discernment is clearly not commensurable to the power he holds.
  • Commons has become a place where offenders can spin facts with some sort of press campains. Not only is this not discouraged, but it has become a necessary tool to make oneself heard. Tricks like naming sections on this page, or starting "discussions" on COM:VP, are gross and obvious
  • Some admins act and make public statements without properly investigating facts. This intellectual laziness allows the gross tricks mentionned above to almost work and turning Commons into a contest on tabloid-level attacks. This is very, very lame.

Rama (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you should not have been blocked and expecially not by Yann.
I also agree that it was not you that nominated the file for speedy deletion and therefore the reason in the DR is not correct.
I think the reason why Multichill wrote as he did was because you reverted the removal of the speedy even if you knew that it was disputed. Multichill did what others should have done long ago: He took it to a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

User Kintetsubuffalo repeatedly changes the appearance of the artwork File:JAPAN EARTHQUAKE 20110311.png, WPMOS on borders applies only to photo, but this is drawing. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the difference between the various versions is, since they're all 874×781... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a slight black border around the perimeter of the version W.Rebel prefers. Wknight94 talk 02:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Next attact on image (drawing), from User:Kintetsubuffalo, Kintetsubuffalo Summary written by: "I can keep up as long as you can". This is an open invitation to revert war. I request the return to its original state (with edge) and locked. The drawing in more languages​​, should all the same. Restrictions apply only to the edge of the photo, but this is a drawing. --W.Rebel (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I don't see the point of the border. A border can be added by whoever uses the image, including by HTML (style="border: 1px solid black"). But if the border is made part of the image, it would not easily be removed. Wknight94 talk 14:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise, the HTML code does not increase further instructions, outline and does not reduce legibility. This is the case without undue loading of different versions. You should call more attention to revert to war, as called for User: Kintetsubuffalo in his edit summary. What is the reason why, or to prove who the law. Compared to a tragedy in Japan, this is embarrassing. --W.Rebel (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean at all. Wknight94 talk 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cecil's problems with civility

