Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 4

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

User:Andros64

repeated removal of deletion templates

User removes deletion templates from files he found on the web (he claims authorship) and other files with insufficient licensing. --Polarlys 09:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Reply :In any disputable case admin has to justife any his move against declared right of uploader. Everytime the charge of proof is on the contesting side. In European law ( apart from time of witches trials) is adopted an viev, that it is a matter of prosecutor to prove any fault , not the defendant to prove innocence :0) Best regards to Wikicommunity. Andros64 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No one here is on trial and wikimedia commons is not a state. Besides, if you really want to prove your innocense, you leave the deletion template intact and make your case on the deletion request page. Removing deletion request templates is simply wrong and will result in a block from which no amount of philosophy will protect. Samulili 10:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The uploader has to provide suitable licensing information. If author and date of first publication are required – Andros64 doesn’t care. He uploads files he found on the web, stating “Author=Andros64”. Any uploader has to provide reliable information, it’s not our work to collect them. If this information is missing, we can demand it. There is no presumption of innocence here (“Please show me the book/website I got these obviously copyrighted images from, otherwise you can’t delete them.”), just a little bit of “assume good faith”. Unfortunately “assume good faith” doesn’t work when an uploader tries to trick the system again and again. --Polarlys 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I did not use block, delete or protect the user accuses me (again) of „admin abuse“ (and of course, „vandalism“ and „blackmailing“ him) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FDecorations_by_User%3AAndros64&diff=6718966&oldid=6718269) . --Polarlys 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  •  Comment This is no user problem - it is a problem of overactivity of User:Polarlys

It was noticed that he just permanently don't notify uploaders for his proposals of {{nosource}}( not in this exact case) It is easy to prove - just look for his deleting proposals, how many was even communicated to the uploaders.

IMHO Wikicommons is not an area of private overactivity of anyone, and it is not an area of private labelling.

For this reason I'd like to ask only for responsibility, and if anyone wants-to overviev - and if it is neccessary - limit overactivity of our collegue - not president of Wiki :) User:Polarlys

I'm open for every reasonable arguments. Don't worry, be happy.

With best regards:

Andros64 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I notify people of every deletion request, but I don’t notify people about every obvious copyright violation I mark. If you had a look at Special:Newimages once you’d know why. And now, finally, stop your attacks (“and if it is neccessary - limit overactivity of our collegue - not president of Wiki”) and distractions, this has nothing to do with your behaviour (removing templates again and again). --Polarlys 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an overactive administrator. There is no limitation on the number of copyright violations and images with missing legal information that an administrator is allowed to identify. In fact, the more such cases that are spotted, the better. Polarlys is doing a good job in that respect and, as far as I have seen, has used the administrative tools judiciously.
Removing legitimate problem tags without correcting the underlying problem is never acceptable, nor is incivility. You will not make any further attacks (such as baseless claims of "admin abuse" and mocking statements like the remark "not president of Wiki" above). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comment

If Polarlys takes any argument personally , I'm sorry - it wasn't my intention. But the real subject is to respect the rule to notify every editions to uploaders of image to give a possibility to correct info of the image. It is not question of good or bad will , but a duty of admin in Commons.

The only goal of my remarks is to remind Polarlys, that he has to respect some basic rules of the game in Wiki.

Tagging with nosource is not and cannot be an easy ( speedy) way for deleting images without control and discussion in Wiki community.

All the best for everybody ( especially Polarlys)

Andros64 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point. The point is that you need to not remove deletion notice templates from images until and unless the deletion debate has been resolved and the image is, by consensus, retained. If you continue to remove deletion notices, that's being disruptive, and you may find yourself blocked. All the rest of this is misdirection, and you should focus on that one point. Once you internalise that, we can move on to why you are apparently uploading things that apparently are improperly licensed, or worse, copyvios. But start with not removing templates, please. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PolishPresidentCopyright

After closing an discussion (in keep) commons admin have delete an template redirecting it to copivio ,securing this redirect.

Any deleting on this base, made by ALE and Polarlys are obvious admin abuse. Please for immediatialy reaction for obvious vandalism.

Best regards: Andros64 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was made because it was found that this was a license that was not clear. It is protected to prevent recreation after the deletion debate has closed. (→O - RLY?) 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I find your accusations of "abuse" and "vandalism" above to be baseless uncivil personal attacks, and request that you cease and desist from making such accusations.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
O closed the request (still no voting!), ALE helped with the procedure (redirect) and I saw the crowded copyvio category (all the files were in the category because of the redirect). I checked the request and finally I helped to delete the files. We do that regularly here (someone has to do it). In four months nobody managed it to get an explicit permission. We had to delete templates like Members of the Riksdag, FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs or RomanianGovernmentCopyright in the past. Of course nobody was happy to lose this content but instead of propaganda on a local Wikipedia we collected alternative portraits of Swedish politicians. --Polarlys 20:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A Polish administrator restored the template without any discussion (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PolishPresidentCopyright&diff=prev&oldid=6789351). The next administrator from Poland surely will close the request as „kept“ and restore the files. This project doesn’t work if people don’t want to act in a neutral way regarding licensing and “national interests” (do you think we enjoyed the loss of pictures of Benedykt XVI and European politicians?). And of course, there is an agile activity on your talk pages on pl.wikipedia.org. Three administrators closed this request somehow (usually just one is involved) and I can’t see a voice who argued well-founded against the opinions of trusted users like EugeneZelenko, Kjetil, Iamunknown or Zscout370 (three administrators by the way). --Polarlys 12:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I wouldn't say that this is a clear cut case. Take for example this comment
Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w serwisie internetowym Prezydenta RP, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia [1]. Używanie: using, kopiowanie: copying, wykorzystywanie: utilizing, exploiting. I cannot see any possibility, that licensor giving such a broad-meaning terms could possibly want to exclude commercial and derivative usage... So  Keep. A.J. 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"
I see at least three Polish admins (including A.J.) who voted for keep.
Fred J 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We had similar discussions before and the conclusion was that an explicit statement regarding derivative works and commercial usage is required. In cases users asked the source (FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs, EU parliament, Riksdag) they strongly denied such an usage whenever users implied it. Over months, nobody cared to ask. What has Commons become if administrators undo decisions they don’t like? --Polarlys 14:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC) And of course: It’s “abusive” (tsca) if you start to delete files in the crowded copyvio category, hours after the request was closed (by someone else). --Polarlys 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I decided to reclose the debate and I decided to lock it back to the previous version. When I first saw the talk page, it just reminded me of the various Kremlin.ru and President.gov.by templates that either I personally dealt with (or made). They all had the same kind of license "it is free to use in any media, ..." and were fine until the new Foundation policy came in. Honestly, a lot of templates and images that were OK for many years are now being deleted and this is just the point of frustration. I am also seeing this at other places where I admin. Anyways, our policies are clear; if the image is considered unfree by the Foundation (with the exception of their logos to my knowledge), they cannot be hosted on the Commons. Whatever pl.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org does is their business, but we have a clear goal here; truly free content. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Those images are not "against the Foundation policy". There are no non-commercial restrictions on them and they are not unfree. That's the issue of this debate: the images are being deleted despite the explicit license. // tsca [re] 14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion and arguments for the reopening have been removed: [2] - giving the right to speak only to one side is surely not fair. Just like the politics of mass-removing the images, it is leaving users defenseless against the actions of the administration. If there is doubt, assume good will and work on solving the problem; removing discussions and removing content is not the answer! // tsca [re] 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You had four months so send a (potential) problem-solving mail. You didn’t. We had similar requests, users contacted the source, they often denied our weak implication and so the files were deleted. --Polarlys 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
How about leaving the request open for another while, to allow this to calm down....? There's no rush to delete them.
Fred J 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an ordinary request and there was enough time (several months) to provide explicit permissions. Without any protest templates with even more files were deleted in the past. Why should we make an exception here? --Polarlys 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It was said here several times: the license text in Polish is quite clear. It is harassment to target this template and request that someone from that site again and again confirms what is already written there. // tsca [re] 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
One of these terms again … “harassment” … thank you. We have no explicit permssion for derivative works and commercial reuse. --Polarlys 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reopening deletion debates[3] is not the answer either, and is not according to established procedure. tsca should have discussed with O, the closing administrator, instead, and if that didn't work, he should have posted to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The license is clear. It has been verified practically several times, as numerous commercial Polish media use and modify the images. There is no doubt here - only bad will. Simple as that. // tsca [re] 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It is not as simple as it seems. When I was originally closing the discussion, I took the permission into mind. When I was scanning the discussion, there was no real proof that there was permission for derivative works and commercial reuse. The deletion discussion was four months old—more than ample time to figure out the permission specifics. You cannot just think—or believe that they will allow derivative works and commercial reuse; we must know, definitively, that they allow it. I am probably going to re-close this deletion discussion, because the discussion was open long enough for anyone to get the permission specifics. As for the admin tools abuse, nobody should be using them when they are inherently involved in a dispute. (→O - RLY?) 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the deletion was correct. If the permission was really intended as it was interpreted, then it would be trivial to get them to use an unabiguous license, such as CC-BY. That has not happened, and we had many similar "quite clear" cases where the outcome was clearly contradicting the assumption that the keep voter's interpretations were correct. It is not sufficient that no explicit restriction to non-commercial and non-derivative use are present; there needs to be an explicit permission to use the pictures commercially and make derivative works. Deleing these files protects the Polish citizens, who are the copyright holders, from copyright infringement. There was also by far enough time to at least try to do something (contact rights holder) that might have solved the issue in a different way, but such opportunities were missed in the false belief that voting "keep" will prevent deletion even without solid argument. --rtc 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] As for tsca, I am blocking you for 48 hours three days (yes, admins can be blocked) because of the apparent abuse of admin tools. Hopefully everyone involved in this can take a chill for a little while. (→O - RLY?) 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A small collection of other requests:

