Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 25

Too much of one subject

Subject: → Category:Medical X-rays → User:Nevit

Can't Nevit Dilmen find someplace else to post all of his many X-Rays? It would certainly be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.204.151 (talk • contribs)

If he could post X-rays, I would be concerned. But what is wrong with the X-ray images. They are potentially useful and I and lots of other users could not produce such images. -- RE rillke questions? 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Delivery took a while. :) RE rillke questions? 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what isn't useful is his lack of decent description; "medical x-ray" isn't really useful and it's on all of them! So it's not really known what the x-ray is supposed to be showing us. I had intended asking about this very matter last week but I forgot. I have no problem with the amount of them, but without a meaningful description they are less than useful. Then there's the matter of whose x-rays/medical records they are and has clearance been given for them to be posted on the internet? Where the hell are they all coming from? Posting medical data on commons is fraught with potential legal problems. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you do not write who the images depict, I see no privacy problem. Author=Nevit? And concerning the description and categorization, this could be fixed but needs some volunteers who are knowledgeable. -- RE rillke questions? 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What should an admin do? -- RE rillke questions? 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Milk and no sugar please. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest asking the concerned user or moving this to Village-Pump or asking the "medicine work-group" in Wikipedia.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. RE rillke questions? 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jack Philip Yong

This user has only uploaded pictures to which he has no copyright, all stolen from forums and such. He also insists on uploading them all over the project, and will not respond to any talkpage messages, neither here nor at :EN. Luckily he has been polite enough to list where he found the photos, which makes deleting them easier. Please delete all of their files, and perhaps block the user unless he responds?

File:Nissan sunny traveller 2.jpg - autowp.ru
File:Nissan Sunny B12.jpg - drift.com.my
File:Nissan Sunny B17.jpg - facebook
File:NISSAN-Sunny-Traveller-2-0--1996-2000-.jpg - "Google"
File:Nissan Leopard 80 30.jpg - drift.com.my
File:NISSAN LEOPARD F30.jpg - forum.avtoindex.ru Mr.choppers (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mr.choppers (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User is back at it again with File:A15 engine.JPG, which he stole from here. He also has learned to claim the images as his own work, although he is still just lifting them off the net. I would recommend a block, since his only change in behavior after his previous copyvios were deleted has been to become a bit more devious. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I got a response! So I take back my demand of blocking JPY, now that he's communicating we should be fine. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Denniss 2

Back in November, I uploaded an image the owner of which explicitly specified "this image is public property and can be used by anyone, thanks!" I received an e-mail yesterday that no OTRS was received. So, I sent it again and noted it on the image page [1]. Then, User:Denniss rollbacks my edit without any reasoning. I received an e-mail that there was no license in the e-mail but it was hidden, so I sent another. User:Denniss reverts two additional times and then protects the image page after his third rollback. He protected an image because of edit warring, when in fact he perpetrated the edit warring. Please reverse this abuse of privileges.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, an OTRS agent handled your Email but the permission was not sufficient for the specified license. The image was tagged as such by him but you reverted this edit. I just restored a valid edit. --Denniss (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is false. A bot wrote on the image that no OTRS had been received. I resent it and noted it on the image. You reverted. Then, an agent missed what was in the e-mail. Without any understanding, you reverted again.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call User:Sreejithk2000 a Bot. --Denniss (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't follow. User:HersfoldOTRSBot is a bot.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The file history shows that the last valid edit before Saturn and Denniss started reverting each other was at 09:34, 20 December 2011‎ by Sreejithk2000, who is a respected member of the community and OTRS volunteer, not a bot. It showed that while an OTRS e-mail had been received, it was not sufficient. Therefore, it should have remained on the file as is and Denniss's reverts were entirely correct. I note for the record that even if the message had been from a bot, it should have remained until an OTRS volunteer changed it, so that even in that case, Saturn's edits were incorrect.

I also note that the messages sent to OTRS have several problems:

• They are from a gmail account, forwarding a message from another gmail account. Therefore there is no way for an OTRS volunteer to verify that the original message actually came from Warren Moser. While generally we might accept this, in view of Saturn's tone above, I am disinclined to Assume Good Faith. We should recognize that there is absolutely nothing to prevent Saturn from having created the whole message himself.
• They do not state a license in the terms required by Commons -- "this image is public property and can be used by anyone, thanks!" is not sufficient because it does not state why the image is public property or affirm that the person making the statment has the right to do so. Sreejithk explained this patiently twice, but we still don't have a proper license.
• Finally, a message from Warren Mosler, the subject of the image, would not be sufficient to license the image. He is the subject, not the photographer, and we will need a proper license from the photographer.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and assume bad faith. Obviously, I am trying to trick Wikimedia Commons. In no way, should I be upset that my edits were rollbacked without any reasoning, that a clear "public domain" claim was rejected, or that I am being accused of fabricating the entire e-mail.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "Sreejithk explained this patiently twice, but we still don't have a proper license" is false. Sreejithk did not explain this, instead he sent a standard message that didn't even apply. It read, "Unfortunately, 'permission to use on Wikipedia' is not adequate enough."--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright matters does not allow any assumptions. We want facts. →COM:PRP. If the copyright-holder would send the e-mail directly to OTRS from a trustworthy sender-address (e.g. director@example.com where example.com is the homepage of the copyright-holder) this could be easily resolved. -- RE rillke questions? 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this. Delete it if you want, I've put enough time into it; the reaction from you people is shit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the frustrated tone justifies dumping AGF. And the user is right that his original edit at least is not eligible for rollback - Commons:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. If you look carefully at the incident, there are also perhaps lessons on communication, eg with not using inappropriate standard messages. Rd232 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably should not have raised the issue of AGF - my apolgies.

But the fact remains that notwithstanding Saturn's comment, he was told twice by Sreejithk that permission for WP only is insufficient. Sreejithk said in an OTRS e-mail to Saturn, among other things:

"For images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, they require the copyright holder to provide a specific release under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If this can be supplied, then the content may be hosted on Wikimedia Commons and then used on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not adequate enough.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing for more information. A sample email for supplying the above can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates.

Yours sincerely,

Sreejith K..."

That seems complete and clear to me. Both Commons:OTRS and Commons:Licensing are quite clear that WP permission is not enough -- that we require a general license such as CC-BY.

It also remains true that the subject of a photograph cannot, as a general rule, license it or put it into the PD. That right remains with the photographer.

Finally on the subject of the reversions, HersfoldOTRSBot placed {{No OTRS permission since}} on the file as of the 19th, which was correct. Saturn reverted that edit to his {{OTRS pending}} as of the 18th. The reversion was not correct -- he could have changed it to {{OTRS pending}} as of the 20th, but reverting a newer message in favor of an older one does not make sense. I think that Denniss was entirely correct, albeit perhaps not quite clear enough, throughout the reverts.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was told that no e-mail had been sent, so I resent the e-mail and changed the date to reflect that. For some reason, you are defending an abuse of the rollback feature and are failing to understand the situation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the reason for William S. Saturn's frustration. It's very rude for an admin to rollback good faith edits of an established editor without any attempt to communicate with the user. Sadly sometimes Commons is a needlessly combative place. I hope he will continue to make useful contributions to Commons after this incident. What about the original issue -- well, {{No OTRS permission since}} is a speedy deletion template, so William S. Saturn had every reason to remove it if he continued to communicate with OTRS team over this file. Trycatch (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Queiroz (talk · contribs)

If only to stop the above topic ejaculating over the end of the page, could an admin have a butcher's at the above user, whose infatuation of a Latin heavy rock star means she has to fill Commons up with copyvios in spite of being warned. Muchos grassy-arse. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the most recent ones and blocked for a week. Killiondude (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta muchly, and for the quick service too :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Threatening behaviour by User

On [2] user User:SouthSudan demonstrated threatening behaviour. I expect this to be seen to by an administrator. I expect an at least mild, but consequential response, meaning an ban for a period of days not hours. I see myself not whatsoever in a position to continue my participation with the project if such behaviour is remotely tolerated. Best regards. OAlexander (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I further advise on the generally ill devised and counterproductive contributions of the colleague. OAlexander (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Please do not reduce the size of the flag. I am uncomfortable because of your contributions. This is the last warning." - this is what you meant? I accept he's wide of the mark due to not being cognizant of vector image scaling, but I really don't see this as anything worthy of admin attention. Is that the only remark you found bad? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO. Flags all over the world are expanding in defiance. I've heard of being thin-skinned but fuck my boots! And at the Village Pump too. Is there more to this than meets the eye I wonder? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Turelio has left a message on User:SouthSudan's talk page suggesting that he apologize for the remark above. I don't it needs any further attention. I have left a message on his talk page warning him to stop changing perfectly good svg flags to new "larger" versions with bad proportions. I explained, briefly, that SVG files can be displayed in any size required.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect a language barrier might be acting up here. Please keep that in mind when speaking with User:SouthSudan. Multichill (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He knows enough English in order to have understood by now that he shouldn't be messing up flags, yet he keeps doing it. This is essentially repeated vandalism and should be reprimanded. ElMa-sa (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse clumsiness with malice. He hasn't done a single edit since this was brought up here. If he happens to do this again we can look into this again. Until then: No blocks. Multichill (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

After being told that he's wrong on Dec. 22nd he has edited three more flags and has told two editors that they're wrong. ElMa-sa (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't care in the least about the flags. When I signed up here, I agreed that everybody can change whatever they want to. However, I don't accept in the least, that anybody can just snow in and express a "warning" to me. If you think - for whichever and whatsoever reasons - that warm words will do I disagree severely, regard it as a total disregard for generally acceptable norms and also am expression of disrespect for my contributions. (see also [3] and other versions of WP, + numerous articles). Don't bother sending out whacky surveys anymore, as a couple of weeks ago. Now you know why people stop contributing: because people with a degree of productivity don't want to be pissed on by all sorts of incompetent fly-by-nighters. I am reasonably tolerant, but if this is to be kept on the lukewarm words level, I am gone. Nobody just comes to me and "warns" me without having a very good reason. The offending user had some time to come up with some reconciliatory words of sorts, but did not take the opportunity, rather used his User Page as a forum for venting nationalist sentiments (which I also consider intolerable, but this is a totally different matter). Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sooner or later (hoepfully sooner) you'll see that you're over-reacting here. Consider that the user's first language is clearly not English, and he/she is merely badly expressing some frustration. Policing language use for "civility" is hard enough within a single language community, never mind on the multi-lingual Commons! Let it go, and don't let a few words from someone with a handful of contributions affect your decisions on contributing. And if you need a policy reason for admins not doing more right now: blocking is meant to be preventative, not punitive. If he/she keeps overwriting files unnecessarily, that will be addressed, because it will be a continuing problem. If the user keeps on with inappropriate messages (I hesitate to call the offending phrase a "threat"), that will be a continuing problem, and will be addressed. So far, the user hasn't edited since Turelio's message, so we don't know what the reaction is. Rd232 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Heeeeeeee's baaaaaack! Of course the South Sudanese flag was his first target, apparently it wasn't big enough so he larged [sic] it. So I unlarged it for him. At least he kept the aspect ratio right this time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

...and blocked for 3 days by User:Herbythyme as a result. Rd232 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days now by Herby. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider the issue eventually resolved in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. I expressed that I would find measures measurable in days rather than hours satisactory - done. Thank you. OAlexander (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User Bulka UA

User adds template {{Npd}} to File:Bazaliya.gif, but file was already kept after RfD. I explain user that he should not add {{Npd}} if file was kept, and he should open other RfD. But he continue adding template. I blocked him because of edit warring, but than I decide to unblock him because I have conflict with him..--Anatoliy (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the block, but the file should be deleted anyway, see Commons:Coat of arms#Copyright on the representation. Trycatch (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios

User:ZhaoX uploads copyvio images persistently, see Special:Contributions/ZhaoX. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked by Herby. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

how can I link my page with my pictures?

I would like to create a Link of my page to the my added Pictures but I don´t know how I can make it possible because I have no any experience in this sector. I am really sorry that unfortunately I cannot find any solution as step by step add system to make it possible in wikimedia. The page called:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Djsudi&oldid=64425893

The Pisture is added in wikimedia record:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DiscoPost_%28Contents%29_Year2000-January-Volume_19.jpg

If anybody can help me then please kindly help me in this case. Thank you very much and good bye with best Regards. -- 22:24, 26 December 2011‎ 91.22.70.107

I don't really understand the question, and you should ask on Help Desk anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia

Can an admin (preferably one with an open mind) have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LGBT flag map of Albania.svg and speedy keep then take this homophobic twat in hand and deliver a stern message? Thank you. This sort of thing pisses me right off, so please excuse the tenor of this post. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Speedy keep with closing comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is calling people "this homophobic twat" acceptable on Commons? The user is an Albanian, which means he's probably a Muslim, which means he has been probably taught since the childhood that there is no homosexuals in his country. Instead of explaining to the user, where he got it wrong, the free Western world demonstrated the same kind of intolerance to a different culture and a different religious believes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, in my book, intolerance of something that is intolerable is perfectly correct. I don't give a shit what his religion is, or why he thinks the way he does, homophobia is wrong. It's as simple as that, and in my view anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong is a "twat". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think it's the kind of language to use on Commons, really, and it did seem a little unnecessary for something that was, really, always going to be rejected. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 20:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, but at the time I was angry and it expressed my opinion quite ably. Bearing in mind that due to my autism I have next to no impulse control, nor was I gifted with that little filter that usually exists between brain and output device. Accordingly I use the word I find most appropriate, the level of profanity doesn't come into it. My measure is one of relevance, not one of societal appropriateness. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, deciding it's homophobia is a bit jumping the gun. I asked the user to explain on his talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural homophobia is still homophobia. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• "User:Fred the Oyster wrote above, "I don't give a shit what his religion is, or why he thinks the way he does, homophobia is wrong. It's as simple as that, and in my view anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong is a "twat"." "