Cecil's edit summary here should not be acceptible, and certainly not for an admin. In User talk:Cecil#Please do not make personal attacks it is clear that Cecil intends to retaliate against perceived insults in the crudest manner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And I also made clear that I intend to say I'm sorry as soon as I see that the other guy shows that he is willing to talk in a civil way and stop vandalising. Do not forget that part. -- Cecil (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I am simply not accepting that I am always supposed to be mellow when others insult me. Can't remember his name: cecil is a nazi. Admins here: ask him to be nice to you. we don't block him for something like that.. So forget it, people insult me. I insult back. People are willing to talk civil. I will talk civil and say I'm sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pieter Kuiper here. Such edit summaries are not acceptable. I'm surprised that Cecil made an answer like that. Cecil was the first one to comment in Rama/Yann discussion above with the point that it was not a good idea to block someone you have a dispute with. I think it is obvious that it is also not a good idea to be uncivil just because others are. So no more comments like that please! --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't react well to being threatened to be sued so excuse me if I express it. And my experience with you guys is that I don't receive help even in the worst cases of insults and harassment. So I deal with it my way. I was teached by my experiences on Commons to do that. If you can't accept me as a product of the discussion culture here then remove my rights, all of them (bureaucrat, admin AND editing). I started here because I didn't like photographing just for myself, but nowadays I have a pro-flickr-account so Commons is not needed for me anymore. Flickr has the better uploading-mechanisms anyway. -- Cecil (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"You guys..."? The user was new to Commons and if we welcome users like you did we will lose them very fast. If you upload a photo and I say you stole it somewhere would you not be upset? You just demonstrated what happens when users get upset. So I suggest you go to bed and look at it tomorrow and tell me if you understand why he was upset.
By the way I'm sorry to hear that you do not get help when needed. But I think that it is a bad excuse to greet new users like that. Next time leave a not on AN that you are disappointed that we/the admins did not find a good solution. --MGA73 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
With "you guys" I meant the admins here, not the new guy. And I don't think the new guy would have come back anyway as he was just uploading a promo-picture of his old no-more-existing band to use it in a WP-article about himself. As soon as he has fulfilled his quest to keep himself memorized he will be gone from the whole project. And the upset would depend on the picture. If it would be a small bad-quality scan then no I would understand that somebody has doubts. If it would be a full resolution picture with EXIF-data showing the same camera-attributes as all my pictures, then I would probably just ignore the person for being ridiculous and set somebody trustworthy on it. -- 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecil (talk • contribs)
By the way Cecil,The "new Guy"'s name is Steve "Stevie Beats" Adorno. i Got an email this morning from Wikimedia with an apology and very kind healing words. Apology accepted. Thanks to all "you Guys"involved.LOL.
now a quote; "And I don't think the new guy would have come back anyway as he was just uploading a promo-picture of his old no-more-existing band to use it in a WP-article about himself. As soon as he has fulfilled his quest to keep himself memorized he will be gone from the whole project."
The girl just cant help herself. its this kind of talk from cecil that started this whole mess to begin with. If one Admin/bur has users calling her a nazi(very inappropriate behavior)-and law suite threats to her, then something is clearly wrong here with Cecil. I read all the talk on this page and i am in agreement with everyone.So now I forgive Cecil. I doubt she understands what everyone's trying to tell her and her words show she doesn't want to understand why i was upset by her to begin with. By the way everyone, my "old no-more-existing band " that she is refering to is Arista Recording Artist "GQ". 4 Platinum Albums, 4 Gold Albums, 3 #1 R&B Hits. Considered "Pioneers of R&B music. Maybe when Cecil grows up, she too will Leave a "Real" legacy of her art as i have. Thanks to all "YOU GUY'S" at wikimedia! :) STEVE ADORNO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't react well to being threatened to be sued
Then you don't have the hide necessary to be an admin. You should not be threatened, but you will be threatened, and we would hope for any editor's reaction to threats to be measured and civil, rather than responding in kind. For an admin, it's even more important to do so, and as adminning brings such aditional responsibilities with it, I'd question what anyone who turns on new editors in this manner is doing with a mop. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you were right, I'm sorry. This jackasss is beyond the pale. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
THEN STOP ASSUMING YOU KNOW EVERYTHING AND SPEAK TO USERS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALISIM AND RESPECT.PEOPLE WILL STOP THREATNING YOU AND CALLING YOU BAD NAMES.THIS KEEPS HAPPENING TO YOU FOR A REASON. KINDNESS WORKS BIG TIME. I AM SORRY I YELLED AT YOU YESTERDAY... I GUESS ITS JUST WHO YOU ARE AND THATS HOW YOU BEHAVE. I CAN ACCEPT THAT. BUT PLEASE CHECK YOURSELF AND YOUR PEOPLE SKILLS...ALL THIS MESS DIDNT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is somehow ridiculous that precisely Kuiper frets about other peoples behaviour. --High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant who started this "request". Are you saying it is ok to talk like that? If so just say it. --MGA73 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Which problem do you have? --High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
My problem is that YOU apparently think it is quite ok to say ”piss off, freak”! So perhaps you should remove this: "This user believes in assuming good faith and civility." from your user page... --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are too aggressive. I have never said what you are trying to put in my mouth. Your writing above is your false interpretation. --High Contrast (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"I never said..." Perhaps the problem is that you never said what you think even when I asked you. If you have nothing to say then why are you posting here?
The problem is that an admin said "piss off, freak" and when it is reported to AN/U you do do not tell that you think admins should not say something like that. You shoot on the user who reported it. When I tell you you should focus on what is being discussed you say that it is me that have a problem.
Cecil was reported here and now you are trying to move focus to Pieter Kuiper and I. What good is that going to do? I suggest you either say "It is ok to call other freaks" or "It is not ok to call other freaks". There is no need to make things more complicated with irrelevant things and unclear talking. --MGA73 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not trying to move focus on Kuiper. And, things have not been made more complicated by me and by the way: the "civility"-tag on my userpage maybe message enough. You can interpret this. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy that you agree that this is not about Kuiper. --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@High Contrast: an ordinary contributor would get slapped for something like this with a block, but admins, bureaucrats, etcetera can behave like this with impunity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since this obviously has nothing to do with Cecil's words or actions, why don't you clearly say that her offending feature is having administrative rights, and spare us the charade? Rama (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Her actions against a new contributor and her response should be sufficient reason to desysop her. But of course, some of her colleague admins are immediately circling the wagons. Although User:High Contrast has an incongruous {{User civil}} on his user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kuiper has to take his drama where he can find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
JUST LIKE YOUR DOING NOW? FRETTING ABOUT KUIPER? LOL ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, some diffs might shed some light on what's actually happened.

Stevie Beats' first action on Commons (under that account) was uploading File:GQ band Sm.jpg.[63] This was later deleted by Billinghurst as a duplicate of File:GQ BAND PROMO.JPG, which was uploaded by Seguida, who has some contributions on English Wikipedia but no other ones here. File:GQ BAND PROMO.JPG had previously been deleted by Cecil because it had been tagged (by Túrelio) with {{No permission since}} for 18 days and restored by MGA73 after OTRS permission was received (see the log). The OTRS ticket supposedly confirms that Steve Adorno a.k.a. Seguida a.k.a Stevie Beats is the author of the photo which was actually photographed by someone else, as admitted in one of the rants; see subsequent links. There was some discussion about the ticket before undeletion, in which Cecil asked some relevant questions, which were met by some already pretty hostile remarks sent in via OTRS ("jesus christ already!!!!!!!!!!"; that's ten exclamation marks – count'em – for asking how he supposedly became the copyright holder of the photo).

Stevie Beats' next action was this rant on Cecil's user talk page under an unrelated heading. The rant included legal threats and vulgar language. They then vandalised a Featured Picture and Picture of the Day by Cecil before beefing up the language of the rant to make it even more hostile. Cecil reverted these edits and the vandalism without further comment.

Stevie Beats then blanked out the same unrelated section on Cecil's user talk page entirely and replaced it with another hostile rant with repeated legal threats, which was also "improved" upon.

Making legal threats is grounds for indefinite blocking on all Wikimedia projects (though this is poorly documented on Commons). This should apply to all related sockpuppets as well.