Let’s call it: “the funny dance around press-licenses and Commons:Licensing“. --Polarlys 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) PS: And yes, I would restore these files if you get an explicit permission. --Polarlys 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: deletion is the only right thing unless someone gets an explicit clarification. You'll notice I spoke out strongly against deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Members of the Riksdag, believing that "used freely" meant "used Freely" and not "used in unmodified for a few enumerated purposes", but after receiving clarification, it turned out I was dead wrong. Unfortunately, it seems legislators aren't very good at making unambiguous legal statements, and when pressed for it, they're too ignorant of their own laws (or simply too protective) to rely on personality rights legislation on its own rather than making the same reservations part of a copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you feel here as a king, owner or the arbiter. But remember: you are not. Julo 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is king, owner, or the arbiter; that is correct. However, the explicit permission does not exist at this given time (when you were requested to provide one), and that the discussion was open for four months; I'd like to get some more opinions on this closure from people who weren't involved with this. (→O - RLY?) 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don’t be hostile. I added the phrase to emphasize that we don’t delete files because of their content but their licensing. If licensing changes it’s possibly to restore files. I think everybody who spends time, energy and money on this project is happy about every sort of free content on our servers. --Polarlys 16:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to get the government of Poland to clearly state whether or not commercial and derivative use of their images is allowed?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They did not close the request, they merely helped to clean up the aftermath of the closing. O closed the request after it had gone on about 700-1500 percent too long (four months vs. a week or two). Someone should have suggested what to actually do if the template had to go. My suggestion would have been along the lines of "delete, {{subst:copyvio|insufficient permission from www.prezydent.pl}} with a mention of this discussion, and delete the files". As it stands, the copyvio tag has no reason, and I think leaving it this way would be a poor precedent.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
He has the right, but perhaps did not engage in enough discussion first.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Point two: Jeff G. asks why it is difficult. I don't know why, probably they are sure they gave permission in clear words, the problem is for not Polish-native speakers only. Julo 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
How is this different from the other cases cited above, where the rights holders were not specific about commercial and derivative works?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know. Maybe because the answer was “no” (we made this experience before, see the examples above). --Polarlys 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've gone and done it (asked for permission). At least my email didn't bounce.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: In fact, this case is no different: all the instances you quote include discussions between native speakers that say the wording (as expressed in the language THEY speak) is crystal clear and non-native speakers, often deletion enthusiats, that disagree and demand specific permission for usage X (this has fascinanting perspectives: I foresee a day when commons will require explicit permission for "mustache application", "usage in sexual parody" and so on: extremely detailed forms will then be issued, to explain what part of "all uses" we cannot comprehend). Then the "burn it" crowd usually wins, despite loads of "keep" votes because.... hell, the exact reason why really baffles me. I have yet to find any definition of "consensus" that explains this (997 people say a file should be kept: 3 disagree; the file is deleted). The official reason is "because this is not a poll": this is usually given by people who refuse to accept any argument (with the cogent line "That is no argument") except a letter from the copyright holder, possibly signed in blood, using the exact verbiage they require. Most often, these letters are not produced because the copyright holder has better things to do with his/her time than answering email whose motivation borders on the incomprehensible and because, after all, even Commons' contributors tend to have lives of their own. So it looks that Commons' consensus is "whatever very few admins have a problem with". Which is all very well, because I do not think I care any longer. Cheers, --Alien life form 10:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not question of native speakers vs not native. http://www.prezydent.pl contains legal notice on Polish and English. As far as I understand Polish, wording is not different from English. There is no explicit pernmission for unrestricted modifications.
Problem could only be resolved when http://www.prezydent.pl will clarify terms of use.
Same pattern of behaviour (native speakers tend to wote keep) was during PD-Soviet and other similar cases.
EugeneZelenko 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So, because they are native speakers, that is reason enough to disregard their opinion, as I have seen happening time and again? And the most damning indictment in these cases is, the issue has been debated on the national wiki! (Wiki is not a democracy, indeed! I think I remember wiktionary had a word for this form government, under "D") --Alien life form 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I don’t like the way this request was reopened (and the files were restored), I added a hint to the request that we are awaiting an answer from the Chancellery of the President of Poland. Let’s see, what happens. I hope, everyone agrees on this procedure right now, I know, there was enough time before. --Polarlys 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

@Alien life form
We have had many such cases where "free use" has been said to be allowed, but where further correspondence showed a discrepancy between what we call free use and what they ment with free use. That is the reason we have to be careful about these things.
As there appears to be a misunderstanding here, with Polish users thinking the template was safe, i wouldn't mind holding the deletion a couple of weeks, as there is no immediate need for deletion.
Fred J 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Other views please

I am concerned about two of the blocks placed by O ([4], our latest admin. The block on User:Executioner appears in part punitive and was carried out after I was in constructive dialog with the user. Now I see a block on User:Tsca which does not seem to have been preceded by warnings or similar and I consider that three days would be excessive for an initial block whatever the offence. I would appreciate the views of other experienced admins here please --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to unblock if that's the case...but I would still like some opinions. Thanks Herby. (→O - RLY?) 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know Executioner and won’t comment it. Since I am involved in the deletion of the files Tsca restored, please read my words with caution: On de.wikipedia.org and any other project I work on (Wikisource, other Wikipedias) restoring files after they were deleted in a regular deletion is considered as abusive behaviour, independent from the case itself. It’s formally incorrect and gives a wrong idea of an administrator’s work. I think it’s necessary to impose a sanction in such cases. All in all our latest admin O is doing a good job here, with the experience from other projects I’d say that he acted correctly but of course I am interested in another solution (and especially some understanding) and that’s why I would unblock Tsca for now. --Polarlys 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If discussion appears sufficient and there is no reason to believe that the user would continue to act disruptively, there is no reason to block. Blocks should be a means of protecting Commons, not a punishment. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a pointer to the discussion that took place with Tsca about their actions before the block was placed - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK there was no discussion. In the morning, Julo “reopened” the discussion, several hours later Tsca added a comment. Afterwards the files were restored with the comment „Was deleted prematurely“. The next comment was this one. --Polarlys 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Polarlys, I appreciate the help. I see that there are issues to discuss here, however I see nothing that warrants the block placed with discussion. I shall unblock Tsca and ask that dialog takes place somewhere. I shall watch it with interest --Herby talk thyme 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, to put an end to this. Wikimedia Polska will issue an official request to the Chancellery of the President to clarify the issue. This will either lead to reformulating the present text to explicitly name the freedoms allowed (or naming one of the known licenses), or changing their policy altogether, for example to strict copyright protection. Either way, the situation will be clear. Please note that exchanging this correspondence will take a while. Until we receive their reply (AFAIK they are legally obliged to answer, so we will) please refrain from removing the images.
As for why haven't you done that before: the text as it is is clear to Polish speakers; it was generally expected the deletion request should be closed as invalid; we normally don't ask users "are you sure you meant what you wrote".
Since this concerns a big number of already uploaded important images, many of them in use, and possibly more to come, I request restoring the template in some form (for example forbidding further uploads) until the issue is clarified.
Thank you, tsca [re] 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What’s the timeframe? --Polarlys 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted an email requesting permission during an edit conflict with the above.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I cannot say how quickly (or slowly) the Chancellery will reply. I promise there will be no delays on our (WmP) end. It probably depends on whether they'll be willing to simply edit the permission text online, or decide to undertake some sort of legal analysis of the situation instead. For now let's assume the communication will go smoothly. [edit conflict with Jeff here] - ok, since Jeff's written them, I suggest waiting for the reply to his mail. If he doesn't get it within a few days (ot if the answer is inconclusive), we'll send them our snail mail. We have a few good points and this precedent for them to consider, if they are in doubt. // tsca [re] 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote them in English. If your snail mail is in the Polish language, please do send it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please use a CC license instead, GFDL wasn’t made for pictures. Regards, --Polarlys 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me we have boilerplate for requesting CC permission from image copyrightholders.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've gone and created some boilerplate for requesting CC permission from image copyrightholders - please see w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Commons 1. I put it there because there exists and because it might be outside COM:SCOPE. If you make changes there using an IP and have an account here, please mention your account name, either in an edit summary or by posting here with the diff.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already thought of that; CC is also easier to explain and, what's important, has a legally binding version in Polish. I thought of suggesting https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/pl/deed.pl (CC-BY-2.5).
Now, what worries me a bit here is the fact that CC-BY-2.5 does not explicitly mention commercial re-use either! Seriously, it's really very close to the text of Chancellery permission...! The texts are similar to the point in which you could consider the status of all the cc-by images on Commons, based on the same argumentation you used against the disputed template.
I am not trolling here. But it feels more and more ridiculous to ask the site to change the permission into the text that is almost the same. Please respond and address my doubt. // 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Commercial use is implicitly allowed by the Creative Commons licenses. This is even spelled out by "This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation" in the "Attribution (by)" section of Creative Commons Licenses - Creative Commons (Meet The Licenses).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the triggers for O's block of Executioner included this "Final warning" and my documentation of Executioner's latest exploits. Please note that Executioner did not revert its deletions and did not apologize to me in the 3+ hours after it warned me and started being receptive to discussions with Herby.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LimoWreck