Such crude and extreme expressions of cultural bigotry would seem out of place on a multilingual project.67.168.135.107 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the intolerable is not bigotry. Not allowing someone freedom to display their own sexuality is bigotry. And to paraphrase myself, cultural bigotry is still bigotry. Homosexuals have a basic human right to be homosexual regardless of what someone's culture or religion demands. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster -- It's not necessarily a problem that you hold strong views, but the usual idea is to avoid creating unnecessary drama... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The "drama" wasn't started by me. Jim solved the problem and as far as I was concerned that was the end of it. The 'dramah' came as a result of MBZ1's posting. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but AceDouble made a somewhat problematic statement on 9:08, 27 December 2011, and instead of isolating the issue in a suitable manner (making clear that pointless personal opinionizing has no place in a deletion discussion, firmly yet without creating unnecessary drama), you immediately went ballistic, treated it as some kind of of personal insult against yourself (which you apparently considered the most important aspect of the problem), and escalated all kinds of mostly-unnecessary drama... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree to the substance of what Fred the Oyster states but not with the form. I wouldn't call a 'twat' to my grandmother just because she believes that being gay is a sin (maybe it was she who nominated the image for deletion...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Gentlemen, perhaps we all need to look at it in a different light. As the creator of the file, and a gay male myself, I'm not actually as upset as one might expect. Although I would ask AceDouble to study homosexuality and potentially reshape his views on it. While I am greatful to Fred and NikNaks and Jim for all defending my file, I am really not surprised. I knew when I started the LGBT flap map project, that eventually some form of "opposition" would come. As long as we do not allow such opposition to achieve it's goals here, Commons will always be a place I frequent and immensely enjoy contributing to. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• <ec>I dont necessarily disagree with Fred the Oysters position that the reason for the nomination isnt a valid one. I do take exception to way thats being expressed Commons is a multilingual, mmulticultural project we need to be respectful of the idea and POV even when we dont agree. A simple "Keep, not a valid reason for deletion" would have been sufficient rather than the personal attacks that have occured both in the discussion and here. Even the discussion on the users talk page presumes a POV and is worded to exclude the user from any reasonable discussion. The map itself what is its educational purpose its not in use on any projects its doesnt appear to have any purpose except as part of a set of images that put the LGBT flag over each country most of which arent used either(havent checked them all). I do think its valid to question whether these images are actually within the scope of Commons as files must be realistically useful for an educational purpose in this case I dont see the realistically useful for an educational purpose nor it legitimately in use. Gnangarra 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the "informational" bit, and what you do or don't see is of no greater importance than that of the author of the file. I have to say though that if anyone has ever misunderstood what PoV means then it's you in the above statments. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All I've seen is a series of personal attacks against an editor, a lack of good faith in the users action, abuse of the person culture and a presumption about the person religion. All because you carry a different point of view none of which makes your comments justifiable. The person just expressed their own experience of their own culture from thei. own country and questioned the validity of the map based on that. All thats been achieved from those outbursts is a validation of the reason behind that person experiences it does nothing to encourage the person to seek an understanding of LGBT. Gnangarra 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no good faith, the statements made were homophobic, you can justify it as much as you like it's still homophobia. Ragardless of what his religion is, what his country is there is absolutely no justification or excuse for homophobia whether it's personal, cultural or religious. It's a simple as that. And I'll tell you what, you defending this guy means that for me your reputation is going down the pan too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I havent defended the editors POV, I've been critical of the way in which you have expressed your POV nothing the editor said deserved the outburst you gave, if I'd come along earlier in the discussion I would have cautioned you about that and blocked if you had repeated it, it was inexcusable. You have been given considerable latitude in your choice of words more than most ever recieve, I suggest that the next time something or someone pisses you off wait, cool down before you start posting. You've already indicated you have a medical issue that unpins your responses in such circumstances when your cautioned about your language I suggest you appologise and seek out friends like Fry to assist you. Gnangarra 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I suggest you keep your patronising comments about my "medical condition" to yourself. Secondly your previous message accused me of several things which didn't happen, e.g. "abuse of the person's culture", "presumption about the person's religion". You better get your facts in order before making shit like that up. You suggest good faith in his nomination. What total and absolute bollocks. A 5yr old could tell that was homophobic through and through. So there is no way in hell an apology is coming his way any time soon. And the fact that you are suggesting I should is yet another clue that you are siding with this homophobic. I don't see you suggesting to him that he should apologise to Fry over his bad-faith and homophobic nomination. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Gnan raised an interesting question by implication. I don't think the subject f. Gile is out of scope, but I do wonder if creating maps that are very unlikely to be used, at least for the next few years, is a good use of Fry's time. That is, of course, his choice, but there is so much work to be done on Commons that he might use his considerable skill someplace else.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see a use for them, perhaps as an accompanying graphic to an article about a country's gay population, or an article about a country's cultural bias against its LGBT citizens. As a professional layout designer who does all sorts of article layouts etc I come across these sort of graphical requirements all the time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So you have concieved a decorative use a a commercial use of the maps by something that isnt a part of Wkimedia projects that still doesnt make the images within the scope of Commons. Where is the educational use of these images Gnangarra 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't talk bollocks. This is a media repository and the files here are used for more than educational purposes. A decorative graphic that has a CC or PD license is a perfectly acceptable addition to the library and you know it. Any more of this tenuous justification and I might start believing that you have the same beliefs as the guy who started this. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Jim, if I may again interject. I have made countless national flag maps, and derivatives thereof. For me, the LGBT flag maps are a natural progression, and infact another user started it, and I simply completed it. While many are not in use, several are, and they all share a common potential of usability, from user templates, to LGBT rights templates and more. Moreover, they have a usability beyond Commons. There are websites which pro idea maps of this style, but they are watermarked and you must pay for them. I provide all my works unmarked and free for anyone to use however they desire. While some may feel there are other places I could us my talents more often, I assure you that I coordinate my abilies and my expertise in symbolism wherever I can. As for Fred, do cut him some slack. He has become a good friend to me here, and his intentions are good. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree that there's no harm in completing the whole set to make them all available for use, even if some of them don't end up being used. Sometimes it's hard to say what will end up being used: I've made several flag maps that I thought would be mostly theoretical exercises -- such as File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg and File:Flag map of Palestine.svg -- and lo and behold they're both now in use (though File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg is still unused ). -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excessive posting of self nudity (exhibitionism)

Some users are using commons as a free webhost to post personal nude images. Is there any consensus on such users? This isn't an anti-porn/nudity movement before anyone asks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not your personal free web host, Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not censored and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. In the future, please use Commons:Help desk for general questions. This page is intended for giving notice of problems related to specific users which require the attention of users with administrative privileges. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a generic response. It was appreciated. :D The intention with my post was a sanity check but let's get on with business then.... DO consider Cheywen (talk · contribs), one of the many users who upload images in this manner. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes monitor the latest uploads, and I've come across quite a number of examples of low-quality exhibitionism from users without any ambition of improving Commons or other Wikimedia projects. This does not look like one of those cases. The photos are relatively well done from a technical perspective and illustrate a variety of aspects of male sexuality. Here is an example of the uploader adding one of his images to a relevant article on the French Wikipedia. It's not used in the latest version, but only because an anonymous user decided to replace all illustrations in the article with notices stating that Wikipedia is not censored. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information, I have now reverted this in the French article so that the images are shown again.[4] --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with someone uploading lots of photos of themselves naked, we just don't like it if they have no educational use and are low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with someone uploading lots of photos of themselves naked. There is however a problem if the person is ONLY uploading him or herself naked. For starters we do not know if the uploader is the owner of the copyright or if it is stolen from some adult website (speaking generally). Normally that too is no big deal but we are dealing with privacy issues as well. Issue can get nasty fairly quickly. Bear in mind that I am not suggesting mass deletion of every self-naked photo but instead a review of them in bulk. Often I see them get nominated individually which may miss the bigger picture in the context of Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is no problem with someone uploading a picture of anything in scope that they want to. If you're worried about them being stolen or privacy issues, why do you talk about self-naked pictures or exhibitionism?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a contributor only contributing in a certain area. Replace "nudity" with "trains" and there would be no issue at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I talk about "self-naked pictures or exhibitionism" as that is the claim by the uploader(s). That claim may not necessarily be true. Taking photos of trains without permission traditionally does not have legal implications unlike taking photos of people naked without permission. Even if the model gives permission to be photographed naked, that does not necessarily mean the person allows their body be published on the internet such restrictions are even beyond copyright restrictions. If the attitude is that I am trying to censor commons (somehow), I will be greatly distressed. I am merely trying to point out an area that has been in my view greatly neglected and suffered from "OMG Naked" type nominations which result in speedy keep not necessarily with an adequate review. Notice how I did not mass nominate images for deletion or even implied this should happen. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the comment about replacing nudity with trains I have to point out that unless any contributor here is actually a train we are missing out on the vanity element of users who seem to feel their bodies require wider publicity than some would want. While the human body is wonderfully varied we do seem to have an adequate stock of images of male genitalia and a rising number of users wishing to add to that stock who offer nothing very unique generally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a dicky move on the uploaders part. Ya I will be quiet with my horrible puns now. :p -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy

• Policy seems to be quite against such practices, especially with the high amount of flickr washing, the potential of personality rights issues, the sheer bulk of impossible to ever have real educational use, etc. The users should probably be dealt with soon regardless if some people above wish not to consider that. It has been shown before that people are either taking their own pictures over from exhibitionist sites or are stealing images from those sites. That has a lot of problems and is definitely what Commons is not for. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  Dare I add that uploading content to such websites may put them under a copyright of some sort. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  OK, personality rights is not an issue if you're uploading photos of yourself, and potential copyvio is entirely separate from someone uploading photos of themselves. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes - the user referred to above does appear to be offering images of himself I think. However I am still not fully comfortable with endless vanity images of male genitalia - there comes a point when we will have far more than enough (I think we have enough anyway). I delete the real junk ones anyway when I see them - they are of no use to anyone (although I did suggest elsewhere they might be useful to teach new photographers whet to delete from their mem cards straight away....). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  "OK, personality rights is not an issue if you're uploading photos of yourself" - Two things. 1. I probably should have clarified to say "supposed self images" as there are many people who claim they took it themselves without doing so. 2. Looking back, there are a few personality rights issues dealing with images that are self loaded - I can think of a few recent cases where people uploaded self taken nude images that then asked for them to be removed, with a few being removed (and one currently in DR to be removed). Now, as a side matter - how many images does someone need to upload of their own sexual imagery? Lets say we need all images of 3 billion males. Do we need more than a few of each? We could solve a lot of problems if we limit it to, say, 1 or 2 self-naked pictures (and allow derivatives of the same image I guess). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  That might be an issue if we had all 3 billion males wanting to upload. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  So, that generous group of, say, 100 should make up the difference? ;) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  If we are going to be dealing with arbitrary number limits it should be 9000. Once we have more than that number you know it is too much. It isn't the number of naked images that is the problem it is the review of them if they fall under project scope, if they are without copyright problems, if they are without privacy law issues, and if their quality makes their presence here worthwhile. I do feel we need a specific procedure to handle these images where naked uploads undergo some sort of "quality review" primarily because of the legal and other implications (naked pictures are commonly used for vandalism so maintaining a central list of these should help combat that) of their presence here.

  This does bring up an interesting angle to the issue. Just like the spam filter we may want to blacklist some images which wikis can locally opt in/out to allow/disallow images on specific articles. We already have something like this where wikis can do this for individual images but newer uploads unless added to the list are by default allowed on every page.

  I feel we definitely need more control over the naked images but I am unsure about the means to do it. Collateral damage should be minimized as always.

  -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  While you are current to say that the Super Saiyans of Porn would be a point that people would feel that there is a problem, I'm sure that it should be much, much lower. And for everyone's info, I don't believe in duplicates of the same topic/subject in general unless there is some extenuating circumstance (needing to show a specific aspect, altering images for feature picture, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that there is a very serious policy concern regarding nude and sexually explicit images and videos, but i would disagree what concern that is. In the deletion requests i constantly see personal attacks on those who upload these images and also on anybody who dares to vote anything but speedy delete on them. It would be preposterous to see in the deletion request of a train something like "Delete, the uploader is a trainspotter", and if such a comment would be made (especially if it's repeated vote without any other rationale) then the user would be at least warned. However, accusing people of being exhibitionist is perfectly acceptable based solely on their contributions to the project. The problem is bad, but it gets only worse because administrators engage in the discussions on whether or not a person is actually an exhibitionist rather than warning the offenders that personal attacks are not welcome in DR or anywhere else. Of course you can say that if i don't like something i can try to urge people to make it a policy, but it is a policy which simply gets ignored when nudity walks into the room. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Exhibitionism

There is nothing wrong about guys who abuse commons as a free web host for promotional purposes (also called exhibitionism). As long we have users who defend every piece of crap here, we should ignore that and look for pictures we are lacking, e.g. a picture of a rape or sth similar "valuable" we must keep because we donna have it yet. Easy, or? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of rape go against Commons core policy that says we are to not having images of violence. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is relative, since we also cats like bondage: I can see dozens of images of violence, so according to your logic we must delete them? --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The internet consists up to 95% of porn – why do we need to be just another fu**ing porn provider? Just one example: Special:ListFiles/Jjaman. Please explain the encyclopaedical or educational purpose of this crap! I only see exhibitionistic purpose!!! a×p_de^Hello! 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well they sure as hell help me feel better about my body, so they do have some redeeming qualities :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I can't unsee that. :(
  Dear God, that must have hurt to put in! I was wincing just glancing at it. I agree with Axpde, we don't really need all those photos/angles, but they'd probably be kept if they were sent to DR. :/ Killiondude (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  I believe the fact that File:Sodomie.jpg was kept at DR, again, certainly does prove that you are right in this assumption. I mean really, are Commons admins allowed to close with their own "vote", as has happened with with every other nudity deletion request?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  Encyclopædic articles on pornography need a few examples to show. Having a few extra images is always useful. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  Ryulong, deletion requests here are not votes - the closing admin will make a decision based on the arguments presented and Commons policy. It doesn't matter if 10,000 people say  Delete if the closing admin decides that their arguments are not valid. I don't see that closure as a vote, I see it as an explanation of why it was closed with that result. All DRs which are not clear-cut should have such a closure - with the closing admin saying why they found some arguments compelling and others not. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a problem in itself. Why should an administrator make his or her own call that is contrary to the majority of those involved in the discussion?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On Commons DRs are not based on quantity of votes - they are based on the admins judgement/experience. Daft of course but so would keeping copyright violations be based on the fact that people on ignorance of the law wanted it that way. (& of course that is why we need to be careful about admin rights here) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I think the problem can be simplified. There is a Commons is not censored camp and a Commons is not for porn camp. Neither camp is wrong. Neither camp is right. If we keep arguing over ideology nothing will get done.

The issues of copyright, privacy, using commons as a free webhost aside we need to catalog nudity to allow implementation of filters that board of trustees made us vote on not too long ago. This could be a good opportunity for us to review nude images for mentioned problems as well. A good deal of these images are categorized so that could be a good start in processing these.

What to look for?