Cecil's remarks ("before I get murdered during sleep" and "piss off, freak") were thoroughly unhelpful and unnecessary in dealing with the problem. Rather than make those comments, Cecil should have alerted other administrators to the problem. That said, I believe that the user problem lies with Seguida/Stevie Beats, not Cecil. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cecil questioned the image with "looks like it was scanned from a magazine/brochure/." But I see no raster in the image, and there was no reason to write such a thing. Adorno did not react kindly to the distrust. He also wrote that it was not just about Cecil and himself, but that Commons meets everybody in this way. That should not be discarded as a rant, because it is a common experience of many contributors. It is an exaggeration to characterise as vandalism the addition of an image note disagreeing with its distinction of being "considered one of the finest images". But yes, there might be problem with copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
We can certainly have a discussion about how to make Commons a more welcoming place, but let's not pretend that the rants were written with that ambition. Likewise, let's not pretend that the image note was some sort of discerning critique of the Commons community's quality standards. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
WHO'S PRETENDING? NO ONE. MY IMAGE NOTE IS A CRITIQUE... MY OPINION.... OF POOR PHOTOGRAPHY.. NOT VANDALISM.AS AN ARTIST MYSELF, I GET OPINIONS GOOD AND BAD ABOUT MY MUSIC ALL THE TIME. I DONT CRY ABOUT IT OR CALL NEGATIVE CRITIQUE'S VANDALISM. CECIL NEEDS A TUFF SKIN. IS THIS A WIKI RANT TOO? I'M NOT SURE ANYMORE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please turn off CAPS-LOCK? It appears as though every word is being shouted. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
sorry.... im new at this and im not sure how to interact with the page... i didnt mean to be shouting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
HI PETER... IM STEVE ADORNO. IM SO SORRY THAT MY STANDING UP FOR MY WORK IS CONSIDERED A "RANT" BY WIKI ADMIN'S. THE IMAGE THAT IS CAUSING SUCH A FIT IS AN IMAGE THAT MY HIGH SCHOOL FRIEND TOOK OF MY BAND IN 1980. HE WAS THE CLASS PHOTOGRAPHER. I PAID HIM...I PAID FOR THE FILM....I TOOK THE FILM AFTER THE SHOOT AND PAID FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED.IT IS MY IMAGE AND IT WAS USED TO SIGN AUTOGRAPHS AS A GIVE OUT AT "IN-STORE MEET AND GREETS" ALL OVER THE USA WHEN WE WERE ON TOUR.THE NEGATIVES WERE MISPLACED OVER 25 YEARS AGO.... THE PHOTOS WERE COLOR XEROX COPYS....IT WAS A CHEAP WAY TO GIVE AWAY THOUSANDS ON COPIES TO FANS FOR AUTOGRAPHS AT EVENTS. THIS WAS BEFORE HOME COMPUTERS AND COLOR LASER PRINTERS.I STILL HAD A COLOR XEROX COPY OF THE PHOTO BUT IT IS OVER 35 YEARS OLD AND IN BAD SHAPE. SO I SCANNED IT AND FIX IT IN PHOTOSHOP. I GAVE WIKI PERMISSION TO POST THE PHOTO. I HAVE BEEN VERY HONEST ABOUT ALL THIS. I AM VERY CONFUSED BY ALL THIS CRAZY ADMIN. STUFF GOING ON. ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS PUT UP MY BANDS HISTORY. I THOUGHT WIKI WAS A COOL PLACE FOR THE TRUTH & HISTORY OF ALL TYPES. BUT AFTER READING ALL THIS STUFF FROM THE PEOPLE WHO RUN WIKI, WELL, IT ALL SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. PLEASE PETER & LX, GOOGLE MY NAME " STEVE ADORNO " OR ANY OF MY MUSIC PROJECTS "SEGUIDA" - "GQ" - "DEVOSHUN" - "STEVIE BEATS URBAN TREATS" OR "LORI ROSE". OR LISTEN TO MY MUSIC ON ITUNES. PLEASE LEARN ABOUT ME SO I WILL SEEM MORE HUMAN TO YOU ALL. EVERYONE SPEAKS ABOUT ME HERE LIKE I AM NOT REAL.DONT YOU ALL KNOW I CAN READ ALL THIS? THIS IS BECOMING CRUEL. IF I AM SUCH A PROBLEM, PLEASE JUST TELL ME AND I WILL REMOVE ALL AND EVERYTHING EVER CONNECTED TO ME FROM YOUR WIKI PAGES AND WILL CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. I AM SO SORRY THAT I EVER SIGNED UP TO WIKI.THANKS FOR MAKING ME FEEL LIKE ****.SORRY FOR MY "RANT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
YOU ARE INCORRECT. CECIL HAS A HISTORY OF SPEAKING POORLY AND COMING TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT USERS WITH NO FACTS AT ALL. SHE MAKES IT UP IN HER HEAD AS SHE GOES ALONG CHOPPING AND BLOCKING. PAST USERS HAVE CALLED HER A NAZI! THAT IS UN-CALLED FOR BUT CLEARLY SHES PISSING PEOPLE OFF. FOR CECIL TO EVEN HINT AT THE FACT THAT I OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, WOULD THREATEN TO "MURDER" HER IN WRITING AND ON A PUBLIC PLACE FOR ALL TO SEE IS IN FACT LIABLE. WHO WILL BLOCK HER FOR SPEAKING TO USER CONTRIBUTORS IN SUCH A DISRESPECTFUL WAY? NO ONE. USER:CECIL STARTED ALL OF THIS BY SPEAKING ABOUT ME IN A VERY DISRESPECTFUL MANNER BEFORE I EVER WROTE A WORD AT ALL.NOT ONE WORD. I BELIEVE IT MAY JUST BE A CASE OF HER BEING YOUNG AND IMMATURE. I FORGAVE HER FOR HER POOR ADMIN SKILLS.HER WIKI DUTIES HAVE GONE TO HER HEAD AND BEING YOUNG, SHE HAS NO REAL ADMINISTRATION SKILL'S OR TRAINING WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHAT SO EVER.THAT IS A FACT BY ALL THE PEOPLE SHE ANGER'S. WHAT ALL ADMIN'S NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WE USERS CAN READ WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT US.PLEASE BE KIND AND PROFESSIONAL IN YOUR WRITING. ALL ANYONE HAD TO DO WAS CONTACT ME DIRECTLY FROM THE START IN A HUMAN WAY...VERY SIMPLE...SEVERAL WIKI ADMIN'S HAVE EMAILED ME DIRECT THIS MORNING 3/19/11 IN FULL SUPPORT OF ME. I THANK THEM. STEVE ADORNO........ IS THIS CONSIDERED A RANT TOO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Steve, that sounds to me like you have a valid claim to being the sole owner of the copyright. It was a work for hire. But you must realize that questions will be asked for works where the photographer is someone else than the uploader, because there is a risk that the photographer might claim ownership. However, I find it very unfortunate that there is such a deep distrust of older photos from analogue camera's. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan de Roos 1976.jpg for an example where my honesty was called into question. I also felt insulted by that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that peter, today its " a work for hire".... back in 1980 it was a favor from a friend who i gave a small tip to for the help... we were just all school friends doing stuff for each other all the time. LOL! Sad to say, but im new here and this place seems very toxic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie Beats (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No idea what is going on here but had I seen Cecil's remarks at the time I would have blocked - plain wrong. If you are highly involved in a situation which may lead to errors then step away - think before you "save". It has happened to us all at time. --Herby talk thyme 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