This user is messing up categories. Examples:

However, I don't name LimoWreck in this page for these only reasons. In addition:

24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs)

24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs) insists on removing warnings from its user talk page, first wholesale and then lately via HTML comment tags.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Commons policy, so perhaps I should keep out of this, but I think the feeling at en would be "What does it matter?" If the user removes them, you know they've read them, so what's the point of insisting that they stay up? However, as I said, I don't know what the feeling is here. ElinorD 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
When a user has vandalised a page it is nice to be able to visit their talk page, see they have been warned multiple times before, and then decide whether to block or not from there. You can't see from an IP's contribs whether they have created nonsense pages/templates/whatever that have been deleted, which is a huge part of vandalism here; IPs create vanity pages or pages for popular subjects on wikipedia that don't have galleries here and add random nonsense text, or they follow redlinks on licenses and create pages with nonsense. Seeing a user has been warned before even if their contribs don't appear is helpful and a contributing factor to deciding whether to block or not. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. My familiarity is with en, and I always write in the edit summary which template I'm using — uw-test1, uw-vandalism3, etc. That way, even if the vandal removes them, an admin can see from the page history that several warnings have been given. My concern relates more to civility warnings. I don't know if they exist here, but they are sometimes used just for harassment purposes at en, and I think if someone removes such a message, the person should not be reverted. People sometimes remove them simply because they're irritated by the use of a template. At en, vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely; it's most unusual for an established user to engage in a bit of vandalism (unless it's 1 April); and IP edits might not be from the same user. ElinorD 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That same user: has also posted multiple copyvios after being warned to stop; has been rather uncivil; sometimes logs in as Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff (talk · contribs) (which has been blocked); operates a sock puppet on Russian Wikipedia; and has been blocked thrice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with both Editor at Large & ElinorD in a sense. No it doesn't matter but it is a sign of misbehavior of a sort. I may sure edit summaries show warnings but equally we have a warning template about not removing warnings. I prefer them to stay & will usually revert but I guess it is no biggie --Herby talk thyme 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That same user has reuploaded a copyvio that Bryan deleted and has reuploaded a copyvio that Siebrand deleted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted and blocked for a month. (→O - RLY?) 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I also deleted the re-re-recreated Image:Zoo press.JPG, slapped {{Deletedpage}} on it and locked it down. It's really a shame that such a skilled and prolific contributor can't be bothered to exercise the slightest bit of civility when collaborating and discussing with others. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking such decisive action! Please consider doing the same for its socks 24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs), 216.194.61.21 (talk · contribs), and 216.194.61.143 (talk · contribs). The last is now attempting to get its images deleted from Commons, despite having released them under CC-BY-2.5, which attempts I think need to be reverted. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the IPs being socks. Might want to file a checkuser on this just to make sure. (→O - RLY?) 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks! I was relying for the most part on http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff&action=history and the contribs of the IP Addresses as related to the images Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff uploaded.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Another of his images was proven a copyvio yesterday.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I brought back the above from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 3#24.168.39.49_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. This user has been revert warring incivility this week.[5][6][7]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Siebrand blocked the IP for six months so it should be quieter now --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I did? Hmm, if the log says so, it must be true... Cheers! Siebrand 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC) just stumbled across this discussion and couldn't resist...

"de" review required of users interaction

I've come across some bad tempered behaviour between two German speaking (as far as I know) users. User:Rex Germanus & User:Postmann Michael. There has been reversion of deletion tags as well as the moving of a user page to another insulting name. I've warned the first user about incivility but I have a feeling that neither are behaving well and would appreciate another view. To clarify - some edit summaries look rather inflammatory. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason of the deletion of the page (and talk page) of User:Postmann Michael. It makes harder to build an opinion about this user. --Juiced lemon 09:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point JL - in both cases the page was first edited by Rex with teh contribution being to move the page to User talk:The Fraud and then again to User:The master of fraud which was what alerted me. Off to see if undeleting and moving them back where they belong is appropriate - thanks for raising it --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok they are back. In a sense my fault as I deleted them on the user request without looking into why. They had been vandalised by moving to the new name by User:Rex Germanus (I have warned them) and I deleted without looking more deeply at the problem - mea culpa --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, sort of political discussion (Dutch vs. German, afaics). Seems especially related to Image:The development of the German linguistic area.gif, Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG and Image talk:Historicalgermanophone.png. Note the re-upload war and the talk pages there.
I would suggest to protect the images against re-uploads if they continue. And if they can't find a consensual way, alternative versions with different filenames could be uploaded (this is no statement about the actual content of the images; that's an issue for linguists and historians). --Überraschungsbilder 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots against my edits

User:Polarlys performs a very harsh discussion style however meeting him the first time. He's calling my edits "Unsinn". Without any notice he let tons of my edits, e.g. Category:Media uploaded by Mattes categoziations reverted by several Bots this noon. No Bot gave a reason why a revert is necessary.

These actions are done by Polarys. See also User_talk:Schimmelreiter#Kategorisierung (ge). Please let's not have an edit war. Please no more indulding words. I'm impressed how enthusiastic users are banned like that. Does anyone has a solution? Schimmelreiter 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all in all 17 edits, manually, BTW. An yeah, several hundred edits to add another user’s uploads to a maintenance category (is there a reson why the other user did not do this on hiw own) is still useless for me, especially when it floods my watchlist (no bot, uh?). Being “enthusiastic” on Commons means: quality uploads, removing files against policy, sorting files, describing them. If “harsh” means using words like “useless”, then I have been really harsh. --Polarlys 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Notes

The only categorization regarding users that is relevant and accepted here on Commons is the one where users are actually the authors. Just transferring (= uploading) other users' work (as e.g. I, Überraschungsbilder, only do) doesn't make you "the author". If you want to view all images "uploaded by user Foo" please simply use Special:Log/upload or the Gallery function provided on the toolserver. Such categorization is superfluous and more than pointless therefore.

So please stop this sort of categorization, revert all the "uploaded by" category edits (if not really meant as "created by"), and delete the above mentioned category Category:Media uploaded by Mattes and possible similar ones.