• Are images used externally (off of WMF websites)
• Are images used in articles
• Are all the images of the uploader the same person.
  • If so, does it look like these are a self photo
  • If not, investigate if the images are stolen from a website

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree (well pretty much) however the idea that you may get agreement on a simple sensible suggestion makes me think it may not be good to hold my breath until that outcome. (posting extremely quickly before the rest arrive...) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for assistance

As a editor primarily on the en.WP I would like to have administrative action taken against a specific user who has harassed me here for

1. Moving a process on en.WP along that had an eventual result of their indefinite banning from en.WP
2. Taking a viewpoint initially and then striking my viewpoint

via what I would consider a exceedinly un-civil email. I am deliberately leaving out the name of the editor in question as they claim in said email that they are productive here. I have requested insight from the administrator who implemented the indeffinite ban at en.WP and they said that since the email came through commons, it should be addressed through commons' governance. Hasteur (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Info - such as who, nothing can be done without that - would be more than useful.... If you will not post it you will have to email someone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We will call this resolved for now I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:PereslavlFoto

Could an administrator who has enough "ass in the trousers" please make this user clear that a category which name is simply translatable into English has to be created this way, and not that way. I don't want to correct this again and again. There is a policy concerning category names and obvious cases like this one do not fall under exceptions mentioned there. Thanks - A.Savin 12:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I could not fine a rule that allows only the categories named in the British Empire language. I would be grateful for any help in this question. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"British Empire language"? ... In any case, the policy says that category names should generally be in English (although there are some exceptions, like binomial Latin names etc). Making parallel categorization schemes in different languages would certainly seem counterproductive to me. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find the list of exceptions? I looked for the practical samples and could not state any rule. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"British Empire language", oh well... Did you ever think of the usability for thousands of users who don't have the luck to understand even the cyrillic alphabet (not to mention the Russian language)? This is a typical attitude of POV warriors in Wikimedia projects. A long-term block for "PereslavlFoto" should be finally considered. A.Savin 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why I agree with you, nothing here stops you from changing this category name.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Practical examples

Here are the examples of the categories that should generally be in English, but can easily be in any other language:

• Category:Pointe de Néville, Category:Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer, Category:Les Enfants de Don Quichotte
• Category:Jugendbildungszentrum Blossin, Category:Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Category:Energiewirtschaftlicher Wanderweg Herdecke
• Category:Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, Category:Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica (Milan), Category:Osservatorio geofisico di Lipari
• Category:Wielkie dni małej floty, Category:Szybowcowy Zakład Doświadczalny, Category:Století českého hokeje (2008-2009)
• Category:Sōunkyō, Category:Seijin shiki, Category:Bōsōzoku, Category:Kishiwada Danjiri Matsuri

From Commons talk:Naming categories we see the language question is very, very hard and complex for this international project. Even in this discussion not every editor prefers to speak English. People even cannot agree about using English Wikipedia as a source for naming, for they feel Anglais Wikipedia is not international enough. This is why I think both sides are right: one side is right to make local categories, other side it right to converse it into English ones.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

English is classed as an international language, look at the airways and air traffic control as one example. If you are in doubt as to what language to use, then use English. If in doubt do not use Cyrillic characters as not everyone's system can eve display these,much less allow the reader to read them. But, as you say this is an international project, so naming categories in Russian using Cyrillic characters is understood by how many of this international project? How about Spanish viewers, or African viewers or even Japanese viewers? So please get a grip, stop being so bloody awkward and do it the way the guidelines suggest. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A user who respects WP:Civility would respect obvious arguments, but in this case it is useless to explain anything. Anyone who does not agree with PF in her abstruse "theories" is a wrecker in her opinion, and anyone who does some adjustments in the Pereslavl category violates PF's personal property. It's a shame that a project like Commons tolerates people who do not know what the wiki principle is about and no sysop seems to care. A.Savin 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir, what you said is so untrue. Looks like you are joking in your exaggeration... Also, why don't you think about User:Berillium, who worked for Pereslavl categories and made more than perfect structure? Is it because that example breaks your theory of my horrible person? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course - that was obviously Berillium and not you who editwarred all night long after I cleaned in this category. Don't make me laugh. And do not think that you may live out your destructiveness placing your ridiculous "No-FOP-in-Russia"-DR's prudently waiting for an admin of your trust. By now, I have had several e-mail complaints from Russian users about your behavior here, and several productive users like NVO already seem to have thrown in the towel because of your daily harassments. But my next steps will be some publicity in the Russian WP about your behavior, so I suppose you will have to reactivate your old account there very soon in order to explain your real motives to people who may read in Russian. - A.Savin 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Info Details about NVO are several lines below.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was Berillium who arranged the categories for my home town, and they are well done. You made several good changes to that category tree, but you also created several empty and useless categories. This is why I cannot blaim you as a person, and would only receive the answer for my old question: can the category of buildings be in buildings category tree?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will stop your usual personal attacks against me.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

but you also created several empty and useless categories -> fine. Which categories of those I ever have created are empty and/or useless? And why I have to tolerate this kind of slander continously? A.Savin 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed above, where you did not want to explain, why did you create several empty wrapping categories without images, also why the photos of buildings cannot be in buildings category tree.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that you will never be able to show which of categories I ever created are empty and/or useless. - A.Savin 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We edited the page in the same time . I am sorry: if you asked about empty category names, those are here, here, here, here, without any content images.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Following your logic it seems to me that Category:Churches in Austria is also a useless category without content. It's really getting better every minute. A.Savin 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued

Re: Fred, that is why I use Cyrillic categories more than rarely.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Rarely" is too often, you shouldn't do it at all. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the discussed category any different from the examples above?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you really relying on the argument that because someone else has done something wrong that you should be allowed to do something wrong too? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic categories have an advantage for us that do not normally use its English transcription in Latin characters. I am not able to type it, but it is more neutral, and some places and names may be easier to find. For the most part, it does not matter much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

How about I start using colloquial slang when I start naming categories because it's easier for me? The fact that a non-native English speaker would struggle to make heads or tails of it doesn't really matter based on what you say. The fact that it's easier for me is all that matters? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't look wrong, with the policy of soft "should", with no ban for local languages, an with plenty of examples. So I made conclusion everything's fine. At last, when A.Savin found the category not perfect, he translated it into English. And Commons talk:Naming categories shows the situation is not plain.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well now you know. So we can all feel safe knowing that you'll use English in future, unless it really has to be in Russian, such as a street name/town name etc, but even then in Latin characters? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO

«NVO already seem to have thrown in the towel because of your daily harassments». I asked NVO about this, he says the main reason to leave is administrative activity in Russian Wikipedia.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fucking liar; yes, that's the last straw. Jim must be proud of his protege. NVO (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the direct links to your phrase. Please do not troll here, this is not your Talk page, where you state «This user is a a troll».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO, using such words is inappropriate. --High Contrast (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO said he's thinking to leave Commons in a month or two, so I fear he won't mind the words.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO's outburst is understandable. It seems that he is just fed up with constant unpunished harassment and trolling from PereslavlFoto (in this case, astonishing misinterpretation of his words taken out of context). Things like this wears you out rather quickly. Trycatch (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the User talk:NVO at all? [5]--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I should add a fact to this exciting discussion. Beside other pecularities of his/her activity, User:PereslavlFoto is using Wikipedia and Commons to promote antisemitism. This user has uploaded this file: File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. It is the antisemitic graffiti, "Down with the authority of kikes", at so called Terlezky park in Moscow which is traditional place of gathering for Russian fascists (then the picture was anonimously added to the article about this park in ru.wiki without any caption, just as if it were simply a picture from the park). It is OK to have here some pictures with offensive and abusive content, we need them to illustrate the articles about offensive and abusive things. But here in Commons the user gave totally false description of the picture, feigning that the offensive Russian word 'жид' ('kike') means something different here: see the history of the page starting with this version. (For those who don't speak Russian, check the meaning of Russian 'жид' in Wictionary or multilingual online dictionary, see also this discussion and translation of another graffiti at Commons.) Two other well-known sysops from ru.wiki, User:Blacklake and User:Mitrius, went to revert the attempts of PereslavlFoto to mislead English speakers of Commons. I see this kind of PereslavlFoto's activity as absolutely intolerable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the image (and only the image). Like it or not anti-Semitism exists and there will be images that represent it. The fact that anti-Semitism exists is reason enough to host images like the one in question. Just hosting it, or even uploading it is not necessarily anti-Semitic nor promoting anti-Semitism. How it is ultimately used is beyond the purview and responsibility of Commons. Please remember that Commons is not censored. There are always going to be images that offend someone, it cannot be helped. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• After inspecting the history, I have to support this. This is a criminal offense according to Russian laws and should not be tolerated on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what about that link is illegal in Russia? If it's any of the text in any of the revisions then they can simply be deleted. Please also remember that Commons isn't bound by Russian laws. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Showing antisemitism is not antisemitism. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 07:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Making the photo, I thought not about nationalism, but about the political statement. This is why I want to know, is it possible to delete the photograph? In the text I wanted to descript this political item. After Blacklake's explanation I added the words about neo-Nazi organization hosted in the park twelve years ago, but according to the Moscow newspaper, everything is changed now. See my latest description. The 2nd sample from Андрей Романенко is not about Russia, it is about Ukraine.
• So, how can I remove this photo that is used by other Commons users for dirty needs? (Seems strange that noone thought about this photo for 1½ years, but one by one suddenly appear now.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's irrelevant how the image is ultimately used. If the image is legal to be hosted, has a correct license then we host it, it's as simple as that. I can't see a reason why a DR would result in its deletion, but you can try if you wish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe because it's used against its author. It doesn't look enough?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who protect PF in this discussion should basically note that, albeit uploading and hosting an image of an antisemitic graffiti is not antisemitism by itself, it is very well antisemitism to downplay the translation of the depicted slogan as already shown in this difflink. Here we have a typical pattern of PF's behavior when any NPOV is worth nothing to PF and objections by wikipedians are being reverted in editwarring (in this particular image, there was a revert war against three other users). A.Savin 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• There was a substantial discussion on Talk pages of those users, with explanation for every change in description. Is that discussion a revert war?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear administrators

User PereslavlFoto must be blocked for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, his contribs plunges Russian Wikipedia sections in the stagnation, contains only vandalism. Martsabus

If this is the case then you should be requesting his block at ru.wp not here. Could you please let us know what PereslavlFoto has done on Commons that requires he/she to be blocked? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I venture to translate the solution:

• 1.1 The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the unnamed party's response and actions of participants in these Mitrius episodes.

• 1.2 The Arbitration Committee finds that in the situation that led to the blocking of a party unnamed answer was a violation of the rules of the EP, Wikipedia:No original research, as well as Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Part VI: inaudible, and as a consequence, Wikipedia:Edit warring
• 1.3 The Arbitration Committee notes the systematic violation of party rules Nameless response WP: NDA, VP NPC and [Wikipedia:Gaming the system] non-constructive style of discussion which goes into trolling (for examples, see the discussion of arbitrators). In particular:
  • 1.3.1 Adding maloosmyslennyh or absurd comment.
  • 1.3.2 Giperkriticheskoe relation to the correctness and accuracy of the remarks and actions of other participants in the absence of a critical attitude to their own cues and actions.
  • 1.3.3 Communicating to the absurd rules of the EP, Orissa, WP: NPOV, etc.
• 1.4 The Arbitration Committee is blocking Безымянный Ответ party timely and correct response, the actions of the administrator Mitrius corresponding need to protect the project from rules violations.
• 1.5 The Arbitration Committee notes on the page of the application for arbitration a number of violations of ethics unnamed participant response relative to the administrator Mitrius.
• 2.1 The Arbitration Committee decided:
  • 2.1.1 consider blocking Безымянный Ответ party answer the appropriate rules.
  • 2.1.2 notify the participant of the unnamed non-response rules violations WP: FL and WP: But in relation to other participants.
• 2.2 The Arbitration Committee considers that the systematic violations of the rules set out in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of this decision shows the destructive behavior of Безымянный Ответ participant response. Similar violations in the future Arbitration Committee recommends that the stop lock on a progressive scale, beginning with a period of one week. Martsabus

• (Edit conflict) I appreciate what you're saying unfortunately none of that applies to Commons which is an entirely separate project. PereslavlFoto is entitled to edit, within the rules of course, at Commons regardless of any blocks on other projects. Until such time of course he/she breaks the rules here too. On the bright side though, now that you've brought it to the administrator's attention they will be able to keep an eye on PereslavlFoto. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it some provocative joke? Dear editor, stop mixing me with your counterparts on wikipedias, move back to the theme of discussion.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• А joke? Do you think, that removing the contributions of user`s is joke? Martsabus

May I suggest that you stop feigning innocence, and although you are within the rules to stay here regardless of your blocks elsewhere the admins here will be keeping an eye on you. You're already starting to show up on the administrator's noticeboards a little too often already. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But how may I act when people tell I'm not myself but someone elseone elsewhere?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe, but regardless, what happens at ru.wp is irrelevant to what happens at commons, just know that if the same things start happening here as happened there the end result will be the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, Commons is a separate project independent of other Wikimedia projects. However, as long as Commons does not have own Arbitration Committee and the few active admins do not really care about any conflicts ransferred from ru.WP to here, decisions of the Russian Arbcom should be respected unless we want to have a kind of anarchy here. And in this special case, PF is a very probable re-incarnation of the Russian user Безымянный Ответ (transliterated: Bezymyanny Otvet) who was blocked multiple times in ru.WP due to non-ethic behavior and where a concerning decision of the Arbcom does exist. - A.Savin 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(a) "probably" - so identity is not proven? (b) projects are separate, and blocks/bans don't normally translate (unless it gets to global ban level, which requires indefinite-blocking on two projects, among other things). Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but that's how it is. Information about behaviour on other projects can be used to identify likely problem areas, but that's all. Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which presumably has to mean that Russian photographers are "fair game" for every troll and stalker here on Commons, since there is neither an arbitration committee nor a neutral admin who will ever read up on a bigger conflict concerning Russian users. Oh well. A.Savin 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that is an unfair summation. Just because other project's blocks aren't recognised in Commons doesn't mean that they are ignored either. Trouble-maker editors on other projects invariable start making trouble elsewhere, and if they start making trouble here then they get shit-canned sharpish. It's just a matter of time. Though I'm not too sure what you mean about there not being a "neutral admin". I sense what you really mean is an admin who's on your side. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no admins "on my side" here. There are some (mostly English or German speaking) admins who are active at this board, but none seems to have read this or the older PF thread attentively. A.Savin 11:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This is why you claimed there are no "neutral" admins. the sense you gave to your statement is that you equate "neutral" with being in your camp against the Russian trouble-makers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

I suspect all uploads by Naminyan following 3-day block for copyright violations, which has just expired, are copyvios. 92.40.225.117 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinite. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All images marked as copyvios. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Harassment by Pieter Kuiper

If you've been around for a long time, you know that Pieter Kuiper has a wonderful way of harassing people (notice the sheer consistency in it) and has, in the past, harassed me. He has recently disagreed with my pointing out the uncertainty of flickerreviewr and has taken to trying to find any problem with an upload no matter how inappropriate his claims are. This, for example, is not an appropriate deletion rationale. It doesn't matter if there is a "higher resolution" - the dates are what matter. Many on the list don't exist. The image even has Meta data.