So you'd have blocked everybody? Rama (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Rama, if we are not talking about a desysop or a block. Could you at least tell us if you think that it is a ok to say "piss off, freak" to other users? I'm sure most users would have been happy if a handfull of admins had said: "It is not ok to talk to new users like that. But I do not think that a block or a desysop is needed here if... (or whatever)". Instead this is turning into a discussion about Pieter Kuiper.
If the outcome of this is that it is ok to say "piss off, freak" then how are we going to keep a good tone on Commons? Everytime you protect an admin that says something that should not have been said you make it harder to block users for saying something not nice.
Since I know that you do not like Pieter Kuiper. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to say "I hereby declare that I think that Pieter Kuiper should be allowed to call other users freaks and tell them to piss off without getting blocked."? --MGA73 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
He is not on trial. Do not play judge. --80.187.106.23 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The topic here is if it is ok to say "piss off, freak" and somehow this discussion has been turned into a discussion about Pieter Kuiper, Multichill and other users. If this was a trial I hope the judge would have asked that we stay focused about the issue. You are most welcome to comment that if you have something to say about that. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes we are talking about a block: "No idea what is going on here but had I seen Cecil's remarks at the time I would have blocked" (Herbythyme).
I do not think that is is particularly appropriate to say things like "piss off, freak", no. On the other hand, I think that it is particularly inappropriate to leave fellow admins face inarticulate, rambling, insulting loonies alone, without support, and then single them out for outbursts of very understandable exasperation. The collective behaviour of the admins here tends to discourage our best contributors, as I have already pointed out. This time we have been in danger of losing Cecil.
Pieter Kuiper is already allowed to say "piss off, freak". He formulates that with insinuations, populist and-elites rethorics and stereotyps ("circling the wagons" for instance). And he is much more damaging than what somebody like Cecil would ever do, because he is deliberate, purposeful and systematic. Rama (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Cecil is a very hard working Commons admin and I agree with many of her views. However you cannot defend the indefensible - the language was wrong. There are times when any of us should leave an argument and walk away to gain some perspective. If there was no alternative to Cecil's outburst it would have been better to do so here. --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Rama Thank you. As I understand it you agree that it is not ok (or at least not a good idea) to make personal attacks. I think this discussion will be much easier if we all start by agreeing on that.
Next step could be to discuss what we should do about such comments. Personally I think that Commons would be a better place if we were better to stop attacks like that. I'm not talking about a desysop or a block for 6 months the first time (or two or...?). But a short block to say "That is not OK. Please stay cool." Most users will not do it very often and the few users that can/will not learn to stay cool will soon be blocked for a long period or forever.
Cecil has complained that when she is attacked then nothing happens. To me that is just another argument to start a new harder line where personal attacks lead to a block or at least a warning. --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be focusing on form rather than on substance. Cecil said something that was formally undesirable (the form was clumsy); she did so because she was being annoyed by a bizarre user, and she was so because she is on the front line. She helps people, she administrates content; she also contributes valuable images, and from what I have seen, she studies cases before talking about them -- unlike some other admins.
On the other hand, you react weakly, or not at all, when notorious trolls personally attack valuable users, as long as they do so while maintaining the appearance of politeness. In essence, policing is reduced to counting bad words; and the more you work and the less you brag about yourself, the more you are the target of criticism. Ultimately, valuable users are equated with repeating offenders, inarticulate fools and notorious trolls.
The problem is not about the intensity of offences, but about their nature. Rama (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree my response here was weak. I said what Cecil said was wrong but I did not block her. As I said it would probably be better if we could agree that we do not tolerate personal attacks in the future. --MGA73 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No it would not.
You are expression a trivially consensual position, while the whole question is what "personal attack" means and what "do not tolerate" entails.
Agreeing with what you just said costs nothing, means nothing precise, and therefore amounts to confirming the present state of affairs. At most, it would mean hardening and formalising a system where instances of "fuck" are counted and automatically punished, while systematic and pernicious attempts to take out valued users, go unsanctionned.
There are a number of systemic problems that we have to solve. The way that Cecil was left without support, and then targetted, is typical of how the system has spiraled into begin harsher on its most valuable and hard-working elements, while giving astonishing credit to trolls. I do not know whether we can break this destructive dynamic simply with more personal discipline, or if formal reforms should be undertaken; but I will not lend my support to empty statements that weasel out of addressing the crisis. Rama (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent user impersonation