Thanks --Überraschungsbilder 22:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

M.chohan

M.chohan (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) uploaded a lot of images which can be found on http://www.vam.ac.uk. Some images taken with a Canon camera are his own (whenever he claims authorship on all images). Please help me idetifying the copyvios. BTW: There is nobody with this name working in the museum and there are also images from an architect’s website. Thank you. --Polarlys 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

user Fcb981

Hello, I'd like to bring your attention to user fcb981 not healthy activity here and here I would have never reported the problem, if it was the only one, but I'm afraid there's something wrong with user because here he calls me "a pain in the ass" apparently for the adding deletion request for his template, that I've never ever seen before. Looks like fcb981 could use some help. Thank you for your time .--Mbz1 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Wikipedia disputes belong there not on commons. If you have a problem take it over to Wikiettiqute which you are already familiar with... --Fir0002 www 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read at the top of this vary page "User problems post | watch To report problems you are experiencing with other users, Besides it is not a dispute (I have nothing to dispute with fcb981). I really believe that fcb981 could use some help from adult supervusion.--Mbz1 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1
Yes and I also said that you pulled petty shit all the time and that your social skills (especially relating to being civil when voting) make me think you have some kind of disorder, but that was deleted as per: Remove personal attacks. Now, I support some kind of action taken against this user as per the above disscusion but this post is purely about my "unhealthy activity". Calling you a pain in the ass was in talking to another user and it isn't my fault you saw it and I wasn't attacking you as I had no Idea that you are stalking my contribs. two things... first, is that this is the first time that I have personaly attacked someone, and I hope it will be the last, and sure, I'll stop, but out of all the users I have interacted with, Mbz1 and her method of voting down photos with "this picture has no value" is agravating. Second. the petty shit is perfectly exemplafied above. "I'm afraid there's something wrong with user", "looks like Fcb981 could use some help", "I really believe that fcb981 could use some help from adult supervusion".
Give me a break, it looks like Mbz1 could use some friends, or an adult help program. I do nothing more than give a retort. I suggest, Mbz1 that if you don't like being called "a pain in the ass" you don't call every picture I put up for FP, here and on en.wiki, Worthless.

I'll add links to some of the more noteable arguments users have had with Mbz1 in a few minutes: -Fcb981 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • here (This is when I was still trying to be civil as I thought roses might have been an Isolated thing. It is still clear that other users were confused by the voting of Mbz1)
  • here (I didn't comment but other users think Mbz1's comments are unfounded.)
  • [wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Giraffe08_melbourne_zoo here] (Mbz1 get into it with one of the cooler heads, Diliff.)
  • here (another argument)
  • here (another argument)
  • here (another argument with Fir00002)
  • here (this is where I get annoyed)
  • here (same justification)
  • here (She uses the same justification)
  • here (Again)
  • here (displaying odd?? behavior)
  • here (the imfamous, "I'm a frail sick woman) ;-)

There are many more arguments and incivility if you look. probably enough info for a book. I am not the one being disruptive. -Fcb981 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the most bizar argument of all. here my favorite part is where Mbz1 admits to supporting images so that she can write less then if she opposed. This begs the question: wouldn't it require less writing to not vote at all?! My other favorite part is where Mbz1 says that she nominates her pictures to share them with people. Well, I think flickr may be a good option for her. All I know is that I try to help the project by voting and nominating etc. and I really have no interest in seeing Mbz1's pictures. -Fcb981 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
here Mbz1 says: "i will not contribute to wikipedia my pictures any more, but i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is clearly disregard for the established voting guidelines and I think should call into question the voting rights of this user. Thanks. -Fcb981 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The matter is resolved for me. I wihtraw my report on user Fcb981. Please feel free to continue to investigate the acusations against me and and take against me whatever sanction you find appropriate. Thank you for your time, everybody.--Mbz1 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

FSHL

I think FSHL (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is a user to keep an eye on. Just commenting "keep" in every discussion for no reason at all, or by citing irrelevant principles is disruptive enough, but in my view this user is wasting increasing amounts of time of other users with their approach to discussing things, in which the user avoids or refuses to answer pertinent questions, insults other users and generally carrys on in a way that some would characterise as trolling.

I loved the contribution to the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:T-64.jpg discussion, which boils down to "keep because maybe someone from the CIA took the picture, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding"... it would be funny if it wasn't such a timewaster. With the backlogs we have here, we don't have time for timewasters. But that's just a little sample...

I predict the outcome of the deletion discussion around "their" aircraft drawings (Commons:Deletion requests/Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29)) will be "delete". That's because the user has almost certainly converted copyrighted works into SVGs as several other users have pretty convincingly demonstrated. The discussion goes on for pages and pages because FSHL apparently is not willing to concede that the sun rises in the east even when provided proof and raises the same objections over and over.

Gentle counselling has not resulted in any noticable change in behaviour. So... I think, a user to keep an eye on, at best. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree to that. To him, nothing is a “valid reason for deletion”, neither a unused duplicate, nor a bad name, nor a very bad quality. That is simply confusing for new users, since it is often opposed to our guidelines and gives a wrong impression of them. I already tried to convey it to him (useless), since this time I have the strong feeling to be a favorite aim for his accusations (my acting is motivated by “revanchism” and so on). Files like Image:Brain-Mapping.svg are obviously traced from copyrighted content, nobody can draw this using without a template. Sure, he will deny that. To me, a block is a serious option. --Polarlys 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Repeating such infringement should trigger the block button, indeed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at recent interactions (after this discussion started) on the user's talk page suggests that the user is not taking warnings seriously, the replies are apparently calculated to cause endless back and forth. I think it's regrettably time for a short block to get the user to realise that this may have went beyond warnings. The user has some positive contributions so I'm not ready for an indefinite block just yet. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC),
Yes that is reasonable. How about 1 week? / Fred J 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1 week sounds good, if only to warn him that his recent behavior cannot continue. --Digon3 talk 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I was seriously thinking more along the lines of a day or two, in order to get a few of the long discussions he's in closed without further disruption from him, rather than a whole week, on the "blocks are preventative, not punitive" theory. But whatever people think, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a block is necessary right now. Of course his style might be irritating and uncivil, but that does not deserve a block right now. But in case he starts again uploading copyvios, a long block should be placed . -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • »Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.« (Colin Powell) --FSHL 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Another red herring from FSHL, free speech doesn't apply here. This is not a forum for presenting views, it is a place with a specific mission and charter, and participation here needs to further than mission, needs to be within that charter, or it is not welcome here. FSHL, you do yourself no service when you act this way. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sooner or later every disruptive user quotes wise men to legitimate his behaviour. Unfortunately we are all to stupid to understand your thoughts and your genius, FSHL. --Polarlys 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29), and will warn FSHL on his talk page. --MichaelMaggs 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a request to delete all FSHL's other 3-view images. Would another admin care to comment (or even to close) at Commons:Deletion requests/3-views of aircraft by FSHL? Sorry there are too many for me to tag one by one this evening. --MichaelMaggs 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, MichaelMaggs, thank you for taking this on. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FSHL has uploaded a further 60 copyvios on 23rd Aug after my final warning on 22nd Aug here: User talk:FSHL#Commons:Deletion requests/Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29). I have blocked for two weeks. I think we have all had enough. --MichaelMaggs 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comment in the last request for deletion, I think you confuse something. Regards, --Polarlys 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys and Inductiveload have pointed out that what he's actually done is not to upload more images, but rather to change the licenses from {{Pd-ineligible}} to {{PD-self}}. That's hardly an action consistent with the conclusions of all previous discussions, and it appears to be an act of defiance. I propose to re-block giving a corrected reason. --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1

Hi,
I'd like to report a troublesome user to a few uninvolved editors. As background to this issue please refer to a similar notice on this user which was put on the en:wiki. The main source of my complaint is the user's inappropriate use of COM:FPC, inappropriate use of her talk page, and the catalyst for this notice her possessiveness to her images (in particular Image:Checkmate1.jpg).

Inappropriate use of COM:FPC - The user makes nominations outside the purpose of the project. She seems to be struggling under a misconception as to what COM:FPC is for (and indeed en:FPC). And I quote, "These are the candidates for becoming featured pictures, COM:FPC". The point of the project page is to identify such images on the commons which are the best we have to offer, and as such become featured pictures. The user made this comment here "the only reason for nominating my pictures is to share my pictures with as many people as possible for free." which clearly is not what the page is for. In which regard Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ant in amber.jpg is a blatant offender. "I'm going to post few more pictures here not to vote, but to look and to see"That is not what COM:FPC is for - any pictures posted on the page are either relevant to the discussion of the potential for the image to be a FP or nominated images themselves. There are many examples of this, and it is still very much on going. This makes a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious process. Personally I'm surprised the closer didn't nullify the withdrawal but there it is - a clearly candidate for FP status is withdrawn by the nominator because it is "too common".