This one is an obviously PD painting that can have the frame cropped if needed. The only reason to put it through a DR is to try and annoy me with a talk page message. This one is from a magazine that can be searched and does not give an illustrator credit in the magazine, even though it does have copyright claims to the publishing company itself. The signature is indecipherable. The magazine itself is out of copyright in the US. The index page that lists and credits every other illustration fails to credit this illustration. This is more than enough to qualify it under UK unknown author, especially since the image is from 116 years ago. Peter knows all of this and is just trying to throw up whatever he can to harass and has done this many, many times over many years. (edit to add - I put proof that the "signature" on the image was merely an engraver that was on staff for the magazine and not the signature of the original photographer. The original photographer is unknown and the engraver died in 1909.) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You're thick-skinned enough OR, you can handle it, you don't need an admin to fight your battles for you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that Commons doesn't operate on battles. You don't harass people like that because you disagree with them. Peter has been warned dozens of times for this same exact action and has been blocked over and over and over because of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Support indef banning of Kuiper, as per the previous 10,000 discussions here that all ended up with us all knowing he does this but not doing anything about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the DRs are clearly fatuous. Why can't Ottava Rima deal with valid questions on his posts?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions are not dealt via DR. The one image would require a crop, not a deletion and that is 100% obvious. The other about the unknown author is still an unknown author. The signature was that of the engraver marking used by the magazine's engraver and is on many, many images in that magazine in addition to other signatures or credited to other people. So it wasn't a reason to think it was the creator. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rima has strange ideas about copyright. Of course engravings have the copyright of the engraver, in most of the world until 70 years after their death. (Although in this case, the image may have been produced by Swain's company.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Engraving is not a copyrightable act. It is an act of printing. Only the image's creator has the copyright. An engraver is merely a medium. Everyone knows that and your feigning above is exactly why you should be banned. You always make up stuff like this to harass people you disagree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Blue boy" (Bell vs Catalda) shows that you are wrong. Will you now admit that you learned something? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop making things up. 1. a Mezzotint is not the same as an engraved plate used to mass publish something. 2. The engraver was an employee who put together the sheets to be printed. This is the very definition of a "work for hirer". That case says nothing about an individual employee making a printing plate had the copyright over that plate instead of the original creator of the image or the owner of the magazine. You knew both of these before making the statement, so your claims are really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It requires a deletion, whether or not the cropped image may stay. You posted the copyrighted work of an organization who has threatened to sue Wikimedia and posters who have uploaded (uncopyrighted) work of theirs before.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. There is no proof that frames cannot be included or are original enough for a straight on image of them to be copyrightable. We have already decided that the copyright claims by the Portrait Gallery have been bogus for the most part when it comes to old images. Your sudden ultra defense of copyright is rather amusing with your recent attacks on people trying to enforce copyright. I see that you want to delete images that are clearly over 150 years old but don't care about flickrwashed images and those with other problems. That isn't appropriate behavior and it is just as bad as what Pieter is doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I seriously considered nominating the Chinchillas a while ago. My investigation required admin tools to establish that the wiki uploader is probably the legitimate author (I will explain on the DR as soon as I can). So I think it is understandable for Pieter to believe that it is a potential copyvio. --99of9 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It had Meta data and none of the images were from an earlier date. Everyone knows that you can stretch images out. It wasn't like someone got a high resolution image out of it, just a few bites. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as 99of9 showed on the DR, they didn't stretch the image out; they posted a scaled-down copy of the original, which we don't have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the image 99of9 in the Tin link. The ones that were slightly above were stretched out and lacked Meta data. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Kuiper's block log is being waved (in the first line of this section) as if it's conclusive, but actually the recent blocks were overturned as erroneous, and the December 2010 one was overturned as "out of process". Whatever Kuiper's past or present, the block log cannot simply be pointed to in an "enough is enough, and here's the proof" way. If actual action is to be taken, clear, recent evidence needs to be shown to justify it. Rd232 (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the admin boards that discuss it, it was rather clear that those blocks weren't in error but that a few admin decided to take Pieter's word that he would stop. His blocks are consistently over the same problem. And recent evidence? The mere fact that he went through images of mine and put up things that he knew had no legitimate reason to be nominated simply because he disagreed with my views. He did this many, many, many times in the past. It is his standard MO. It isn't how Commons works. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

On the first point: can you provide links? The discussions aren't linked from the log, unfortunately, and if you know what you're looking for it'll be easier to find in the relevant archives. On the second: "he knew he had no legitimate reason" is an accusation of bad faith. What evidence do you have for that? Rd232 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You will really have to look through the archives of this page for his name. He came up really frequently as a subject for complaint. There is really just no way to deal with the sheer mass in a manner that would give you a few examples. And accusation of bad faith - he didn't stumble upon 3 images that I uploaded that were old. That is fact and cannot be disputed. He specifically targeted two images that I used and had to go through all the others to find something. None of them were definitely problems and none of them were actual problems. None of them involved him talking to me or asking any questions. See mattbuck's statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You posted clear copyright infringement from an organization that's threatened to sue Wikimedia before. So yes, there was a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The Dcoetzee case already verified that the National Portrait Gallery has attempted to claim copyright over non-copyrightable images and items. We as a community has accepted the US copyright rulings that does not allow works not adding anything original be deemed copyrightable nor are the claims accepted. The problem is that you are conveniently forgetting the law and our policies because you disagreed with my previous statements, and that isn't allowable practice on Commons. It would be good for the whole community that they review your past inappropriate behaviors after we ban Pieter for his years of such problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The risk would be high for a commercial reuser. Especially for someone marketing the chinchilla image as a greeting card, as it turned out that Hallmark owns the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Stop making stuff up. Hallmark's contest said that people could not have previously used the material for business purposes before hand. At no time did it agree to give away your copyright. It is the same deal all contests use, just like America Idol, where they cannot legally prohibit people from using their work later. You have not proven that Hallmark owns the rights but proved that you are willing to say and do anything to harass others, including blatantly making things up. There is no room for such atrocious behavior on Commons and you made it clear on Wikipedia Review that you are acting this way to cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly normal behaviour to report that something is wrong if Commons hosts a copyrighted photo of the frame of a painting, and in particular if the copyright is held by an organisation which has previously threatened to take legal actions against Wikimedia. I don't think that Pieter Kuiper did anything wrong when he reported the National Portrait Gallery image. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not normal behavior to troll through thousands of edits and uploads trying to find things that might slightly be wrong in order to make half assed nominations in an intimidating manner. This has been a constant set of actions from him for a very long time. And the NPG image has already been dealt with and had consensus on how we deal with them. Putting up Deletion Nominations against someone you are in a fight with is not the appropriate way. That is the way that needs to be met with a ban and only with a ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice how he claims PD Old for that without any proof of a date. There was a King of Bavaria until 1918, and he was claiming that a work in 1895 would have an artist still alive to where PD Old would not apply. This proves that his actions are a doubt standard which he only comes up with such ridiculously false and imaginary high standards to harass people. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary that Pieter Kuiper must comment his edits with such derogative phrases? Why is he doing this? Which advantage does the use of such phrases have? Does Piter Kuiper not know that arguments are counting and not the loudest yell? --79.237.185.210 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose any block of Peter Kuiper. Ottava Rima seems to enjoy giving it out, but deflecting or ignoring any concerns about him. I've yet to see him truly acknowledge any of the concerns raised above, rather saying "stop making things up", and the fact remains that when you have uploaded a known copyvio, all your other contributions are up for greater scrutiny from any member of the community. I've certainly yet to see evidence of Kuiper "trolling" (sic) through Ottava Rima's history. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh! They're as bad as each other, they just use different techniques. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Getting along. Come on guys, you both know the rules, you both primarily do behind the scenes work at Commons, just behave. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The DR's were perfectly valid. To me it seems that it is Ottava Rima that is harassing Pieter. Just look at the proof presented by Ottava Rima. None of the DR's was speedy closed and the intro "you know that Pieter Kuiper has a wonderful way of harassing people" is a personal attack. Ottava perfectly knows that most of the blocks are disputed. If I block and unblock Ottava 50 times he would have a block log longer than Pieter. Would Ottava then agree that it is a valid proof that is Ottava harassing? I think that using the block log like that is manipulating with facts and a cover up for the lack of proof that Pieter is harassing with the quoted DR's.

If you do look at the Block log of Ottava Rima you will see quite a lot of blocks. It seems that when someone mention Pieter Kuiper they can get away with almost everything because Peter Kuiper has been reported here quite a few times and many users have strong feelings against Pieter Kuiper. I think that is wrong. You should not get away with harassing other people just because you play the "Pieter Kuiper card". So if someone should be blocked here it is not Pieter. --MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid most of the truly daft threads around at present and hope that 2012 means some folk get bored with Commons again. However I am inclined to agree with MGA73 here. I think from other threads around PK is not the one harassing folk at present. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support a block of Ottava Rims for a while. I agree he is trying to use the "Kuiper Card" to his advantage, and as far as I'm concerned the only reason to bring up someone's block log is to make them look bad because your own evidence against them isn't as strong. Ottava has also used atleat two personal attacks while Kuiper so far has not in this AN/U. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there is nothing here that would lead to a concensus to block Pieter Kupiter. A few users think Pieter should be blocked but as far as I can tell it is because they are tired of him for other reasons than was brought up here.

As for a possible block Ottava_Rima I suggest we discuss that on ----> Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Regarding_Ottava_Rima.

So I think we should close this discussion here.--MGA73 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Russian copyright law

I would like to know what the community thinks about Russian copyright law (Civil Code). Do we have to obey Russian laws here, or can I break Russian laws here at Commons? I ask this because the administrator offers me to keep illegal photos marked as free, while they cannot be licensed as free, because the rights of artists, sculptors and architects are protected in Russia. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the Commons servers in Russia? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are at least two obvious aspects: 1) Commons servers are not in Russia and 2) it is impossible to delete even just the half of all the images which could be appropriate candidates for a "No-FOP-in-Russia" DR. On the other hand, PF aims particularly at pictures which are used in several wikipedias and their subjects are not obviously eligible for any copyright due to their very simple design, like for instance two of her newest DR's [6] [7]. A.Savin 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• This situation is discussed in the Russian section of Wikipedia, with the participation of administrators, bureaucrats, and arbitrov. Now community is discussing the problem. I draw your attention to ВП:457. Please, don`t let vandal`s actions user PereslavlFoto, Sincerely Martsabus
  • Your links are off topic, please do not lead the discussion to your own troubles in other wikipedias. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • My links was not off topic, you is blocked in Russian Wikipedia for troll, you simply settle the score with part of user Russian Wikipedia. Stay! PereslavlFoto, Sincerely Martsabus
      • Don't be silent: it was me who killed President John F. Kennedy back in 1963. Now let's return to the theme.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Say that again and I will personally report you for harassment. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is very simple. Commons tries to follow the laws of all countries but if those laws are counter to US laws then US laws take priority, after all that is where the servers are and they are under no obligation to follow any country's laws other than the US. Simple enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred the Oyster (talk • contribs) 29. Dezember 2011, 23:36 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC))
  • So the image unfree in Russia and free in USA is allowed?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • That's the way I understand it, yes. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I asked here because COM:FOP explains: «such an image cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy», and Russia is «Not OK».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It would all depend on what the image was of, plus the fact that COM:FOP is basically a guideline. Commons maintains different country's FoP laws basically as a courtesy, rather than it being compulsory. It isn't so much that Commons may be breaking the Russian law, as it is the uploader that is the offender. It's actually quite a convoluted situation really and depends upon all manner of different variations, for example what if a tourist from the UK went on holiday to Moscow took a load of images of copyrighted buildings etc, but then brought them back to the UK and uploaded them to Commons from London. Are those images legal or not? :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Thus, there is no single-valued summation for all FOP situations. Well, this is in line with my insight, and that's why I start FOP DRs to make other editors speak and decide. And the result is, I am comprehensively blamed for those DRs. What a mess...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't blame you :) Keep up the good work. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
          • If it were that simple, we wouldn't have commons:Freedom of Panorama guideline at all. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• When it comes to objects in Russia we must obey Russian law: there is 'no place on Commons for modern Soviet and Russian architecture. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• You must obey Russian laws, because you are in Russia, the rest of us who aren't are not obliged to follow Russian laws. The only reasons Commons follows Russian laws is as a courtesy plus the fact that if a Russian uploads an image of architecture that doesn't have FoP then they don't have a right to give the image a copyright license suitable for Commons, therefore it's the lack of a copyright license that Commons is refusing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Excerpt from commons:Licensing

“

...that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

”

No FOP in Russia → No PD → No image on Commons. Pretty much clear to me. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, it is less about the copyright itself (for which a better place exists), but about the usual behavior of accounts like PF and their motivation when they request masses of files for deletion. So let's get back to the topic please. A.Savin 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from possible time-wasting putting files up for deletion is relatively harmless. They'll either be deleted after discussion because something is wrong with the licensing or some other point, or the deletion request is refused. It's not as if PF has the ability to delete the files their self. It's up to one our admins to make the decision and most of them know what they're doing. In fact there's actually a core of admins who do most of the work here and by-and-large they do know what they are doing so please have faith in them. If they delete a file then most of the time it's a file that needed deleting. And if a mistake is made there is always the undeletion review process. So it's not as PF is going to get to delete many files at all even if he wants to. Have faith. The admins here are pretty good... as far as admins go ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the reality. Some admins who handle open DR's make some guidelines pretty simple to themselves. In the result, many files from Russia already have been deleted, although their existence on Commons hardly violate someone's rights and they were used in many projects. And every RfD decided positively is seen by PF as license to further destructive behavior. A.Savin 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if mistakes are made then there is always the undeletion review process. Don't forget, images are never truly deleted on Commons and if there is a justifiable and lawful reason for them to be restored then they would be restored. All one has to do is ask. In any case has any reason been discovered as to why PF is requesting all these files to be deleted, or is it just a sad form of entertainment? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking truly, I cannot understand why noone have asked the architects. Thus I set myself a plan to apply to Moscow underground projects institute (Metrogiprotrans) for the permit. I think they will explain me the official position of the architectural bureau, and possibly will let us to use the photos of their creations all over the country.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there are licensing and FoP policies which we follow and do not take shortcuts. Questioning PF's motivation is a sad form of entertaining. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Usual behaviour of PF is following the rules. Why are you questioning it? Is there something wrong in adhering the policy? Artem Karimov (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take over an still existing commons user account (my old one?!)

Hello, administrator needed for some help:
I think, that once in 2008 the special user creating the desired commons account "Jaybear" was myself!
Unfortunately my old email adress from then isn't existing any more -- my old provider has retired.
Thus I can't receive any "change password" email for this account.

• The page Jaybear doesn't exist
• The page Discussion for Jaybear is empty except the standard introducing welcome topic:

"English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jaybear!" ShakataGaNai 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion / History for Jaybear is empty/no log-entries found.

It would be very helpful for me, if I could take over this commons account for further use.
212.29.41.30 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(that is at present: de.Jaybear 16:15, 30. Dez. 2011 (CET))

At COM:CHU, you may request that your username be changed or you may usurp a disused username. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for any help on this issue.

Now I'm owning the desired account

Jaybear (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:SYRYNX

All of his files are blatant copyright violations, many containing Japanese brochure text and so on. Most of them are simply scanned from Toyota brochures, but the first file is from a book.

File:CarinahistorySYRYNX.jpg - from a Japanese book on Toyotas...
File:Toyota carina 7g.jpg - contains brochure text
File:Toyota carina 3 2g.jpg - European Carina brochure, ca 1985
File:Toyota carina 2g.jpg - early eighties European brochure, with "TOYOTA" plates
File:Toyota carina 1G1.jpg - same, except older
File:Toyota carina 5 2g.jpg - European marketing photo
File:Toyota carina 5g.jpg - official, Japanese photo
File:Toyota carina 6 2g.jpg - period European marketing shot
File:Toyota carina 4g.jpg - period Japanese brochure, with Katakana on plate
File:TCGT1.jpg - from Japanese used-car website
File:TCGT2.jpg - also
File:Toyota carina 40632.jpg

File:Toyota carina 6g.jpg he simply stole from here in Commons (seems like unecessary work), but Túrelio has already merged the duplicate file. I notice that he has already had several files, all of Toyota Carinas, deleted for the very same reasons. I suggest a block, since talkpage conversations seem to have no effect on this user. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, Mr.choppers. I've filed them for speedy deletion (most of these pics came from here), and the remaining files which I couldn't find elsewhere filed for regular deletion, and blocked the user for a week as he has been warned multiple times before. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Cheers. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

I suspect that all uploads by User:BobIScool are copyvios. 92.40.225.117 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And given the recent massive number of copyvios on this SNSD band (Naminyan, SNSDfan, Emmakalim, Bolmae) and given the account creation at Commons I strongly suspect that this not only a copyvio uploader but also a sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the user blocked indefinite and I also strongly suggest for a sockpuppet check. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

did this, inconclusive. Left the account open, such obvious copyvios will be found at the latest when included in the articles. But ok, the user came here do only upload copyright violations and include them in en.wp, its an vandalism only account. --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Chinese-speaking admin

I think we need Chinese-speaking (well, Chinese-reading/writing) admin to communicate with Sfp2013 (talk · contribs). I don't think this user gets the scope of Commons in terms of copyrights and/or does not understand what it means to claim something as "own work". - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Parent Géry

This user's categorizing may have a problem. Please tell him/her (in French).