There is an ongoing messy user conflict on English Wikipedia involving en:User:Hobartimus and various others. At one point someone using the Commons account User:Hobartimus uploaded an inflammatory picture.[64] It's possible that these accounts are both the same person, but more likely (per various observers) that someone impersonated en:User:Hobartimus to do a Joe job. It's very plausible that the impersonator is one of Hobartimus's various opponents on enwiki.

Some more info is at this enwiki ANI subthread.

I'm asking for a checkuser here to look into that upload and the account creation, and pass the info to enwiki checkusers. The account should probably also be blocked. Thanks.

75.57.242.120 09:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the posting on en wp above stating that the en wp user has no knowledge of the Commons account of the same name I've blocked this account. It can always be unblocked if the en user so wishes and usurped. It looks to me like CU would be appropriate too. --Herby talk thyme 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User TwoWings

User TwoWings insulted me beinig this and that. This is not how a deletion debate should work. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I warned TwoWings.[65] Thank you for removing his/her personal attack from the discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
First reverted, now Now hedging. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperTank17

User:SuperTank17 is edit warring, with instant reversals of my edits in spite of an attempt at conversation.

Here are four reverts, done in under sixteen hours:

I would suggest a three-day block to teach this user to calm down a bit. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try User talk:SuperTank17 first. Jcb (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I (and a half dozen other editors) have talked ourself blue on various pages with this editor for several months now. I guess we'll just have to continue edit warring. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Mr.choppers:
There are no comments or discussion on User talk:SuperTank17 in the last month. My colleague, Jcb, gave you clear instructions above -- please don't come back here and complain when you don't follow them.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The talk is ongoing on my userpage and on several article talkpages. But I guess I can start a new chat on his talkpage instead, if that's preferred. I don't think it will be necessary though, since I have been able to reach somewhat of an agreement with him. Mr.choppers (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I see that you're having a discussion -- that's good.
I suggest a little flexibility -- not everything on Commons can be perfect according to any single editor's opinion and there is so much to do that we can all afford to ignore things that aren't perfect.
Let this one go and put your effort elsewhere. Sure, that means the other guy "wins" this one, but it's not completely clear where the best way lies here and you might or might not like the result if I or one of my Admin colleagues decided to do an investigation and make a decision.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

multiple copyvio uploader needs a block

Please at least temp block User:Eliseo258 and delete all uploaded content. Currently he/she/it switched from fake Flickr upload/review tags to fake OTRS tags. Ignores messages on talk page. --Denniss (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked for 1 week. Maybe someone who speaks the appropriate language can counsel? There were fake Flickr review tags, repeated uploads, a file page with no file, file talk pages created by an IP, an empty gallery, etc. Not much of a future here for this person at this rate. Wknight94 talk 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a message in Spanish. Jcb (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:SatuSuro

Administrator User:SatuSuro changed license for some own files from PD-self to a home brewn license tag:

Not sure if I found all off them. Probably even more unacceptable changes. Please revert and watch this user. An administrator should know better. -- 78.55.60.28 05:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just informed SatuSuro of the complaint and also have stated that PD can't be changed to a stricter CC-BY(-SA) license. Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the userpage-based licence is allowed, is it? Rehman 07:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the latter as the original CC-BY license deed clearly states that the re-user has to credit the author in the way specified by the author. The problem with the above mentioned action of SatuSuro is that he changed the original PD licensing to something more restrictive. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved for pointing that out - obviously I was at error - I have over time attempted to cleanup descriptions and licences, and clearly I got it wrong - will fix - SatuSuro (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo problems with civility

User:Kintetsubuffalo has problems with Civility, disruptive comments and No personal attacks|personal attacks}}. His comments are often uncivil and attacking to anyone he disagrees with. For example:

  • Deletion Request - Comments read "hey, thanks for the good faith, jerk."
  • [66] - Edit summary reads "You're the one spewing accusations, jerk."
  • [67] - Edit summary reads "Undo revision 52301351 by AnonMoos per your obnoxious rant at my talkpage-if you're not going to fix it, leave off"
  • [68] remove border per WPMOS, again. I can keep up as long as you can

User:Kintetsubuffalo has also already been blocked 3 times for these issues.