Inappropriate use of talk page - The user removes comments which do not suit her. For example the user has just left a message on my talk page to the effect that I can't post any comments on her talkpage without them being deleted without any regard for what I've written. How are people supposed to address concerns with this user if they are to be deleted and discounted without any thought? This is not a healthy situation and results and me being forced to express concerns which really should be conducted on the user's talk page in the safety of public places such as here

Possessiveness of images The user does not acknowledge the role other people play in a collaborative project such as this. After a I made an edit to the summary of one of her images the user wrote: "fir0002, don't you ever again touch description of my images." This is against the spirit of the wiki - and even after I carefully explained on the talk page why I made the edit (the image does not show a checkmate and thus the description is very misleading). And as a matter of fact this would be a good oppurtunity to ask a few more thoughts on the validity of the description summary of the image and whether or not it should be changed to "Ornate Chess Pieces" as I proposed or something similar.

Anyway thanks for your time --Fir0002 www 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

        • User fir0002 was already explained once that I could do with my talk page whatever I wish.
            • Resolution on Wikipedia do not have much relevance on Commons where policy can be completely different. And even if there was such a policy I am still free to point out the way you are abusing that privilege. --Fir0002 www 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I've told user fir0002 that I do not mind the image to be deleted (there's not going to be much lost for Wikipedia), but as long as it stays in my gallery I'd like to keep my description. If user fir0002 wants to keep the image with his description, he could upload it to his gallery and delete one from mine. I hope it is satisfactory enough for everybody.
            I believe I could nominate any picture and everybody else could oppose or support. I believe I could add as many pictures as I want to the nominated pictures in order to provide more information on the topic. I really see nothing wrong with it.
            The discussion was removed by Common admin . Walter Siegmund, which was a right thing to do. After this user fir0002 has brought it back for 3 times already here , here and at this very page.
            I do not know what fir0002 does not like in my statement that I nominate pictures to become FP because "the only reason for nominating my pictures is to share my pictures with as many people as possible for free." Doesn't he like the word "share" or the words for free?
            I'm not sure, if it is funny or sad that user fir0002 blaims me in Possessiveness of images . All my images are uploaded at the highest resolution available and all with absolutely free licence. On the other hand here's the quote from user fir0002: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a free stock site. I only upload to commons because that's the accepted practice to allow multilingual use of my images in the other encyclopaedias. I do not support the idea of giving my work away for anyone to use without any regard for the work I put in creating the image." (Highlited by fir0002). Thts's why fir0002 uploads images that are less than 2 mega pixels. I strongly believe that Wikipedia is (or should ve) a free stock site. I strongly believe that the wording :If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms." fir0002 is using in his template should not appear on Wikipedia's FP pictures.
            I also like to point out that user fir0002 made a rather not civil ,not polite and absolutely false point at his user page few days ago.
            I believe user fir0002 should not be Common administrator.
            In the end I'd like to ask user fir0002 to leave me alone and let me to continue to contribute to Wikipedia.
            Thank you, everybody.--Mbz1 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
            • I'm sorry but you are again showing your lack of understanding of what this project is. "as long as it stays in my gallery I'd like to keep my description" - commons is not somewhere for you to have a personal gallery. Images are intended to be useful to people and in particular articles on the various Wikimedia encyclopaedias. As per instructions on the upload form "Description of the content; use as well a descriptive and concise filename without special characters." Falsely labelling an image as showing a checkmate does not follow this guideline and should be fixed.
            • Creating unproductive nominations on the project page is detrimental to the purpose of the project. It's not a social event.
            • Removing it does not mean it has been deleted and any mention of it's contents are taboo. I stick by the comments I made there and they are entirely relevant to the discussions I linked them too. It is much easier to link, than restate my argument. The main reason Walter removed it because it was straying far off the topic of the image. However with your dictatorial attitude to your talk page I was left with no better place to state what I felt was the errors of your way.
            • No, share and free where almost irrelevant to the point I was making. The phrase "as many people as possible" was the key one - using COM:FPC for something far beyond what it is supposed to be for. Refrain from this and concentrate on analysing and discussing the potential of the nominated candidates for Featured Picture Status. That is what the page is for.
            • I would suggest, Mbz1, you read en:Wikipedia - "Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project". I fully support the concept of a free encyclopedia and would love to share my images at higher res for educational purposes. But as I mentioned, if you want a free stock Wikipedia is not it. Join Stock xchng instead!
            • <sigh> It's funny really how reactionary people can be to see a "copyright" notice on commons. As I've explained ad nauseum many publishers require more liberal licensing than the GFDL provides - that's what the notice is for. People can contact me and purchase a license to suit their needs.
            • You don't perhaps think it might just be possible that your own message might have had a role in what I wrote?
            • Whether I'm an admin or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
            • I have no problem with you contributing - as long as it's constructively. --Fir0002 www 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Mbz1, do you know about Commons:Quality Images? This is a quality process for self-created works by Wikimedians. Maybe you should try putting some images through QIC rather than FPC for a while? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a great idea!Thank you,pfctdayelise.--Mbz1 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Polarlys deletionist abuse

Anyone noticed any over enthusianism in deletions? ;) Earlier Polarlys already made one mistake of an image deletion requst of an image that was taken in Finland in 1943. The image had a Finnish BF109 fighter plane. Someone who didn't obviously know anything about the Finnish (or German) air force, nominated it for deletion because Germany does not grant public domain for images older than 50 years of not artwork. The nominator did not prove anything, it was just his erroreus speculation. Then Polarlys decided to remove it. Why anyone would be allowed to do that when there is no prove whatsoever? Then another reason why I got angry some time ago. It was decided that FinnishDefenceForces- template was to be removed and some other admin closed the nomination and decided that it would be deleted. Well, we wanted to move them to English Wikipedia, and had the project ongoing but of course someone called Polarlys decided to not follow deletion guide lines and wait two days before deleting any images marked for deletion, and they were all deleted. In fact, some of them would be have been allowed here in Commons too, since those were merely double licensed but it did not matter to Polarlys. And now he strikes again. Someone who hasn't even bothered to register added a deletion request for an Featured Picture of Ferrari F1 car. Yeah, merely an anonymous IP address. He did not explain why it supposedly is copyrighted by Ferrari, and did not link the image anywhere else to prove his point. Well, of course Polarlys removed the image, saying the user in Flickr has taken images with other cameras too, and "could not own a 500 mm lens". Well, I am 99% sure "emilgh" is a proper Flickr user, whose images can be uploaded here, since he provides a proper license. See his private images have been taken with very high quality, and since he seems to work as some photographer of cars.. Can we just delete everything "because I speculate that this guy does not own a 500 mm lens"? The deletion request is here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2007.jpg. Is it really this ridiculously easy for some admins to abuse their rights and be so-eager to delete all images that aren't taken by the uploader him/herself? Sure he has abused his rights a lot in other cases too, but these angered me the most. --Pudeo 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