• He/She categorizes many many files to both main categories and subcategories at the same time. And I think an image containing only one mineral should not be put in Category:Mineral collections.
  • File:Tourmaline var. elbaïte sur quartz (Paprok Mine, Kunar, Nuristan - Afghanistan) 1.jpg
    • Category:Minerals ＞ Category:Tourmaline ＞ Category:Elbaite
  • File:Aigue-marine sur quartz et tourmaline noire (Pakistan).jpg
    • Category:Beryl ＞ Category:Aquamarine ＞ Category:Aquamarine with schorl, and Category:Schorl
  • File:Cobaltodolomite et calcite (Bou Azzer - Morocco) 1.JPG
    • Category:Minerals ＞ Category:Cobaltocalcite
• Animals in underwater too.
  • File:Elysia gordanae Thompson & Jaklin, 1988.jpg
    • Category:Mollusca ＞ Category:Placobranchidae ＞ Category:Elysia ＞ ‎Category:Elysia gordanae
    • Category:Chordata ＞ Category:Didemnidae ＞ Category:Diplosoma listerianum

--Via null (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

Latest incarnation is User:Berriohs. 92.40.33.151 18:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear administrators

Hello, administrators needed for some help. I am is Şahzadə. I has been blocked is user Axpde. Reason:"Şahzadə is a sockpuppet of Sultan11". Asked to help Axpde. And... User:Axpde, User:Martin H., User:Magister Mathematicae, User:Mardetanha

This is my contribution, the project of Wikipedia. I have also participated in meetups (meetings) of Wikipedia.

This is true. I have to one IP Sultan11. No, we did not use the abuse of multiple accounts. I ask, therefore, not charged with abuse of multiple accounts. I ask you to help me with the opening of the block. What should I do for this purpose. Please, what to do in this case?. I would like to know, what my fault? Sincerely: Şahzadə. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.198.211 (talk • contribs) 05.09 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a blocked user, Şahzadə, claiming to share an IP with another, Sultan11 (the latter's user page makes the same claim).

Şahzadə (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Sultan11 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

SUL shows both users' home wiki is az.wp, and Sultan11 is a sysop there. I'm inclined to take Sultan11's word for it. Any other opinions? Rd232 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Support Şahzadə (File:Baku5 meetup4.JPG, File:Baku5 meetup3.JPG) is a female. Sultan11 is an "amca" (File:Baku5 meetup8.JPG) :) I think this user can be unblocked if she never do "meat puppetry" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red kurdistan 1923 1929.png) agian. Normally Şahzadə is female name and Gülüstan is female name. But, as long as I understand, the reason for blocking Şahzadə was sock puppetry. If the reason for blocking were meat puppetry, User:Vugar 1981, User:Irada, User:Sultan11, User:Moonsun1981, User:Vago, User:CLT, User:Bakuemil, User:Vera Bekova, User:MrArifnajafov, User:Sortilegus, User:Azeri Warrior, User:Acategory should have been blocked. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting complicated. Without prejudice to the bona fides of Şahzadə, this might best be resolved by a Checkuser investigation. But if the allegation is meatpuppetry, some cogent diffs really do need to be provided, since mere allegations, even in good faith, do require substantiation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment The principal offender was User:Melikov Memmed (Evidence: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Takabeg (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I will unblock per Takabeg's confirmation that he has met these two users in real life. The meatpuppetry is unconcealed and obvious, and is a realistic newcomer's mistake. DRs are not decided on votes, but on arguments, so Şahzadə, I suggest that you try uploading some photographs you've taken of your country instead. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've never met them in real life. However, we (Turkic language speakers) can easily understand that two user is not same person when we investigate these photographs, Contribution of Şahzadə, contribution of Sultan11. Takabeg (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Left to right: Cekli829, Enver62, İrada, Şahzadə, Gulustan
• 
  Left to right: Şahzadə və Gulustan
• 
  Left to right: Sultan11, Babək Akifoğlu və Bakuemil
• 
  Left to right: Muradwu, Sortilegus, Sultan11, Babək Akifoğlu

I am very pleased to write with their own user-by-step. Me unblocked, of which I do agree with. Thanks for your help. --Şahzadə (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:GeorgianJorjadze

GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user had a batch of images deletion in November 2011, following which he received a warning, here. Another batch were deleted in December, and he received another warning, here. He has now uploaded many images from various websites with no indication of permission. I'm still reviewing and tagging these, but a few:

• File:Sarpi, Georgia.jpg, taken from jmayerh.de (somewhere; he links to the sites but not the pages)
• File:Prayers manuscript book 05 georgian alphabet.jpg taken from pcu.ge
• File:Georgian Golden Lion.jpg taken from saunje.ge

There may be other sites I'll be stumbling upon as I continue looking through, but it seems to me that this contributor isn't getting the message. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(The more I'm tagging, the more I'm thinking that I should probably have just tagged these for speedy deletion. I'm sure it goes without saying that if anybody thinks I've erred in the slower process, I'd appreciate resolution through whatever method is most appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

I've managed to get through January. Hope I've tagged everything that was a problem and nothing that wasn't. I can't look at December. I have to go to work! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked for 3 days to try to get their attention. I also don't have time to deal with all the files at the moment. --99of9 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest {{Speedy}} for most of them. There are a few that may be PD-art and perhaps a few that he might actually have taken himself, but ones such as File:Georgian Golden Lion.jpg deserve a {{Speedy}}. I would use DRs only for those that are possibly PD-art or his own work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem

• File:AzzamInterview.jpg
• Frederico1234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi. In investigating a copyright question on the English Wikipedia, I realized that File:AzzamInterview.jpg was uploaded here under evidently a misunderstanding of the license. It is a newspaper article from 1947 in Egypt, and the {{PD-Egypt}} template makes clear that it is still under copyright in the United States and not usable on Commons for that reason. (Copyright expires 95 years after publication.)

I tagged the image accordingly, but another contributor (User:Frederico1234) keeps removing the tag for no reason other than that evidently he thinks the copyright status is silly? This content may be usable under fair use on other projects, but is not public domain in the United States. Can somebody look into this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We've generally kept images like that; cf. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See here too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then {{PD-Egypt}} would be wrong, as it says, "In order to be hosted on Commons, all works must be in the public domain in the United States as well as in their source country" and itself sets out the 1946 deadline. But how is this in keeping with Meta:Resolution:Licensing policy and the head of Commons:Licensing, which emphasizes that:

Wikimedia Commons accepts only media

• that are explicitly freely licensed, or
• that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

This content is demonstrably not public domain in the United States until and unless the law is overturned. Commons isn't permitted an "exemption doctrine policy" that would allow it to permit copyrighted content anyway, even on the basis that it might be okay in the future. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please folks, let's have discussions in one place not two. A gentle slap on the wrist for my two colleagues above who have commented both here and at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Frederico1234_and_File:AzzamInterview.jpg -- you should both know better. Let's continue there and close this here now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Itstito

All uploads by the new user are tagged inaccurately as PD-art (older than 100 years), but are magazine covers or logos published by Kathashilpa Publishing House, which was founded in 1959 per English wikipedia. No date is given to prove PD-art. Please delete them all. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Putting {{Speedy}} or {{Copyvio}} will make this happen in the ordinary work flow. It does not need a notice here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:BesiktasSWE

BesiktasSWE (talk · contribs) has been uploading images related to the Turkish football club Besiktas, mostly obvious copyvios, with a couple of unknown origin. The user has already ignored a couple of warnings, and hasn't responded other than to post more photos. --Ytoyoda (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, now he found facebook as a great source to take images... :( --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

SemiiHBJK (talk · contribs) is likely a sockpuppet of blocked BesiktasSWE. The account was created the day after the master account was blocked, and both users' uploads are added to English WIki by 213.89.27.195 --Ytoyoda (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - blocked, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel_VanHelsing

User:Gabriel_VanHelsing is doing a lot of category changes. Can any admin review the changes done by this user? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of his work is clearly good. I contacted him on one thing where I thought it was not. Could you indicate what you find problematic? And have you contacted him to let him know you posted here? - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on IP 84.61.131.15

84.61.131.15 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Hi admins! I'm admin at the german wiktionary. During the last three days IP 84.61.131.15 vandalized some pages. It seems to be an static IP. Accoding to its global user statistic page, he made some changes/ deletion requests on commons. You might keep an eye on him. best wishes Akinom (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Rafy

Hi. I have problem with User:Rafy who is revert warring over this map that I created: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lombard_state_526.png He converted that map to svg version and now adding tag that my map should be replaced with his SVG version. I do not agree with that. It is only a question of opinion that SVG maps are "better" than PNG. There are certain problems with SVG maps because of which I do not think that they are superior to PNG. Also, SVG version uploaded by User:Rafy is absolutely not same as original PNG image. There are some notable differences between them. I do not mind that his map is linked in "Other versions" section, but I do not agree with inclusion of tag which says that his SVG version "should be used in place of PNG version". PANONIAN (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathize to some degree, but it's standard practice here to use the {{Vector version available}} template if the SVG is of reasonable quality and pretty much functionally equivalent to the PNG. Being exactly identical in visual appearance to the PNG is not usually required, except in some special cases (such as flags which have a precise geometrical definition). If you'll notice, the text of the template says "It [the SVG] should be used in place of this raster image when superior". It's really up to the discretion of article editors on each individual language Wikipedia whether or not to replace uses of the PNG with the SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@PANONIAN You'd better use File talk:Lombard state 526.png. Don't ignore assume good faith. Takabeg (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I opened new thread regarding the "conversion to SVG" policy here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Transition_to_SVG#I_have_complains_about_this_policy Anyway, regarding the original PNG image and User:Rafy my main question would be: is he allowed to revert warring over inclusion of SVG tag? What is a point of that tag? If "editors on each individual language Wikipedia" are to decide which image they should use why we have to stick their eyes with tag that says that they should use SVG image? PANONIAN (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And then again, why we do not create an similar tag that will be used on SVG image and that will notify editors that PNG version also exist and that they should use that image "when superior"? PANONIAN (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to add a link to PNG file to the "Other versions" part of the SVG. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

user:A.Savin

User "cleans up" my DRs without closing properly and any reasons. [8] [9] Artem Karimov (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A pic that does not show any architecture may not be in a DR which is opened due to copyrighted architecture. If you have another rationale why these files should be deleted, you will have to open a separate DR. Not everything is as simple here on Commons as you would probably like. A.Savin 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This one for example partially includes copyrighted architectural work (tunnel entrance). Artem Karimov (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. A.Savin 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that is legal paranoia. There is nothing wrong with what A.Savin did in this case that warrants being placed here. But in the future i would request a not in the discussion saying something like "I've crossed out number 2". VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's paramoia. Letter pointers does not fall under no-FOP. A.Savin's reverts was corret.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume this image «partially includes copyrighted architectural work». Who is the architect then? Is his work a main subject here? (NB: on this very image I simply cannot see any main subject. )--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Artem Karimov, your argument is a complete nonsense. De minimis is a basic concept of copyright law everywhere. You fail to understand that. Please stop this kind of attack. Yann (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re abovementioned "Artem Karimov's legal paranoia": a deletion request on his own pic uploaded two months ago. --Amga (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Vinay070

Can someone delete all images, I've sourced and tagged quite a few, but everything's a webgrab and I don't think we need to waste more time checking for sources on the others. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done by someone, not sure who. At any rate the only upload left is File:Science Faculty Of Allahabad University.JPG, and that's got EXIF data and seems fine. Rd232 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Denniss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:155mm SpGH Himalaya.jpg

Deletion debates must be opened for one week. The admin User:Denniss closed this discussion (link above) after less than one hour without giving a reason. This should not be done by an administrator in this way. Maybe somebody could bring in some helpful impulses in this debate - that`s why it is recommended to let it open for a week. Relto18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the image is a copyvio, it can be deleted any time, and the DR can be closed immediately. Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But they should give a rationale anyway, especially if it was closed early. Otherwise, it's hard to understand why it was closed in this way, and why it was done after such short time. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Relto, if you have new evidence that the work might be free, you can file an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests. And a further remark: except if there have been previous failed attempts, in most cases it's better first to directly contact the "culprit" on his talkpage instead of reporting on COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper violates topic ban

The user has aldready violated the permanent interaction ban between him and me. Would someone neutral like to get this over with at last? Permanent ban has been discussed many times. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS The interaction ban is archived here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 Question What is the reason for this edit by Pieter, made without an edit summary? Rd232 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd but I fail to see why the category required "Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives" in it personally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally I fail to see why "Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives" should have a link to a facebook page on it? Had I come across it other than via this thread I would have removed it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious. Each image from SC is already in the relevant "Images from SC" category, and the category Christer Lindarw should not be a subcategory of SC. That being fixed, the two introductory paragraphs that were attempting to justify that wrong categorization are useless. And the categories are placed in the appropriate location in the page. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care at all about the Southerly Clubs info. But the category's intro

• The category includes images with a direct connection to Swedish entertainer Christer Lindarw of Stockholm.

was removed, depriving Commons of useful info. That, to me, is disruptive.