--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have particular personal concerns with incivility, but I really wish he would take it down a notch or relax a little when it comes to the issue of automatically and mechanically adding "make transparent" and "remove borders" tags to many images, regardless of whether this is really suitable or useful in each individual case... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Serial copyvio uploader evading en-wiki block

Palm Stater (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a reincarnation of en:User:Kimcris (log), who was blocked for serial copyvio uploads on en-wiki and has now transferred his activity to Commons under a new name to avoid en-wiki scrutiny. Some of their uploads here are the same items that were previously identified on en-wiki (some now tagged, see notifications on user talk page); all others are almost certainly also copyvios. Recommend block and nuking of all images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've deleted & blocked. --Dferg (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrrrghhhhhh. The same guy is back and has been re-uploading the exact same files under his original account name, Kimcris (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked and deleted. Bidgee (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RichardKenni

I have come across several old photographs on the english Wikipedia's Cullowhee, North Carolina, and Balsam, North Carolina, articles posted by User:RichardKenni. The photographs in question: [69], [70], [71]. One photo dates to 1920, and the two others date to the early 1940s. This user, however, has uploaded them as his "Own work," and claims to be the author (presumably the photographer). I find it unlikely that he took the two 1940s photographs, and highly unlikely (unless he's 100+ years old) that he took the 1920 photograph.

Here is another image in question: [72]. I found this one on the web here, credited to PB+L Architecture, but this user has uploaded it as his own work. I haven't bothered to check for others, but there may be more.

I've posted two messages to his Wikipedia talk page ([73]), but he has quickly erased both messages. Bms4880 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. I have glanced through his contributions and there appear to be several more, perhaps many, for which he claims "own work" but which were taken as early as 1920. Some of them may be PD, and some may actually be his work. Perhaps you would go through them one by one and put together a mass deletion request for all those that you think are bad. If you need a hand doing that, after putting the list together, drop a note here or on my talk page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploads of User:3DRivers

3DRivers (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has uploaded pictures from that webpage, as indicated as in the source field.

The problem is that he has violated the copyright. The webpage states, that "no part of this website may be reproduced unless for personal use without prior permission from 3D Rivers S.A."

I cannot see that expect for file:Ned.jpg. According to our policy those files should be deleted. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

An email had been sent in to the OTRS team providing that permission from 3D Rivers for Ned.jpg. The other uploads, not so much. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

civility problem on User:Soundvisions1

This user page clearly attacks other users on the commons. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not greatly impressed by Soundvision1's remarks when he re-listed his request, though I could somewhat understand his frustration so I ignored it. However, this latest remark on his user page is troubling. This user needs to be advised on how to correctly use user pages, and that the best way to be trusted on reviewing licences on images is not to attack other users. CT Cooper · talk 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Saibo

Hello!

I think that Saibo's behaviour on this undeletion request is highly inappropriate. He is commenting every messages of users that posted there with quite nasty or snappy annotations. He is not acting with good manners when his arguments keep saying things like Commons gets censored by this and that. This is not constructive and does not help the project. --Substainer79 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the greatest behavior, but I've seen so much worse that I can't see this merits admin attention. Every so often somebody gets on their hobby horse and rides it. It's not like his comments are particularly mean or personal. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I often disagree with Saibo about deletions (he is one of the most frequent visitors of my talk page), but that shouldn't be an issue. Like all other contributors, Saibo is free to express his point of view at the appriopriate places, which the undeletion request page is. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And he continues - before having read this here. ;-) I surely do not want to hurt anybody and people who know me here or on dewp know that I am a very friendly and helpful user.
You think I should not comment other people's messages? I thought it is a discussion. If it is intended as a plain vote(?) then tell me and I stop. But then the discussion which needs to happen needs a different place. And yes, you noticed right, the censorship here at Commons makes be sick.
However, thanks for that idea: Maybe I should do it like you you and use a sock new account. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich kenne Benutzer:Saibo von der deutschen Wikipedia und kann seiner, hier vorgetragenen, Eigendarstellung nicht folgen. So "helpful" ist er nicht immer. Zudem zeigt ja sein letzter Satz, dass er Freund bissiger Kommentare ist. Offenbar besitzt Benutzer:Saibo nicht ausreichend empathische Qualitäten zu erkennen, dass solche Bemerkungen unfreundlich, unkollegial und demnach verzichtbar sind. Ich schließe mich der Ausführungen von User:Jmabel an: "Not the greatest behavior", aber fruchtbare und projektdienliche Diskussionen müssen geführt werden - nur auf eine andere Art. --80.187.107.118 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Als IP zu editieren ist natürlich auch eine Möglichkeit - danke für den Hinweis. Oh, tut mir Leid, das war wohl schon wieder unpassend, unfreundlich, unkollegial, empathisch minderbemittelt und kommentieren hätte ich wahrscheinlich auch nicht sollen. Zur Sache: kannst du mir vielleicht mal sagen, was dich an meiner de.wp-Arbeit gestört hat? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 13:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SuperTank17

After several discussions about one and the same topic the user started reapeting the categorization. Only, three, examples. You can see more in his latest edits from 16:32 till 16:26. Thanks for help, alofok* 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here and here. Look also at his discussionpage. alofok* 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR here?