well Polarlys is a good admin in general, but yeah no proof was provided that the Kimi Raikkonen image was a copyvio, just suspicion over the fact the photographer possibly owns several cameras. I think you should list that on Commons:Undeletion requests Madmax32 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Your accusation is perfidious, you don’t even mention that I restored the image of the plane, even if your rationale on my user talk page came along with various indignities (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarlys&diff=prev&oldid=6179066#A_mistake_on_a_deletion_request). I also removed images after a request was closed by another admin, I did not know anything about your plans to move these files, there was no hint, nothing. Since when do we wait to delete images after a request was closed? All in all you weren’t sad about the deletion (“Somebody is removing them already all the time one by one, but no worries for me, I got the most important ones to my hard drive, including descriptions and sources. But thanks anyway” – User_talk:O/7_2007#FinnishDefenceForces”) but I agree, it’s another fine possibility to vilify me now. Don’t call it abuse if I made a wrong decision, there is Commons:Undeletion requests. Please prove the following statement: “Sure he has abused his rights a lot in other cases too” or remove it. It’s defamatory. --Polarlys 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone post a link to the original picture? Besides the non-compelling argument that owning several cameras from different brands implies copyright violations, I see that in general the images from this Flickr user are posted in full resolution, which at least increases the plausibility that he took the pictures. Also, deleting an image based on speculations when the original source has not even been identified is wrong IMO. --Itub 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilgh/425093744/in/set-72157600006404111/ As I already said: The flickr user seems to own cheap cameras and professional equipment from Canon and Nikon inluding priceless lenses. Some images come with EXIF data, others without. The values “Owner name” and “Camera serial number” are always missing. Three images from the set Ferrari's 60th Anniversary (Set): https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilgh/609007610/ done from the audience, Cyber-shot DSC-T1 (400 EUR), average photo; https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilgh/611777144/in/set-72157600455616635/ aerial photo, Ferrari Press Photos (even mentioned in the title), no EXIF data, https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilgh/615253614/ Ferrari Press Photos, no EXIF data, no high resolution available, professional photograph. Set Formula1 - Australia GP, 2007. https://www.flickr.com/photos/emilgh/sets/72157600006404111/): From the box, professional photographs, Nikon D2Xs, 4000 EUR.
The copyright claims are dubious to me, of course you may call it into question. To me, this is a Ferrari enthusiastic based in the USA, who uploads private shots and professional photographies from Ferrari and other (unknown) sources under free licenses. Maybe I am wrong, but please don’t attack me this way. And yes, even professional photographies leak to the internet nowadays, as original files. Example? proving-grounds.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23655 Little boys may focus on actresses and popstars, others maybe on copyrighted content from Formula 1 races. --Polarlys 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
So should we get rid of all Flickr images, because they can be speculated to be possibly copyrighted? IDENTIFY THE SOURCE, there's no other way for deleting them, it does not make sense to delete on speculation and original research without identifying the source. Otherwise Commons-Flickr cooperation is useless. --Pudeo 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you didn’t notice: We often delete photos because some people only collect copyrighted images (favorite music group, favorite artist) on flickr and put them under free licenses. This is a common problem. --Polarlys 11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pictures, especially amongst the "latest files" lot, are speedy-deleted on a daily basis without any source being identified, under reasonable suspicion of copyvio. You can't check every picture of Britney Spears on the Web just to confirm that this pro-looking picture wasn't actually shot by User:Newbie42. Now, I agree this particular case is not obvious. If you think the suspicion is not enough to warrant the deletion, please take the case to Commons:Undeletion requests. One or two mistakes do not qualify as a deletion spree, so there's no need to get personal. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find any of the same images on corbis or getty images which have 1000s of shots from that event in Australia, although I would say the flickr user could be working for ferrari or otherwise has good access to take such professional photography Madmax32 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Google a bit on "Emil Rensing" (the flickr user) and one gets the impression that he's not a pro photographer himself, but someone with ready access to their work... --Davepape 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That can apply to any Wikimedia Commons user too, who has claimed to taken the shot / own copyright. Should you then just delete all, since such project can't work on distrust and speculation? --Pudeo 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many mistakes regarding other users' images

Hello, this is a short note about a French user named Nicolas Ray. He uploaded many images from de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia that were made by other users. In nearly all cases he made different mistakes. Sometimes he used -self templates (as if he was the creator), sometimes he directly - and wrongly - stated himself as being the author, in other cases he gave completely wrong information about the author (wrong name), and nearly always he did not provide any file history. I'm currently still working on correction of his uploads, see also User_talk:Nicolas_Ray#Caution. It is pretty annoying to discover more and more mistakes (aka violations of licenses/copyrights e.g. in case a wrong author is stated).

It would be neat if someone else, perhaps a French admin, could have a second look at this issue so that it won't happen again. Please keep an eye on this user and his future uploads. Thanks --Überraschungsbilder 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever talks to him, please suggest that he use the CommonsHelper tool, or stop transferring altogether if he can't get the info right. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll talk to him. guillom 11:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, pfctdayelise and guillom :-) Nicolas' latest two transfers are ok now, basically. So this is hopefully a resolved issue where only some advanced and further French help is needed. --Überraschungsbilder 12:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:squidward, User:Sandy Cheeks, User:Mr. Krabs, User:Mama_Krabs

A set of recently-created accounts with usernames related Spongebob Squarepants. See Commons:Village_pump#User:Mr._Krabs. William Avery 07:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done remaining ones blocked and the IP too --Herby talk thyme 07:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Mawassi (talk · contribs)

This Hebrew-speaking user keeps uploading pictures tagged {{PD-self}}, but without any description, source or anything else. The pictures are related to a football club and look amateurish. They seem to come from different sources; some have got EXIF data and/or a timestamp (some identified cameras: Sony DSC-F828, Canon PowerShot A520, DSC-H1), others don't. Amongst the non-EXIF ones, some look like ID pictures, others seem to have been lifted from a website.

Yuval Y has already warned this user some hours ago and exchanged with him, but the guy keeps uploading new pictures. I'm inclined to block him to allow him too cool down, but I'm uneasy because of the language issue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

When I talked with him, he claimed that he's the group owner's son, and he owns the copyrights. I told him right now, that he'd better upload the pictures to the hebrew wikipedia, since it seems he doesn't know english... Yuval Y § Chat § 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Commons is multilingual. Instead of moving hebrew speaking users to the hebrew wikipedia, maybe some hebrew & english/french/german speaking people could move to Commons? ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes -- he should be able to fill out the information template in Hewbrew, no? Isn't there an explantory upload page in Hewbrew? / Fred J 20:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no upload page in hebrew in the commons, but there's an explantory page in the hebrew wikipedia. As for Mahmoud, I wanted him to try to upload the images for the hebrew wikipedia, 'cause as far as I know, you don't like hebrew filenames in the commons, and that way we could translate the name and the info to english. One way or another, I'll tell him to write the missing details. Yuval Y § Chat § 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a mess...

There's a fast-developing category dispute going on between User:LERK and User:Juiced lemon. Hopefully they're discussing it on COM:CFD now, but LERK has been using rollback in the dispute. Hopefully they'll work it out, but it would be good to have a few pairs of good eyes pointed in that direction. --SB_Johnny | PA! 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See here --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, can you remove the speedy deletion templates in South Korea related categories (see Category:Other speedy deletions)? --Juiced lemon 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why - you need to provide some justification, the ones I looked at are empty categories --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Juiced Lemon has disregarded my request for justification and removed delete tags, some for the second time. I have reverted a number of them and warned Juiced Lemon that if they continue removing tags without justification I will block them. As I will be offline for a while now I would appreciate other admins watching. I will take responsibility for blocking if it is required when I come back on line - thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: are these speedy delete tags or just delete tags? If they are speedies, they probably shouldn't be on there since a dispute is involved... though it probably shouldn't be J.l. doing the removing. --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Herbythyme, have you read the text on the speedy deletion templates? I have the RIGHT to remove this templates without justification, and nobody have the right to place them again. --Juiced lemon 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment - however you are being disruptive and wheel warring. I asked you for justification when you asked for the tags to be removed and you ignored me, uncivil, uncollaborative & unwise --Herby talk thyme 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Juiced lemon, shouting isn't helpful (in fact it's likely to work against you). Let someone else take care of any reverting that's required, and discuss the issue in a civil manner. If you need some time to think about this, please take it before someone gives it to you.--SB_Johnny | PA! 10:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but when User:Herbythyme asked me for justification, that bothered me. I assume that administrators know perfectly well how to use speedy templates, and I understood his comment as a very hostile statement.
I should like better consideration for my work in Commons: it's not obvious to create categories with correct names, about appropriate subjects, and incorporate them in suitable structures. And above all, it takes a lot of time. So, don't destroy this work for inane reasons (like “empty” category). --Juiced lemon 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I & others have said this before - you do good work here Juiced Lemon. However you regularly ignore the views of those who do not see things as you do (you still haven't answered my question on why a multi project multi lingual Commons must follow en wp). You asked for someone to remove the tags, I asked you why, you ignored me and went ahead. Of course you can remove the tags if you then tag the categories as "vote for deletion" but you do not wish to do that I think. If you saw my asking for justification as hostile I apologise, however bear in mind how many times you have asked others to justify things please --Herby talk thyme 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try to give better answers to your questions. I think that the speedy deletion procedure is problematic: a person who removes a speedy deletion template can hardly find a sensible reason for a normal deletion (“speedy deletion removed” ?). So, in my opinion, it belongs to the initial requester to place a standard template. --Juiced lemon 12:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If we don't have one, maybe someone should make a pretty template saying "this category is up for discussion at COM:CFD, etc. I'll do it myself later if no-one beats me to it :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Cfd}}?? Finn Rindahl 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
←(reset tabs)

You're correct, it's not obvious. If you feel you know exactly how it should be done, try to write a policy about it. However, "It's not obvious to anyone but Juiced lemon, so Juiced lemon should always be given final say" is probably not going to be approved as a policy, if you see what I mean. I know you work hard, and I know you're doing your best to be a visionary, but like it or not even the visionaries of the community need to discuss things in a consensus-driven community just as much as anyone else. --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