More importantly, can we please stick to the subject this time? I posted this not to discuss content but because of the interaction ban violation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS to anwer RD232's question: the reason is to test the waters, to see if he really is banned or not from such interaction or if he can go as usual. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can have any kind of "Ownership" over a category that means that other users cannot edit it - not something I would see as appropriate on a collaborative project. Also - why does there need to be a link to facebook in that category - if you didn't place it I will remove it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While you were writing that, I was removing it. Now can we please stick to the subject? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, anyone else buit Kuiper can edit anything h/s wants to that I am or have been involved with. I can deal with any normal people, and have never claimed any kind of "ownership" over anything. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Southerly clubs does not own Lindarw. They did not contribute this photo of Lindarw. Also defaultsort was after a category - I believe that the sorting is not affected then, so I fixed that. The introduction was unnecessary, the interwiki links did take care of that. It is not an interaction with Woodzing, I did not nominate any of his uploads for deletion, I did not edit any file uploaded by him. I now see that he edited the category once. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the "interaction" the 2 edits were 3 years apart. I also think that most of the subcategories of Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives should be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Solutions, Rd232 said to Pieter Kuiper, "Right now there are a number of users, including at least one admin, who want to ban you indefinitely. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what is no doubt a long and complex history, if you're not willing to make concessions to help avoid problems, then I can't help you. Commons is a big place; don't tell me you simply can't avoid this Southerly Clubs part of it." I don't think this was a particularly egregious violation of the interaction ban and I think Pieter Kuiper deserves some credit for avoiding interaction for 2.5 months. However, the cited edit referenced Southerly Clubs. In the same AN/U section, Rd232 said, "It appears that Pieter has agreed to this proposal, and will stay away from Woodzing and from Southerly Clubs, and point out any issues he comes across to a third party." I think Pieter Kuiper's recent edit is a violation of this interaction/topic ban. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be agreement in this thread that Southerly Clubs should not be a cat of this page? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adjudication of each occurrence is a good use of scant resources. Prima facie evidence that an edit violates the topic ban should suffice, I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment If there is a ban saying that User:Pieter Kuiper and SergeWoodzing should stay away from eachother then we have a problem here. So either we block User:Pieter Kuiper for editing a category or we block SergeWoodzing for starting this request about Pieter. Personally I do not think that Category:Christer Lindarw should be a subcategory of Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives because we can't be sure that all images of Christer Lindarw will come from that source and the edit Pieter made was correct. I will not call correcting obvious errors a violation of an interaction ban. --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with Pieter Kuiper, MGA73 and others that Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives should be cleaned up. However I also agree with Walter Siegmund that is Pieter Kuiper was asked to "stay away from Woodzing and from Southerly Clubs" than he should have. I guess the only solution is for someone else to cleaned up Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives. Time permitting I will look into it, unless someone else does it first. --Jarekt (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have missed an entry of mine above posted 17:35, 19 January 2012. I will repeat it's first sentence here, bolded this time, so that it is easier to find. I don't care at all about the Southerly Clubs info. That whole entry of mine is essential to this discussion. It is difficult to understand why it has been ignored by some of you, and the Southerly Clubs also is being discussed rather extensively, as if I never wrote it. Shoulkd I still bother to write anything here and try to get along as well as I can? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Jarekt seems to have suggested a solution to the, stricktly speaking, irrelevant issue. How about the main issue, the one this discussion is about? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Serge, as I and some other people already mentioned, I do not consider Pieter's edit to a page 3 years after your edit to be an "interaction". Is there anything else you would like to discuss? --Jarekt (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Only how we are to get around the fact that he edited re: Southerly Clubs, and has clearly admitted he did, in spite of the fact that he isn't supposed to do that himself, but ask/convince another neutral editor to do it for him. A neutral editor would not have disruptively removed the link, supplied by the Southerly Clubs (as Kuiper very well knows) clarifying who Lindarw is. Lindarw is a close friend of Southerly Clubs' detested chairman (as Kuiuper very well knows). All his editing of these things is personal. Knowing Kuiper since 2007, I personally suspect he marked his calendar before with a future date when he could test the ban and see what he can get away with now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I haven't read the whole archived discussion, but if the "interaction ban" is the one proposed in the "Solutions" section of the archived discussion, it doesn't seem there was any consensus behind it and it doesn't seem to have been closed to the effect of enacting any ban. This complaint actually reminds me of a similar section at enwiki just a week ago, where SergeWoodzing also referred to some sort of topic ban that was never enacted. The edit in question seems innocuous to me, although I admit that I'm not really familiar with the history of these users. Clearly there's a long-term problem in question in any case. Jafeluv (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Because of my admittedly having misunderstood the situation on enWP, which I also have acknowledged there, I read through the entire interaction ban discussion carefully (my second link above here) before daring to post this. I can't imagine you did, Jafeluv, so I doubt you have a fully balanced picture of what happened here. If you really don't feel there is an interaction ban in place here, because you are not initiated in what has gone on, I don't see why you would comment at all.

It's as if I entered a discussion involving you and wrote I don't know the details here, but So-and-so was wrong on enWP so he's probably wrong here. Helpful?

How did you know about that enWP discussion? I've never heard of or seen you before. Were you asked by somebody to write this here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you're wrong here because of the enwiki case, simply that I found the two complaints very similar. Nobody asked me to comment here, and I don't really see why you would assume someone had. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Now what

• On whether there was an interaction ban: yes, because (a) Pieter agreed to it and (b) the only opposition to it at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Move_to_close was by users who wanted more drastic action, which didn't happen.
• On whether it was breached: technically, yes, since the ban related to all Southerly Clubs content/issues.
• On what to do now: if this is an isolated incident, then I would say that the interaction ban has worked for over two months, and a reminder/clarification (clarifying that it really is all Southerly Clubs issues) is sufficient. I would also remind Pieter that the more likely an edit is to be contested, the more necessary it is to provide a clear, explanatory edit summary (or a talkpage note if you realise you forgot). The edit in question had no edit summary at all.

Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was not aware of a Southerly topic ban. All I remembered was Woodzing clamoring that I should leave him alone. That is what I said I would do, that is what I did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I am actually too exhausted now, I thought I'd enligten you that this action here on the Lindarw entertainer was a follow-up by PK on this reversal of his of one of my edits in svWP. Not at all coincidental or forgetful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is how I noticed that category:Christer Lindarw had a photo that did not come from Southerly Clubs. Even if I had been forbidden from editing Southerly Clubs stuff, this category was not. Serge, you are too sensitive. Or you are just out to get me on a technicality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2007 PK helped the Southerly Clubs set up their categories, designed their template and was very helpful. He is now complaining about what he helped create and sanctioned then. In other words, in 2008, for reasons obviously nothing but personal, he decided he hated the clubs and everyone invovled. Since then: calamity and the tedious, repetitious complaints because of it! Why would anyone want that to go on and on and on and on? It's all personal. Here, he's acting, and anyone taking his innocent act at face value doesn't know the devious side of him that so many of us have been victimized by, including several editors who have quit because of it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've revisited the archive, and there is some ambiguity; it was all a bit messy. Serge had proposed Kuiper stays away from any files uploaded by any representative of the Southerly Clubs (he knows who) and from any and all work I am a principle contributor to or worker on. If he sees any serious problem with any such work, he can ask somebody else in a civil manner to deal with it. I asked Pieter if he agreed to this:

• Well then it shouldn't be difficult to agree to what he proposed, should it? Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That is what I already said: if Woodzing needs special exemptions, he can have it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You expect your remark "But of course, I can grant Woodzing the same privileged status of being exempt from scrutiny" to be understood as agreeing to the interaction ban? Well, anyway, I'll put you down as agreeing to the proposal. Rd232 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So Pieter wasn't perhaps clear what he was agreeing to. But equally, Woodzing seems to have forgotten the letter of what he proposed, as that doesn't cover the edit that prompted this thread. Can we take this thread as clarification of what was agreed, or is that contested or do we want to change it? Rd232 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you missed my entry above whoch begins Though I am actually too exhausted now, ? The edit to the Lindarw category page was a part of another campaign. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Than, you also wrote "if Pieter has ongoing issues with any Southerly Clubs matters, I suggest he find a third party he can raise those concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information." and PK agreed to that. So did I. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment For information: I have just gone through about 70 subcategories of Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives, and essentially repeated Pieter's edit on all of them (apart from removing the description of the person the category was about). This removes them as subcategories of the Southerly Clubs Archives. --99of9 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have thanked you for all that excellent and helpfulk work.

I also feel I have to add, since the enWP situation has been mentioned above, that there were 6 editors there for an identical interaction ban as this one, entailing that PK and I contact other neutral editors if we feel the other's work needs to be adjusted. There was no one against that there but PK who refused to categorically cooperate because of a bunch of falsified and exaggerated allegations he made about my work there. The discussion was never closed one way or the other despite the fact that the editor who posted the ban request, spevcially appealed for a result and postponed archiving. That's how PK can continue, for now, stalking and harassing me there (I have never once checked up on him anywhere or shown any interest in any of his work that hasn't effected mine). I'd say Commons had a much more effective and fair way of dealing with our problems: mine being that PK makes me feel terrible terrible terrible all the time when he's into my work with his rude comments, sarcasm and ridicule, and his that he cannot withstand the temptation to keep that up though he knows how bad I feel. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarify edit restriction

Per discussion above, let's propose a clearer version of the edit restriction, to replace the previous one:

Interaction ban and topic ban: User:Pieter Kuiper agrees to avoid interaction with User:SergeWoodzing, and to avoid making any edits in relation to Southerly Clubs. If necessary, he should find a third party he can raise concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information.

Rd232 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on what? Woodzing continually accuses me of heinous acts, without ever supplying difs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you choose not to agree to what (as far as I'm concerned) is a restatement of the original interaction ban, then the issue of what to do about your behaviour will have to be re-opened (unless perhaps, there's a strong enough consensus here to impose it against your wishes). If you're confident that this re-examination will not be a problem, fine; but before deciding you should review the archived discussion, where Serge was hardly the only one who had issues with your behaviour. Rd232 (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also willing to have that ban imposed upon me under the same conditions so that it is mutual, but I think it should be clear that I should not have to be prevented from reporting PK's violation of it, and the same for him. I am also willing to work under any type of mentorship that Commons may feel is appropriate now otr in the future.

I must also have the right to say that I have never accused PK of "heinous acts" but have complained about what I have experienced - any many others too - as rude, sarcastic ridicule habitually flung at me - us - and about how that has made me feel for years now, and about a deviousness on the part of PK which is equally well known to all of us who have been subjected to it, and which I find frightening. I know that PK has a very charming and helpful side which he has shown many editors, including Southerly Clubs people in 2007, so I understand the unequivocal support he gets from some of them. That doesn't mean he should be allowed to continue to target people who have disagreed with him and been right, and whom he then doesn't like for personal reasons.

I sincerely regret having to ask for such measures as these, for the sake of my own sanity and an acceptable work environment, and would love it if we all could spend our time on other matters. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Woodzing gives no difs of his allegations incivility. Most often I was right when I made a DR of Southerly club images, none were unwarranted. I have refrained from nominating more of his or any other Southerly uploads (although some would merit a DR). But I will not voluntarily subject myself to a topic ban. For example. I want to be able to discuss in the current RfC about OTRS operations the bulk OTRS permission privilege that Southerly Clubs enjoys. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Specific exceptions can be granted for a topic ban (and that example is a very reasonable exception), if that's the only reason you won't agree. (Future exceptions could in principle be granted on request by email to any admin, after they've confirmed onwiki that they approve the exception.) Rd232 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Most often PK was wrong, not right, every time he stalked me and complained about my work or the SoCl stuff. Let's not forget he was the one who set the SoCl up in the first place. PK's allegations about being right "most often" cannot be substantiated, and I am too sick and exhausted to look all that up again and again, now again. 1 or 2 images have had to be deleted because of errors. 1-2-3-4 times (out of over 1000 images) at the most I had to adjust things after PK's objections, often to what he himself has helped set up (that's how flabbergasting this all is and why the topic ban is especially appropriate). Of course I would have been glad to do so, if it weren't for the accompaniment of sarcasm and ridicule and personal insults PK always has used in each and every case up until these last few days (I had blocked "heinous" out of my mind already).

I don't see why he cannot have a neutral third party help him correct anything that might be warranted. Do we really want him personally involved, with his long history of personal antagonism of so many of us, in asking for exceptions and then in any discussion whatsoever, including any possible problem there may be with the SoCl OTRS? Somebody who has been very close to being permanently banned several times for incivility? Why is it being ignored by everyone that all the SoCl problems were created by PK himself in 2008, when he charmed User:EmilEikS (whom PK later drove from Commons) and led him into a trap of sorts?

The current valid OTRS replaced the one created as PK's idea after extensive correspondence between Southerly Clubs board members and OTRS guaranteeing, to the best of their ability, that members own all the images or that specific permission is on file and can be submitted upon request. No one else has comnplained about the new OTRS. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Recently, in the last few months, I have personally reviewed each and every image, updated format and looked for any possible problems. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the Interaction ban and topic ban proposed at the start of this section captures the spirit and sense of the conclusion of the earlier discussion. I suggest that we conclude this discussion, which is little more than a rehash of that earlier discussion, by adding this ban to the "editing restrictions list". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose The extension is unmotivated by any difs. Also, if Woodzing reviewed the Southerly Clubs uploads, there should be no need for him to demand restrictions on me making DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose further restrictions. To me it looks like SergeWoodzing is stalking Pieter. The edit Pieter made was 100 % correct. The category had ans should have absolutely nothing to do with the Southerly Club. If there is concensus to a ban then it should also be the other way around. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What the hell? (i) Where do you get "stalking" from? Serge had edited the category previously and it was presumably on his watchlist. (ii) whether the category has something to do with Southerly Clubs is not the issue (and Serge thinks it does) - the edit undoubtedly does. (iii) Serge has already agreed to making the interaction ban mutual. Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am not PK greatest fan but I agree with MGA completely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment The proposal here is a clarification of the existing edit restriction. Opposing a clarification, without offering an alternative, makes no sense whatsoever. And it must be borne in mind that the original edit restriction was objected to by several who wanted a ban instead; if the original restriction is in effect to be narrowed from what it was intended to be then the question of more severe sanctions for perceived problems may have to be revived. COM:RFC/U might be an appropriate way to do it. Note: I'm notifying those involved in the original discussion who have not yet commented here. Rd232 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I see no point in raising this because of this single justified maintenance edit where I fail to see how this should constitute a personal interaction with SergeWoodzing. If such maintenance edits evoke disrupting threads like this, it is possibly best to terminate the agreement which was considered as an interaction ban. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you've skipped some reading here (not that I blame you). The point is that the Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29 original restriction involved staying away from a topic, and not just a user. That was certainly my understanding, but it was a bit chaotic and hence the need to clarify (not "extend", as Pieter had it). And the justifiability of individual edits is not an issue when it comes to violating a topic ban. Rd232 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - from what I understand, this was the outcome of the previous discussion, and it seems a sensible restriction which has mostly kept Pieter off this noticeboard recently. This is a clarification of that restriction, and a restatement of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Question Can the supporters please clarify how long they want this to be in operation? Also, what exactly does "Related to the Southerly Clubs" mean? (In particular, does every category about a person that contains Southerly Clubs images count? The category Pieter modified was wrongly categorized as SC_archives. I presume he can edit that category now?) --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with MGA73. It was an innocent, non-controversial, absolutely correct edit in a category very weakly related to SergeWoodzing after 2 months or something lacking any interactions. The reaction of SergeWoodzing was strange, to say the least of it. It looks like ownership of contributions. I do not feel that such behavior should be supported, much less -- defended using bans. Trycatch (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• *  Oppose no need to create such a huge problem out of this maintainance edit that was not personal --Neozoon (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives

Despite my request that those opposing the above clarification provide an alternative (rejecting a clarification without providing an alternative is nonsensical), that hasn't happened. So I will provide the two most logical alternatives:

i)

Interaction ban: User:Pieter Kuiper and User:SergeWoodzing agree to a mutual interaction ban. If some interaction is necessary, they should find a third party they can raise concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information. Minor intersections of edit histories are permitted, unless they appear part of a deliberate pattern targeting the other user. Concerns about possible violations should be raised with an administrator by email first, before discussion onwiki.

ii)

Rescinding: The Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29 original restriction, whether considered an interaction ban or interaction ban + topic ban, is rescinded. Any long-term concerns that motivated the original discussion and restriction, if the issues are still current, should lead to a new thread about those issues, or possibly an RFC/U.