Do you guys have something similar to 3RR/edit warring here? I seriously dont' know. See here. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted again. --Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. User has been blocked as a sock on en.wiki. Somebody might do something here as well. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Serial copyvio uploader won't stop after warning.

User:Srinivas0131 keeps on uploading copyvios!!. Moros y Cristianos 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. A longer block should follow if they continue after it expires. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sznro

I don't know what to make of it. This account operated (past tense) under a corporate name (acronym of a hardware plant in Samara, Russia) and apparently has access to genuine high-res technical drawings - but OTRS requests in the past were left unanswered, and some contribs are plain spam. ?? NVO (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the user's contributions should be nuked? -FASTILY (TALK) 05:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite right. I don't see a way to correctly re-license this collection without bending licensing rules. A person ("I, the copyright holder of this work...") cannot speak on behalf of the corporation and each and every person involved in creating its IP (it is quite obviously that there was more than one person involved). Some images (File:Ls 1.jpg) may be considered PD-ineligible though. And most have no meaningful description at all (scope issue - it's some hardware, but what is it precisely?). NVO (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"Work for hire" or similar woould presumably mean that the permission of every single draughtsman would not have to be obtained... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Creative Commons, indeed, allows entities to speak out as authors and licensors. But then images must be relicensed from CC-self ("I, the ...") to CC-whatexactly? ("I, duly speaking on behalf of ..."). The language of standard license does not support corporate uploads - hence there's a bunch of custom licenses and none of them applicable here. NVO (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not to simply file a DR? Trycatch (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by a single-purpose account

Recently I made changes on the location maps of Europe and Asia based on a longstanding consensus on the respective pages that parts of the Caucasus are in Europe.; the accepted definition was that the border went on the Phasis river as stated by historian Herodotus. I corrected the old maps for the Phasis riverbank to reflect the existing consensus but user:Green, White and Gold reverted the changes twice without sufficient explanation. Examples:[74],[75],[76].

The reason for my wariness is that the user account is fairly recent, with his first edit being one of these unexplained reverts, and this makes me think that this is a single-purpose disruptive account. I already warned him but I'm afraid to no avail. I do not know how to deal with this disruption as I cannot keep reverting him indefinitely. I need some help or advice.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. --  Docu  at 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, since the files in question had been altered multiple times by other editors before me, I assumed that it was alright for me to do the same, unless someone requested otherwise. It would be very disorganized if everyone uploaded a separate file every time several millimeters of border is changed.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
In cases of disagreements over maps (two or three per month), it is well established Commons policy to keep both maps and let the editors of the various Wikis and our other users decide which one to use. Although you made the changes with good intentions, you should have paid more attention to Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. I think you should leave the maps as they were and upload your changes to new files. If I were you, I might also add {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} to the old files -- it was created precisely for this situation and has 164 uses.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User PeggyCummins

The user has uploaded File:Peggy Cummins.jpg and if I'm not completly wrong it's identical to File:Myself..jpg and File:PeggyC.jpg that is deleted due to copyright violation. Could an administrator confirm that the file is identical with the deleted files and delete File:Peggy Cummins.jpg and take some administrative action against the user? -- Tegel (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Thanks. Rehman 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nima Farid

Nima Farid (talk · contribs)

This editor is currently uploading a significant number of files that are all based upon the deleted file File:TehranBlank.PNG, which was twice previously deleted (March 2010, February 2011) as being non-free content.

Further, this editor has uploaded the file File:Metro in Tehran.png which is clearly a copyright violation ([77]). In defense of the image, he claims that "This file is used so much in Iran and it is so easy to draw a same thing it can not be considered a violation of copy right law." (File talk:Metro in Tehran.png), showing a rather severe misunderstanding of copyright law. I attempted to explain the situation with respect to that copyrighted logo on the image's description page. More troubling is this editor uploaded the same file to en.wiki and claimed it as non-free, property of Tehran Metro. Then, he uploads it here and claims its his own work.

This editor has been blocked three times in the past for incorrect licensing twice, and most recently for continuing to upload non-free files after warnings (January 2011).

I think it would be appropriate to block this editor indefinitely until they agree to cease uploading copyright violations. Thoughts? see below --Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User Rehman

Rehman (talk · contribs) just wrote a new page in Commons namespace and declared it a "Commons Policy", rather than attempting to formulate a proposal, gain the necessary consensus first. This wouldn't be a problem if he wouldn't undertake to revert other users fixing the {{Policy}} tag to the usual {{Proposed}}.