As many people have said many times: Commons should like it if you had "better consideration" for the other users here. You collect behaviour warnings as if you had been editing here for a minute when you have been here for months and months. If you stopped engaging in antagonistic actions and stopped describing people in blunt, insulting ways, you would soon find a lot of respect and goodwill for you and your work. But if you continue to "need" to be told about when your actions are inappropriate then not only will you continue to receive little respect, but probably some blocks as well. I find it disappointing that you act the same after months and months of the olive branch being extended. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You must understand that I don't contribute to Commons in order to see my work destroyed prior to any discussion.
  • On September, 9th, I have created tenths of categories about second-level subdivisions of South Korea (like this one: Category:Gangjin), with at least one locator map in them. Most of these maps were not already categorized in such categories.
  • On September, 11th, User:LERK moved (example: Category:Gangjin, Jeollanam-do) near all these new categories and placed a speedy deletion template on every category I had created, prior to any discussion.
  • Then, I removed most of the speedy deletion templates in order to prevent these inappropriate deletions, because I have the right to do that, according to the written text in template:speedydelete (Appeal:). User:SB_Johnny helped me to do that, but he forgot several categories which I reverted later.
  • User:Herbythyme reverted these last edits, and now these categories have been deleted (example: deletion of Category:Yeonggwang).
Do you enjoy this? Me not: I'll not endure for long that uncivil actions towards me are supported by administrators. --Juiced lemon 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Juiced lemon has a point here. I'm working with him on observing the proper process for this, so to be fair let's let him have his say before deleting. The pages in question are on the September 11 logs here. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:88.6.218.154

Keep an eye on this IP user as they reverted 11 changes whereby they changed the description to a previous version with a deletion template (but no reason given) or incorrect deletion template on it (Unsure why they wanted to change it to an incomplete request...) [[8]]. I presume this to be User:Granadin as they were the ones putting the images up for deletion in the first place. I will revert the changes. Deadstar (msg) 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (Also found this: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Granadin) Deadstar (msg) 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

81.80.159.49 (talk · contribs)

The above user is apparently trying to remove content they find objectionable from galleries. Videmus Omnia 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I reverted a couple - seem to have stopped now, thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As a related matter, I can't find the policy under which this image (caution:explicit) was deleted. I asked the deleting admin, but does Commons have a different censorship policy than en Wikipedia? (I do most of my work there.) Thanks... Videmus Omnia 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I see it is undeleted now (& I agree). The only "adult" images I routinely deleted are the extra penis images that folk seem to like to upload and that solely on the basis that the category states that we have enough of them (or similar working). Commons is not censored (generally :)) --Herby talk thyme 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon Please STOP

Please stop spreading files and categories around. There IS NOT consensus to rename them, and spreading things around in two parallel category structure without any talk is NOT the way to do it ! --LimoWreck 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is NO consensus to keep categories with non-English names. Stop to remove the move requests and to empty the pages I create, and I'll stop to move the files. --Juiced lemon 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Then we remain stuck in this mess. Wikifalcon 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There is NO consensus to move things. There is NO consensus to empty categories on your own. Different people are discussing the subject. It makes NO sense to spread things around in separate parallel trees. And I don't think why some threat or intimidation is needed... --LimoWreck 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Brugge has been moved to Category:Brugge. That implies the move of all “compound” subcategories with “Brugge” in their name. --Juiced lemon 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You can create galleries in local language, or rename existing galleries in local language. --Juiced lemon 23:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, we are discussing internally alternative ways and improvements on the commons naming conventions and rules as to decrease the number of language conflicts. After all, there is no single major non-English city that follows the rather dogmatic commons naming rules. Bruges is our test and demo case, based on which we will make the commons use cases and naming proposal. So if you could please leave us working for a while on Bruges so that we can concentrate on constructive proposals, in stead of having to waste your and our time on useless fights. --Foroa 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not specially interested by Bruges, but the process to name categories is a major issue for this project, and will determine its future. In my opinion, any person in the World should arrive to the same name for a given subject.
Tell me more about you are doing. Make special agreements by language is not in the spirit of Commons. --Juiced lemon 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have little time now, but in a nutshell. I am a novice user here with only 2500 or so edits. I have been warned by several people about the hostility here, the lack of clear rules and a rather incomplete and messy category organisation. Because I work for several wikipedia's, I did not had the option not to work here. I want to address the following problems here as I perceive them through casual Use cases:

  • Hostile environment, few people feel "at home" here
  • The thousands of uncategorised images and floating cats
  • Incoherent category naming and organisation
  • Misconceptions and differences with a normal wikipedia
  • Language rules that are obviously not realistic: in most reasonable populated non-English cities, 30 % of the cats have names that are not compliant with the rules
  • Tools that are not efficient for the daily tasks
  • Badly understood differences between galleries and categories
  • Lack of documentation and entry points for finding items and connections with other wikipedia's
  • Mapping with iw's cats/articles
  • Procedures that inherently cause conflicts

I am not pretending that I have solutions for everything, but it is probably a good idea that a fresh user tries to summarise all the problems as he perceives them and tries to formulate the real needs. I do agree with you that the process to find the needed media is a major issue for this project, and will determine its future. And because I do care, I want to try to make an effort for a constructive contribution. It might however take some time. --Foroa 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is only one way to solve this. I think everybody can agree with me that the current category system is raising several objections to numerous people. When the category system was founded, it was probably never expected that it would raise such issues. I think the best way to go is to start anew and create a category system that is acceptable to more people. Opinions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Negotiating Phase

OK Juiced lemon, I give up. As there was no answer on my request above, and previous restores of other people caused no reaction from you, I assumed that I could continue to build my demo case. Although, personally, I don't care if it is Brugge or Bruges, I wanted to bring Bruges to a consistent state. As the vaste majority of the subcats and images were Brugge based, I went that direction. In the mean time, I learned a lot of this experiment.

  • When we put a move cat, then you can in all freedom remove it. If someone else removes a move cat that you placed, you are shouting about disruptive and incivil behaviour, followed by other insults. So the rule seems different for you than for other people. Most people now will understand that they can remove your move cats without problem if they feel so, without any discussion. They are allowed to state that you have an incivil and disrupting behaviour too.
  • Maybe you better understand now what damage move cats, your favorite weapon, can cause
  • When starting the edit war, you did not answer my request nor explained whatsoever, just blind edit war. That must be very bad for your health.
  • In such a case, I would assume that something like the RR3 rule comes into play, which you probably forgot all the time in the fight

Although I tried a couple of times, I slowly come to a conclusion that communicating with you is rather difficult. --Foroa 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your previous answer was not about Category:Bruges, but about more general issues. I have not ready answers to these numberous general issues: I can just initiate discussions in another place.
There are two major issues regarding Category:Bruges:
  • the move procedure
  • the language policy
I think we should discuss first about these issues. --Juiced lemon 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon, I stated above: "So if you could please leave us working for a while on Bruges so that we can concentrate on constructive proposals". The primary issue I have, more than language policy and move procedure, is "Hostile environment, few people feel "at home" here" probably a major reason why the commons doesn't grow as it could do.

We just saw a demonstration of my statement above that I repeat: "

  • Procedures that inherently cause conflicts".