Please express support/oppose for these alternatives in addition to the clarification above. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban and topic ban (from the beginning of this section)

User:Pieter Kuiper agrees to avoid interaction with User:SergeWoodzing, and to avoid making any edits in relation to Southerly Clubs. If necessary, he should find a third party he can raise concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information.

•  Support This statement provides the least opportunity for pushing the limits. I don't think that it is unduly burdensome or restrictive. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose There was not concensus above. That should be respected. I think it is obstruction to keep trying here untill there is enough supporters or to few opposers. Close this now and stop this wild goose chase. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban (alternative i)

User:Pieter Kuiper and User:SergeWoodzing agree to a mutual interaction ban. If some interaction is necessary, they should find a third party they can raise concerns with by email, and then the third party can act appropriately based on that information. Minor intersections of edit histories are permitted, unless they appear part of a deliberate pattern targeting the other user. Concerns about possible violations should be raised with an administrator by email first, before discussion onwiki.

•  Support This wording bests captures the sentiment of the community, in my opinion. I think that the parties are well-advised not to explore the limits of the words "minor intersections". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support As described. Please also note: my latest complaint, as far as content, had absolutely nothing to do with the Southerly Clubs, but with the removal of the category's intro text and the link there to the subject's enWP article. My objection mainly regarded who did that, knowing that the Southerly Clubs was involved, not what was done. As I have clearly shown, I agree with all those subcategories having been adjusted since then, and I have sincerely thanked a neutral editor for helping us get that done quickly. I have stated time and time again that I appreciate the efforts of neutral editors to help me, and I made some such changes myself prior to this discussion, having been convinced some time ago by neutral editors that those subcategorizations were not appropriate. My task at Commons is to follow the rules and neutrally do what is in the interest of the project, not ever act in the biased interest of anyone or any organization. I am now asking all neutral Commons editors very kindly to help some of you stop misrepresenting these facts, because it causes such a waste of time and effort arguing about irrelevant sidelines. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose How carefully would I need to tread? Could I fix errors in Category:James of Dacia without risking getting blocked? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not expected to avoid footsteps the other left long ago, but to avoid kicking each others' shoes. If you're not aware of crossing paths in the ordinary course of editing, then any intersection of edit histories is going to be "minor". If you see the other's edit on a watchlist or comment on a talkpage, that's when you have to consider the interaction issue, and potentially email an admin if you need to do something which might be an issue. Rd232 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose There was not concensus above. That should be respected. I think it is obstruction to keep trying here untill there is enough supporters or to few opposers. Close this now and stop this wild goose chase. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescinding (alternative ii)

The Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29 original restriction, whether considered an interaction ban or interaction ban + topic ban, is rescinded. Any long-term concerns that motivated the original discussion and restriction, if the issues are still current, should lead to a new thread about those issues, or possibly an RFC/U.

•  Oppose I see no justification for a return to the status quo ante. Whatever the shortcomings of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29 original restriction, the result has been a period of relative calm. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Interaction or topic bans, if they really appear to be necessary, should be established for some limited time only. All have apparently noted that there was a sufficient long period of calm which was interrupted by the opening of this thread in reaction to a simple maintenance edit which still appears innocent to me. This is for me not a reason for upholding an interaction ban but to terminate it. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support agree with AFBorchert --Neozoon (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose There was not concensus above. That should be respected. I think it is obstruction to keep trying here untill there is enough supporters or to few opposers. Close this now and stop this wild goose chase. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative: Block User:SergeWoodzing for harassing User:Pieter Kuiper

Rd232 wanted an alternative and here is one:

We block User:SergeWoodzing for harassing User:Pieter Kuiper. Concensus above seems to be that the edit Pieter Kupier made was not harasment. On the other reportient Pieter here seems to be way over what is reasonable. In fact the report looks more like harassing User:Pieter Kuiper than reporting a problem. And if there was an interaction ban then reporting Pieter here was a violation of that ban and it should not be done without a VERY GOOD reason. And it is not a good reason that Pieter fixes an obvious error.

So my alternative is that we solve the problem by a block of User:SergeWoodzing --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose - no need to block him as far as I am concerned. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And that ^ says it all. I bet if you check the latest 100 edits Pieter made here then almost all of them are about WHAT was changed or WHAT is being suggested and not about WHO changed it or WHO suggested it. If you do the same check for the edits User:SergeWoodzing made then I would expect that most of them is about WHO (for example Pieter this, Pieter that, ...) and not about the actual WHAT was changed or done. So I ask you again who is stalking or harassing who? --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This sort of unevidenced speculation is extremely unhelpful. Please don't do that. Rd232 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous. There was an interaction ban voluntarily agreed, there was an edit which could reasonably be considered to breach it (certainly I thought the ban would cover that edit), and when doubts arose about the terms of the ban, it proved necessary to try and clarify that. This is really not that complicated. And by the way reporting (reasonable) possible breaches of an interaction ban is not normally considered to be covered by a ban, since the best people to monitor it are those covered by it. Rd232 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Telling other users that they or their comments is "ridiculous" is a personal attack and personal attacks is extremely unhelpful. Please don't do that.
  • No, there was not an edit that reasonably could be considered to breach it. This sort of unevidenced speculation is extremely unhelpful. Please don't do that.
  • No, there was no concensus to block Pieter if he ever made an edit on a page User:SergeWoodzing. This sort of unevidenced speculation is extremely unhelpful. Please don't do that.
  • If there was an interaction ban why should we not block User:SergeWoodzing for breaking that? Please do not be biased and only judge one part in a dispute - that is extremely unhelpful. Please don't do that. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oki sorry about the post above... Thinking about it it is clear that it is better if I go to bed now and have some sleep. But before I do I would like to make one last comment: If there as an inteaction ban per "That is what I already said: if Woodzing needs special exemptions, he can have it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)" as of 1 November 2011 then why did the discussion kept on going in "Move to close... Support as proposer Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)". My point is that the solution was not clear. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognise that comment was not helpful; we;ll say no more about it then. The answer to your question is simple: there was still the possibility open of a permanent ban, and it needed to be made clear that this was not going to be pursued further in that thread. As I made clear at that time, that was largely because the Serge/Southerly issue had so completely dominated that thread that no reasonable examination of the case for or against a ban could be made in that thread. Rd232 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we should focus on what to do and not about fighting eachother. As for what to do I think it is a good idea if they stay away from eachother voulentary but I do not think we should block one of them if they made a good edit a few times a year on a page that the other has edited earlier. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well there is always discretion with enforcement on an interaction ban (or topic ban for that matter), depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation and taking into account long-term behavioural patterns. The aim is not to punish occasional minor mistakes, but to prevent real problems. Rd232 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

It's probably time to bring this thread to a close, and the conclusion seems to me to be this: the original interaction ban was a voluntary agreement from both sides. This thread, which started with an alleged violation of that ban, ultimately seems to have resulted in Pieter withdrawing his agreement with it (according to his comment under alternative i, and taking into account that I asked him by email to reconsider, and he hasn't changed his position), which means it's no longer in effect. The various proposals above all relate to clarifying that voluntary agreement, which is meaningless if the agreement no longer exists, even if there were some clear consensus on how to clarify it, which there isn't.

Therefore any further action needs to start again from scratch; to document what the problem(s) are (assuming that they are ongoing - there's no need to revisit old problems if they're not part of an ongoing pattern) and propose solutions. (This should not be done in this thread, which is quite long and complicated enough as it is!) Rd232 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Helpworth13

New user adding Category:Antisemitism to a lot of images. Probably just here to stir up things. I reverted all his edits. Please keep an eye on him. Multichill (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked now. Multichill (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fæ - ownership of uploads

Fæ (talk · contribs) is resisting cleanup of his file descriptions, see history of File:Mr Pickwick.jpg and File:Parthenon, Greece.jpg. He is restoring false licenses, removing author information, correct categories etcetera. I have tried to discuss, see User talk:Fæ#Stop deleting author information and stop restoring false licenses, but it seems that he needs some advice coming from an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a parody of my actions. Pieter Kuiper has repeatedly removed a bot template that enables tracking of bot uploads. I have explained this politely to him several times and his continued reverts appear to be becoming disruptive as pointed out on his user talk page. There is an obligation for Pieter Kuiper to ensure that he is not blanking valid information and categories, there is no obligation for other editors to unpick the curate's egg of his changes. As can be seen from my user talk page, Pieter Kuiper has been on an image stalking spree through my contributions, his allegations that I have been lying as an OTRS volunteer[10] and now that I have an problem with ownership of image pages are disruptive to my positive contributions to Commons. 4 days ago Pieter Kuiper raised a complaint about me at OTRS/N and raising issues here seems verging on forum shopping for his griefing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also had a short discussion with Fæ on my talk page about this topic. I don't think I convinced him that tagging PD images with {{Cc-by-2.0}} was copyfraud (especially when the person claiming the right to be attributed is not even the author) and contrary to Commons' policy (as explained on the {{PD-Art}} template). He did not revert my change entirely, but added what I consider misleading information (the template claims that a bot verified the license and that "on that date it was licensed under the license included here", which is not true). Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this was not clear, the "license included here" can be seen to refer to the verified license from Flickr as included in the infobox information. If you feel the template text could be improved, perhaps you would like to suggest a change. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the template is badly worded, it's just not meant to be used in this situation. The fact that it verified a wrong license on flickr is not really important, is it? And if you're worried about preserving bot history, that's what the page history is for (if anyone ever wonders what the license was on flickr when the bot reviewed it, they can simply check the page history). But displaying wrong information just to preserve bot history doesn't make any sense to me. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The template introduces a hidden category which means any problem with a batch upload (such as licensing improvements or infobox wording) can be dealt with by script. This is common practice for bots. I know of no way of using the page history to do the same thing for a batch of hundreds or thousands of files. If Pieter Kuiper insists on removing the bot template, and is not prepared to recommend a template improvement, then the minimum action should be to add the same hidden category when the template is blanked from the image page. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that hidden category. (Maybe Pieter wasn't either? It is, after all, a hidden category.) If that's the problem, then I'll make sure to add it when removing that template. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it might be a good idea to have your upload bot add that category on the description page directly. It doesn't seem like it belongs in a template about license review; it would probably create less confusion in the future. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

About licenses: many users replace CC licenses with PD-art, and the public-domainness of 2D work photos is considered "official policy". However I am not sure what official means and there seems to remain dissenting voices. You may be interested in {{PossiblyPD}}.
About the tracking category: it is customary to add hidden categories through a sourcet template, would it be possible here ?--Zolo (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I altered description of File:Mr Pickwick.jpg and File:Parthenon, Greece.jpg, hopefully to the liking of both parties.
• I agree with User:Fæ that we should not be "removing a bot template that enables tracking of bot uploads" or the flickr information
• I also agree with User:Prof. Professorson and User:Pieter Kuiper that if license used on flickr is proven to be incorrect than it should not be used here. To fix this problem I added "flickr_license" parameter to User:Faebot/upload template which allows recording what the license was on Flickr, in cases it is no longer valid.
• I also do not like edit warring done by both User:Pieter Kuiper and User:Fæ. It seems like User:Pieter Kuiper does constructive edits to the images, but also in the same edits he is removing templates used by user:Faebot for tracking its uploads. User:Fæ is rejecting both changes, with comment what he objects to.
• Finally many recent edits by User:Pieter Kuiper can only be described as Stalking (aka wikihounding) of User:Fæ (just look at User talk:Fæ). To quote from wikipedia: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I realize that Wikipedia policies are not the law on Commons, but I would like to ask User:Pieter Kuiper to restrain himself from editing of User:Fæ uploads for a while to let the situation cool down. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• • The CC-BY license is not relevant and it is potentially misleading users. There is no obligation to credit the Flickr account Sue Clark (whether she scanned the images herself or whether she got them from somewhere else). And I resent Jarekt's mentioning "personal attacks" etc - were my comments about Rebecca G (talk · contribs) or about WhiteWriter (talk · contribs) personal attacks or stalking? Even though these users may not be enjoying Commons as much as before? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that CC-BY license is not relevant and templates {{CC-BY-2.0}} should be removed once images are proven to be PD. I also agree that there is no legal obligation to credit Flickr uploader. However I feel like it is part of proper documentation of image source, and it is a right thing to do. A lot of people on Flickr look at our downloads as a form of stealing; I do not agree with tat view, but paying with a link back to the source and credit for the effort of scanning is a small price to pay for not alienating Flickr users.

As for "personal attacks", I have to set record straight that I did not observe any in exchanges between User:Pieter Kuiper and User:Fæ. I was only quoting the definition of wikihounding from wikipedia. I think the part I see most relevant was about "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason". I striked the rest. The way I see it, we do not have very large pool of active productive volunteers and we would like to keep them. I consider User:Fæ to be one such volunteer, and I am unfamiliar with work of User:Rebecca G or User:WhiteWriter. I understand that some actions are not going to be enjoyed by recipients, but I do not like that so many of single user uploads and edits being challenged at the same time. In my view (which might be a minority view) it crosses the threshold of stalking. --Jarekt (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Pieter Kuiper is insisting on blanking original information about the upload, including the bot history as discussed above. Regardless on whether the Flickr source had a correct license or not, the upload background is plainly valuable information for the image page. His revert today diff shows that he intends to continue to disrupt my ability to manage these batch uploads, including having a reasonable chance of making later consistent corrections to the batch as can be seen with my current work made in good faith with Faebot. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I confess I fail to see anything wrong with that edit. Licensing is correct/Flickr is acknowledged etc - this does look like "ownership" to me (which is the start of this thread). What is actually wrong with his edit? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The edit removes the detail information available on Flickr, which may disappear when the Flickr stream changes or the image is deleted there. The edit also removed the Flickr verification template demonstrating when the confirmation against the upload source was done and consequently removed the category which tracks this information for future maintenance of the batch upload. As for "ownership" you will note that my edit did not change any of the additional information that Pieter Kuiper added to the image page, whilst his changes entirely blanked mine, twice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I really do not get it - it is still there in the history. I'll leave it to others. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The description field is for describing what is in the image. It is not for Flickr tags, Commons uses categories for that. It is not for mentioning the uploader to Flickr, it is not for license information. The Creative Commons license is absurd for this image and potentially misleading; paukrus is irrelevant. If his Flickr account would be closed, it would not affect status on Commons. Yet Fæ keeps restoring this stuff. Yes, it is history - leave it in the file history, this particular history is bunk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Can we agree to have this template info further down the page, not in the |permissions field? The permissions field should be for current permissions; otherwise you'll just confuse people. Historical info may be useful, but it should be further down the page. Rd232 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I am prepared to get Faebot to retrospectively move all the instances of the upload template in question to be placed after licenses or after the information box, it's a relatively simple Python command. As for future uploads, I have been put off making any attempt to make any batch uploads from Flickr for the time being, frankly I could do without the depressing prospect of yet more accusations of lying, being an incompetent OTRS volunteer or being called absurd if I disagree with the judgement of Pieter Kuiper. I do have other plans for official batch uploads, but I am not going to discuss my future UK GLAM programme in this critical forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to stay on this thread because some discussions are simply pointless. However - reflecting on this and widening it - we have a user who uploads file by bot - great - no problem.