The user had similar problems in the past when he tried to formulate new proposals. Given that he is an administrator, this seems highly problematic. --  Docu  at 11:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep stalking, I don't care. I am proposing nothing new, and I have already posted about it at the Admins noticeboard, there is nothing more to say. Rehman 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You even call it a proposal yourself.
It seems that you still haven't learned, resort to editing other users comments and to personal attacks. --  Docu  at 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks? Grow up. Rehman 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Docu, can you tell us which page has been created incorrectly - as you have stated above? --High Contrast (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of page creation, everybody can write essays. It's just this problem edit (and his comments on this page). --  Docu  at 11:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't much like the tone of the discussion above, so I am deliberately using my most measured tone here, but there is some truth in Docu's comments. I think that the new page, Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, is a good idea. I think that it represents Rehman's best efforts to summarize existing policy, so that his argument that it can be labeled with the {{Policy}} tag has some merit. The argument fails, though, for two reasons:
First, it wasn't a perfect summary of existing policy (see my comment and Jafeluv's at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion). There may be other omissions or incorrect inclusions. It also required and still requires editing for clarity.
Second, even it were a perfect summary, the community should look at it before we declare it to be policy. Often such summaries will make a group realize that they have something wrong.
So, Rehman, please accept a light note of censure from this corner.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough Jim. :) Rehman 12:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you also withdraw your statements on this page? It's very unbecoming for an admin. Especially as you made them after we had to re-explain you Commons guidelines. --  Docu  at 06:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Docu -- don't push your luck -- I didn't comment on your behavior because I didn't think it would do any good.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to. Maybe you could suggest a better course of action and everybody can learn something. --  Docu  at 17:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rorschach2992

Resolved

Rorschach2992 (talk · contribs) is a rather obvious sock of en:User:Urprakhar ([78]), created to evade a recent indef block of that account for serial copyvio uploads on en-wiki. Suggest to block and nuke all contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Dferg (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible massive sockpuppetry

Hi. Seems that we have an possible case of massive sockpuppetry here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Red_kurdistan_1923_1929.png User:Melikov Memmed proposed one of my maps for deletion and then a several users from Azerbaijan appeared to vote in favor of this deletion - some of these users are having only one or few edits in Wikimedia Commons and I suspect that they are sockpuppets whose sockpuppet master might be User:Melikov Memmed. Can someone of administrators with checkuser abilities to check this? And not to mention that User:Melikov Memmed personally created Wikimedia pages of these suspected sockpuppets, just check his edits: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Melikov_Memmed (I mean, looks that he even does not trying to hide that these suspected sockpuppets are his own). PANONIAN (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the accounts have a large number of contributions, both here and on other projects. It is more likely that the "votes" were caused by Melikov Memmed's canvassing on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] —LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, assuming that canvasing was a reason why most of these voters appeared, we have also clear examples of nicknames that have only one or few edits in Wikimedia Commons:

Of course, having in mind argument that even those 5 would have larger number of edits in Azeri Wikipedia, canvasing would be more logical explanation than sockpuppetry. However, I still cannot explain with logic a strange edits of user Melikov Memmed from 06:04, 8 April 2011 to 05:36, 9 April 2011 where he actually created Wikimedia pages of several of those users: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Melikov_Memmed Theoretically, this might be a case of massive inter-Wiki sockpuppetry, where user in fact could create several sockpuppets in several different Wikipedia projects and could use them simultaneously with goal to make them look like "real" users and then to use them for purposes of avoiding Wiki rules (Why user Melikov Memmed would otherwise create pages of several users if they are not his sockpuppets?). The only thing that would convince me that this is not a case would be checkuser IP number investigation, which would confirm that they all are indeed different users. However, it is up to administrators to decide is checkuser search justified or not, so I can only present my opinion here. PANONIAN (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Şahzadə has contributions on seven projects going back to January 2010, including 884 on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.
  • Acategory has contributions on 14 projects going back to March 2010, including 4,095 on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, 444 on the Russian Wikipedia, and 51 on the English Wikipedia.
  • Azeri Warrior has contributions on 20 projects going back to April 2010, including 3,670 on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia and 613 on the Russian Wikipedia.
  • Sortilegus has contributions on 19 projects going back to August 2007, including 55,772 on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, 668 on the Azerbaijani Wikisource, contributions on the Azerbaijani Wikiquote, and 78 on Meta.
  • Sultan11 has contributions on ten projects going back to July 2009, including 16,321 on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia and 143 on the Russian Wikipedia.
That's an awful lot of work over an awfully long time setting up sockpuppets to vote bomb a deletion discussion. I would still chalk this up to canvassing and the herd mentality that characterises ethnic conflicts. I'm guessing Melikov Memmed may have created those user pages to avoid the users' signatures showing up as redlinks (which tends to give less legitimacy) or as a perceived service in promoting a nationalist cause (given the content of the pages).
Administrators in general do not have checkuser privileges, and this is not the place to request checks. If you still think that Melikov Memmed made over 82,000 edits to make these accounts look real so that he could use them to vote off one of your uploads, feel free to file a request at Commons:Requests for checkuser. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I personally created Wikimedia pages of some user, because they didn’t know how to do this at Commons. They are not sockpuppets, all of them are dear users and I think that to check this will be not difficult.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: They themselves had created their account long ago, all of them had created their User_talk pages themselves. I only help them to design their User pages.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's right. --MrArifnajafov (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_19&oldid=264579140"