However - it seems part of the terms of that upload is that either

1. PK is not allowed to edit certain aspect of the bot upload information as they currently do not see eye to eye which is not a reason to prevent editing in this case or
2. No one is allowed to edit certain aspect of the bot upload information which is ownership

I am not PK's number 1 fan but that fact that there have been some issues in the past does not mean everything said and done by PK is questionable by any stretch of the imagination and I think in this case he seems to have a point. Why should a bot operator dictate what can and cannot be edited in the upload information? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This example edit mentioned above removes useful information and a template used by the bot operator for tracking. Pieter could perfectly well (a) move that content down out of the "permission" field, since that seems his main objection to it and (b) ask that the bot operator stop putting the content there and put it further down the page instead, so it doesn't need moving later. Pieter's efforts to discuss this, at User_talk:Fæ#Stop_deleting_author_information_and_stop_restoring_false_licenses and File talk:Parthenon, Greece.jpg are aggressive and unhelpful. It should not take an ANU discussion to adjudicate a content dispute, and the fact that it did I put primarily on Pieter's shoulders. Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What useful information did I remove? What that was not either duplication, irrelevant, or potentially misleading? /Pieter Kuiper (talk)

The Flickr source data is not duplicated, and to say it is "irrelevant" is to make claims about future uses of information you have no basis for (eg, maybe one day someone will want to search for the Flickr user name, to check if there are problems with other imported files, or just because their images are good, or whatever). The one point of substance is "potentially misleading". You're right in your implication that it is potentially misleading to have an erroneous claim of copyright in the source from which a PD image taken. But you're wrong in your conclusion that simply removing the fact of the erroneous claim is a solution, since the link to the original Flickr source with the erroneous claim remains. What's needed is an explicit statement that (a) Commons knows that the image source claims X and (b) X is invalid because Y. Otherwise, we're leaving potential reusers to sort out a contradiction. I suggest we create (if we haven't got one already) an appropriate template, something like {{Erroneous license claim in source}}. But, again, this discussion is not one which should take place on ANU; and that it is doing is down to you. Can you at least accept that you could have handled this better? Rd232 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that as a general principle, if one editor is going to systematically go back over and review an extensive body of work by another, two things should be true: 1) there should be no existing conflict that would make the reviewing editor less than impartial; 2) when the reviewer finds some systematic problem, he should try to resolve or at least clarify the dispute cordially before getting a lot of different processes involved. If both those things are not so, it would be better for a reviewer to go over a category rather than a person, or at least, pick some other person. I don't know how well Kuiper did either of these things here, nor whether Commons has any existing guideline saying to do that, but I think we should. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate username Curt Cobain (talk · contribs)

A 16-days-old user account, who seems to belong to a :ru user and who has uploaded nothing but 5 copyvios so far, has choosen the name of the famous musician Curt Cobain for his account, which I find rather inappropriate. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

One way or another I see little value in the user. The name is probably wrong - the contribs definitely wrong. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Indef blocked for inappropriate username --Denniss (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent copyvio closures by Yann

User Yann raised my eyebrows by blatantly ignoring copyright and keeping clear copyvios (like this) with lack of FOP in Russia in place. Therefore I am asking the broader community and uninvolved administrators to overturn his decision for the following DRs:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street A. Golikov.jpg

Not sure about this one for the special situation about russia, but in relation to discussion result from [11] decision seems similar. --Neozoon (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Belorusskaya-Koltsevaya

overall OK if you have an issue with a specific picture from this bunch it needs to be discussed seperately --Neozoon (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krasniye Vorota.jpg

decision looks ok for me --Neozoon (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/Prospekt Prosveshcheniya

do not see any copyright issues with these files, correct decision from my point of view --Neozoon (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Does lack of FOP in Russia ring any bells? Or the fact that design is quite original? Artem Karimov (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Artem Karimov (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There's already the same discussion on VP. Could you please stop cross-posting? Thanks. A.Savin 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was started after someone in that thread said that this page would be a better venue for discussion... that being said, since discussion has been more developed there, it should stay there I'd think. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Artem Karimov, your indiscriminate mass deletion request are disruptive. They do not help the project. As I already told you, your understanding of copyright law is wrong. Actually some of the images you nominate show so little useful information that they may be out of scope, but certainly not a copyright violation. You need to be selective, only choosing images where there is a real original work. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Tm

User:Tm repeatedly inserts unsuitable photos (from Flickr) and inserted the wrong category. Example of category: Category:Rail tracks and this photo: File:Blond woman on rail tracks 02.jpg, File:Blond woman on rail tracks 01.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 04.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 03.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 02.jpg, File:Berounsky Petr Koleje rijen 2010.jpg. These photos do not belong to the category Rail Track. I ask the user to check and added photos. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't even posted to his talk page. Both of you used HotCat to add and remove Category:Rail tracks, so there hasn't even been edit summary discussion of the issue. Why don't you try discussing it? It's certainly a disputed point whether these files should be added to the category Rail tracks; like issues have come up on the Village pump and other places and not been clearly resolved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nor have you bothered notifying the user, as the top of the page asks you to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:PereslavlFoto (2nd time)

See also the first part of discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 25#User:PereslavlFoto.

My main concern with this user is the story of description of this image: File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. It is a graffiti from a certain park in Moscow, Russia which was notorious as a place of gathering of Russian neo-nazis. So it is quite natural that the graffiti says "Down with the power of kikes" ("Долой власть жимдов!", Russian word 'жид' is very rude word for 'a Jew'). But user PereslavlFoto has its own very bizarre idea about the meaning of this word, trying to use the Russian dictionary of 1860-ies as a reliable source for it. His original explanations were removed first by me [12], then by another Russian-speaking user [13], then by third Russian-speaking user [14], and each time PereslavlFoto restored his version. Then he tried to delete the image [15], see a funny discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. And now again we can see the same activity from PereslavlFoto: [16]. What could be done to stop this activity which is totally misleading? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a message on PereslavlFoto's talk page (which you should have done). I am waiting for his answer. Yann (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several questions, so let me answer in several paragraphs.

1) I found the neo-nazis reason from the discussion with Blacklake. Having no personal experience, I looked for the mass media and found there is nothing relevant about neo-nazis in that place. Mass media say neo-nazis stayed there until 1998 — it was fourteen years ago, and twelve years before I visited the park. Maybe you take fiction for reality. The links to the mass media are in the description.

2) The description was discussed and changed by several editors, who have meaningfully corrected the text, adding the details and explanations. Your reverts appear to look as POV-pushing, as you don't add to others' work, but simply deny it. Your point of view was reflected in the description both in English and Russian variants, and accurately attributed. [17].

3) The slang word from English language has other sense than the slang word from Russian language. If you use the slang word, it will be convenient to explain the difference. Please check the translation of Gogol's «Taras Bulba», for example. The Russian slang word has several of meanings, among which the literal translation is not the most popular. Needless to say the slang words of different languages do not match exactly, being born by different cultures.

4) After several personal attacks (when I was accused in chauvinism) I thought it will be better to delete the image that disturbs others and make them insult me. When I raised DR to delete the photograph, you wrote that I do the «kind of advocacy for Russian antisemitism». Sorry, I cannot understand why removal of this image will protect «Russian antisemitism». I decided this was another personal attack.

5) At last, it is not correct to say «restored his version». After the discussions the description developed into more informative.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"POV-pushing" is rather something like this one. A.Savin 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

«POV-pushing» is rather personal attack stated in the comment. I make the full explanation, and the pusher deletes it with explanation «no games with antisemitism». As in the proverb, uneasy conscience betrays itself. Should the editor avoid games, he'd add to the description rather than cutting it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This picture does not need any additional explanations because its meaning is absolutely clear and plain: it is an antisemitic slogan. Everybody in Russia except Russian chauvinists and their advocates would understand this slogan exactly this way. And you are the only Russian speaking user pretending that this question is unclear. Your references to the Russian sources of XIX century are completely false as far as in Russian language of XIX century the word 'жид' was neither derogatory nor slang, it was quite common - but the language used to change. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you call me «Russian chauvinists and their advocates» because I asked to delete this photo?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do call you «Russian chauvinists and their advocates» because you insist on denying the antisemitic nature of the antisemitic slogan. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In the description I clearly show the possible antisemitic sense of the slogan, you may see that I never denied your opinion. So I may answer, you are «the advocate of false information», because the print sources claim that neo-nazi organizations left the park fourteen years ago.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly an antisemitic (specifically anti-jewish) slogan. The root of the word greedy is "жадн", and not "жид". There is absolutely no way to accidentally confuse the two. In fact there is an old soviet comedy skit where a fake nazi in the village says "Жадные, значит жиды" (greedy, therefore kikes) when talking about his neighbours. The image should remain, but nothing about greed should be in the description. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean, there is really Jewish government in Russia and the slogan is against it? Any proof? And the Russian Wikipedia tells the incorrect meaning of the word?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, i do not. The graffiti is clearly not about the government, it's about the jews. That was a poor attempt at twisting my words, try again. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a word «власть» ("powers, authorities")? Well, I can see it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Power is not "government", Kike is not "greedy person". Case closed! VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Authorities are not power ones? Also, Wikipedia thinks different about figurative meaning.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing your own post after somebody has responded to it or editing other people's posts is normally considered rude. Please do not do that. It is true that there are some americans who use the term "Nigger" to mean "stupid person", but if we see "Kill all niggers" graffiti, we don't jump to the conclusion that it's somebody from "No child left behind" educational institution. Same here, somebody who is making an antisemitic graffiti is doing just that, they are not communists who fight against economic disbalance. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why I do not make any baseless conclusions, but explain the situation with links to the informative sources.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, too many of debates about one photo.

1) This photo displays real object or real event. We have many historical posters of military propagation, anti-national propagation, nazi propagation, communistic propagation and so on.

2) The Author of this photo has the right not to divide the point of view or ideas stated in this slogan. I am assured that the author doesn't support the anti-jewish propagation.

3) Any editor, even anonymous, can correct or add some description to this photo.

4) The description in the version of the author has the right to existence too. However this is not widespread interpretation.

With best regards to all in this topic. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a neutral admin could take a look on the description page of this file and compare two of its versions.

• In this revision by Abiyoyo, the English description is the following: Terletsky park in Moscow, wooden bulletin board. "Down with yids' rule" slogan. A quite neutral sentence which describes what is seen on the picture: A bulletin board with a graffiti which means, if you translate it from Russian to English without further considerations what it could have meant, "Down with yids' rule". Not more and not less.
• However, PereslavlFoto reverted this version by aleging Abiyoyo vandalism and now we see in the English (as well as in the Russian) description a bunch of unnessesary POVish attempts to declare what the graffiti does mean and whether it is really against "yids".

So, do we really need this kind of POV pushing here? And no, I am not going to revert this again, since it is for sure that the user PereslavlFoto will continue her edit warring in this file. - A.Savin 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Abiyoyo's variant was already there before that edit: it was, «Down with the Jewish power». This is neutral. May you explain your point of view that opposes Wikipedia? The graffiti may have any sense: either chauvinistic or political. This is fully explained in current description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it makes much sense to speculate about the meaning of a graffiti photographed and uploaded here, especially by editwarring and making "vandalism" accusations. A.Savin 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone takes full and detailed description and converts it into small and incomplete one, I think it makes a description worse, that's why I called it vandalism.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Calls to ignore copyright by user:Andshel

User:Andshel calls me to disregard copyright by "fighting fat art persons".[18][19] Please isolate this user from Commons ASAP before he really starts uploading copyvios. Thanks. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss with the user? No. Please stop notifying people here for no reason, it is bordering harassment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wtf? Banning somebody before they have ever done a single misdeed is simply not the way to do this. Oh, you were just trolling... then never mind... VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Having said that Andshel should be watched, and if copyvio will start coming, one should be blocked, first termporarily to cool off, and then permenantly. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:IvanOS

This user continues to remove descriptions in Serbian, change the license without the consent of uploaders, and even to change the image without the consent of the author (basically those changes are made to remove the Serbian language from images). I warned him last week and reverted all his changes, but he did it again today. Here are the diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What do others think about this? I wanted to hear other opinions before doing anything. Thanks. mickit 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that only the uploader can change the license on an image. I also agree that as a general rule, uploads over existing files should follow Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files, so that substantive changes such as the ones he made, are not allowed. I also agree that while he could add description in a new language, he should not replace one with another.

More generally, I think Commons should stay clear of regional disagreements, which appear to be what is going on here. I think each side in such things should leave the other side alone and the Commons community should enforce that as required. I see that you have warned him, so, if User:IvanOS acts up again, I think you should block him -- maybe three days to get his attention and more on any further offenses.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, of course. I didn't want to do anything before hearing other opinions, because I didn't want that my actions be interpreted as some kind of revenge. Thanks. mickit 22:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My changes:

• 1) When I added a description of the Croatian language, I have simply replaced the sr designation for hr and translate text. Therefore, it is mistake and I apologize.

• 2) Changing licenses: User SmirnofLeary has published pictures under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, but some of them he published to Wikipedia on Serbian language. Then pictures from Wikipedia were added on Wikimedia by other users, but they have published them under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Serbian license, what is not license of those pictures.

• 3) Sequence of language descriptions: It is logical that language descriptions should be ordered by alphabet, not by prolixity of description. By alphabet first goes English, then Croatian and then Serbian description.

• 4) Changes on pictures: File:NEGOSLAVCI 1.jpg, File:Markusica 1.jpg, File:MAP OF TRPINJA.jpg, File:Borovo 1.jpg

I have changed pictures, which were set up by user MirkoS18, because on pictures about Croatian municipalities should not stand cyrillic inscription, because it is not official alphabet in Croatia. In addition, that unofficial inscription is written in the first place. User Mirko S18 on Wikipedia has made many problems, when he started to put cyrillic inscriptions on articles about some settlements in the Republic of Croatia, though they are not official in Croatia. He should know that these inscriptions should be removed from those pictures, but he probably forgot that or he do not want to do that.

As for the File: Crkva u Banovcima.png, I removed the inscriptions for two reasons: a) This picture, if it should serve a purpose, should not have any inscriptions, especially them which are not official in Croatia. b) At the bottom of the image is former, now incorrect name for the village.

Thanks!--IvanOS (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have simply replaced the sr designation for hr You mean like this? ...but they have published them under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Serbian license. This is not true, because bot automatically adds the license that was on Wikipedia before transferring images to the Commons. ...because on pictures about Croatian municipalities should not stand cyrillic inscription Why not? The author can choose the alphabet and you can not change his images without his consent. This picture, if it should serve a purpose, should not have any inscriptions, especially them which are not official in Croatia. Same as in the previous case. These images can be used on all Wikipedias, not just on Wikipedia in your language. Wikipedia editors will deside which image is good and which is not. So please do not you change the other users' images. Thank you. mickit 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be bold enough to rephrase a little bit what User:Micki said, because one probably didn't mean that. It is ok to alter the image that is released under a free licence, in fact the reason why Commons uses free licences is exactly so that people can do that; what shouldn't be done, however, is overwriting other people's images (thus making them inaccessible). If you want to remove an educational inscription (that is not a watermark or some artifact) please reupload under a different name under a compatible licence to the one that original user used and then link to it under "other versions" section. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Beta_M. You're right. mickit 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)