I think that I have to make my analysis and proposal as a whole, not as bits and pieces of isolated discussions on a particular point and subsequent patching of a detail. --Foroa 12:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedures can be adjusted in order to do not make conflicts: they don't inherently cause conflicts. Administrators have to enforce correct procedures. --Juiced lemon 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Procedures can be adjusted in order to do not make conflicts": that's why I want to propose alternatives
  • "they don't inherently cause conflicts": you just cooperated on a demo of the inherent conflict of the move cat procedure
  • "Administrators have to enforce correct procedures": you probably have an angel on your right shoulder
--Foroa 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
“Administrators have to enforce correct procedures” presupposes that procedures are correct, and seldom it's the case. --Juiced lemon 12:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's right, administrators and procedure writers have probably the devil on their left shoulder. So we have to make a procedure to chase the devils and angels away from this wiki. --Foroa 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I go to update Commons:Rename a category, in order to prepare the discussion. --Juiced lemon 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Juiced Lemon, please note the folowing
  • apparently, the move cat procedure; which is the one that troubles me the most, makes apparently no part of the procedure
  • in a lot of cases, a cat rename is needed for several cat's at a certain level for several reasons which are not necessarily justifying for one single cat change but for a whole group (think of provinces in Wallonia, "xxx in/from/of yyy" cases and uniformity --Foroa 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop, now. This is absolutely rediculous, and if it continues, you'll both be given a wikibreak. Talk about it somewhere (COM:VP, COM:AN, etc.) where you can get some community input, because the revert war needs to stop right now. --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We go to work about ways to prevent that in the future. I have just noticed, in Commons:Rename a category, that these actions were called “Unambiguous fixes”. --Juiced lemon 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
They are in one way, but not in others. When Faroa put that template on that category, it ceased to be unambiguous and became controversial, and you (Juiced lemon), should have brought it up on COM:CFD rather than accusing him/her of vandalism and engaging in a revert war. As it happens, I actually agree with you (Juiced lemon) about the naming and populating of the category, but I'm no more a WikiGod than you are, and my opinion (like yours) doesn't matter any more than does Faroa's. However: I warned you clearly and distinctly about accusing other contributors of bad motives, and you have apparently ignored that warning.
I'm glad you two have toned it down and are working together now, but it should not require a reminder from me to get you to treat other contributors respectfully, and you're way too experienced in these conflicts not to know when you're getting into one again. Next time I need to remind you to be civil and at least act like you're assuming good faith, the reminder will come after I have blocked you. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion to prepare and tune highly sensitive texts such as Commons:Rename a category on the talk pages to have minimal noise. If you change two words a day, you can insert whatever you want, but one day, someone might revert it all back in one go. And try not to insult people that have another opinion. Building such sensitive texts are like the procession of en:Echternach: three steps forward, two steps back. --Foroa 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a text about “how to proceed”, therefore not a highly sensitive text. The naming policy for categories has to be specified elsewhere, but not in Commons:Rename a category. I improve this page, but I don't make choices: choices will be discussed in the talk page. --Juiced lemon 18:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
JL, when someone objects, it's controversial, and you should bring it up on COM:CFD rather than "making it personal". Clear? --SB_Johnny | PA! 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The preceding was an unwarranted deletion (the victim of "cleaning" by Juiced lemon that the user did not archive.[9]).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

eh? Users here, by tradition, control their own talk pages, and can remove posts as they see fit, with or without archiving. Yes, it's polite to archive but it is not mandatory. Yes it's polite to leave comments by others but it's not mandatory. Only if a particular user gets to the point of being seriously abusive to other users or far outsteps the bounds of behaviour here in other ways (posting clearly illegal things, for example) do they lose control of their talk page. If you're frustrated with Juiced Lemon, work through it, but please do not try to force him to keep things around on his page if he does not wish it. I think you may try to go too far. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We have tried working through the issues of Juiced lemon; his response was the "cleaning" referenced above. I don't think that's an appropriate response.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Heheh. I should go register juicedlemoncandowhateverhewantsandnoadminswilldoanythingaboutit.org and we can fix this misnomer of a website. :p Commons? Ha. ¦ Reisio 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that would be uncivil.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Heartshade (talk · contribs)

I don't know where he came from, 'Cause he doesn't write anything about himself. He keeps uploading images from "ExCAR Group : Top New Cars" which clearly looks like copyvios, and claims that he's the author. I started with "No premission", and moved to "Authorship claims" but he keeps going on. I guess now I should mark all his images as Copyvio, and give him the "End of copyvios" warning? Yuval Y § Chat § 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and block him a week or some longer if he continues... -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I need a warning message for "Continuous uploading images without writing the details and corresponding the warnings" or something like that... Since I don't know how to write things like that in Spanish, and it seems that JONERICK (talk · contribs) seemed to be on an upload rush, I blocked him for 2 hours, so he could calmly read the text in his talk page... Yuval Y § Chat § 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Last JONERICK image (two days after the block), Image:LEBLON.jpg came from [10] (image). I'd delete all his contributions. Platonides 12:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet53 (talk · contribs)

Problem was found by User:Kaganer: uploaded many thumbs with {{Cc-by-sa}} without mentioning author/source or images claimed to made himself but for non-commercial usage only or without EXIF-info. Some of thumbs have watermark of Russian websites. I agree with User:Kaganer that all contributions of User:Hamlet53 must be removed. --EugeneZelenko 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alx 91 (talk · contribs)

Alx 91 (talk · contribs) had harassed Cobaes04 times and times again, as you can see in User talk:Cobaes04 and User talk:LX. It seems that Cobaes04 (talk · contribs) didn't have a chance to write the details of his pictures - which aren't that bad - I agree, they seem to be personal pictures, but they are in good quality, they look interesting (not to mention that some of the photographed people look cute). 15 pictures are definitely not a reason to threaten a user and demand his blocking. After All, Cobaes04 is quite new in commons, and I'm afraid that we've lost him. What bothers me more, is that Alx is not that clean, as he often uploaded copyrighted images, and some other stuff. I really was about to block him for a while, after I warned him several times about Etiquette and he was warned about Copyright violations. It said that one of the principles of the Wikipedia is Assume good faith - is that the case?
Recently all Cobaes04's pictures have been deleted. Why do I feel ashamed I haven't blocked Alx? Yuval Y § Chat § 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn

I'm loosing my temper over Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg and an ongoing revertwar on categories, so I'm asking for a second (well, actually fourth) opinion. The core issue is whether islamsophibia qualifies as racism, which Liftarn insists it does and AnonMoos, Jeff G. and myself insists it does not. User:AnonMoos stopped reverting after I tried to intervene, User:Liftarn keeps on despite being asked to explain himself first on the talk page. Having reverted myself a couple of times I'm no longer neutral, anyone who wants to do follow-up on this WP:LAME candidate :o( Finn Rindahl 22:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. LAME as in Lamest edit wars, not a characterization of any of the participants. Finn Rindahl 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I haven't gotten really annoyed by Liftarn's actions until now, when he has taken his edit warring to the new image Image:Islamophobe.jpg‎ , and furthermore has done so with an extremely unsatisfactory edit summary in which he unhelpfully asserts as simple fact something which is very disputed and controversial, and mentions "Category:Religionism" in what seems to be a somewhat deceptive way, since he did not add "Category:Religionism", or remove "Category:Religionism", or alter "Category:Religionism" in any significant way, but instead merely extended his edit-warring on image Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg‎ to this image by adding a completely different (and disputed) category... AnonMoos 10:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Andros64 (talk · contribs)

Since I'm rather new at the admin job I'm not sure how to act in this case. Andros64 was warned several times not to remove 'deletion requests' on his talk page. There even was a previous discussion about this on this board. Yesterday Polarlys requested the deletion of four pictures of Polaco77 (whose uploads are mostly scans of a book from 1980) and Andros64 removed them once again. Since I already have problems with Polaco77 (see my talk page) I'm also not sure if it counts as being involved. -- Cecil 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    •  Comment I've not seen, that it is simply deletion request not simply Copyvio - speedy way. Quite unreasonable request in context of Polish law and template {{PD-Polish}}. Details in discussion. Of course comment of Polaco77 cannot be accepted, but he is a "fresh' user and direct info at his page IMHO is sufficient.

Best regards: Andros64 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if it was a mistake, but please be more careful the next time because of your previous history it is easy to assume that you do it by purpose. I also don't think that Polarlys has made the requests just for fun. There where previous discussions that we just can't assume that something is PD because of missing information. First there has to be proof that there is really nothing known about the author and the time the picture was made. Concerning Polaco, I wouldn't have acted against him even though I think that being a newbie is no excuse for racism, but he has started it by filing a unreasonable user problem here for exactly one edit. -- Cecil 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cecil (talk · contribs)

Could someone help me with this user he is permanently trying to demolish some of my works (eg. Image:Ballroom Castle Warsaw September 17 1939.jpg).

I've made some mistakes (I'm new in the Commons and in fact I'm still learning English) but some kind persons help me to repair it. All the pictures have full description and don't violate copyright, becouse they were created before 1994 without a clear copyright notice before the Polish copyright law was changed.

P. S. Such a person shouldn't be a administrator. Polaco77 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone like you should be blocked for things like that. --Polarlys 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Polaco77 is a "fresh" user. More collegiality, please. It easier to explain to him some rules of Commons directly on his page. In case of wrong template it's necessary to advice and correct- not to delete. Best regards:Andros64 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a new user is no explanation for such an offense. --Polarlys 11:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right and I've made an remark for him in this subject today. Best regards: Andros64 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Polarlys 11:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention it. Best regards. Andros64 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Being new is never an excuse for making racist comments. And I have made exactly one edit at one of his pictures. There was nothing permanent against him since I just noticed him uploading scans of a book from 1980 and right after I asked him to explain this and fill out everything properly he has immediately gone racist. Since then I only made the reverts of you Andros removing the deletion request of another user even though you should have known better where the place for discussion of these requests is. And now after one edit Polaco makes a request here? Being new should excuse racism and then filing user problems without a reason.? I don't think so. The least Polaco could do is an excuse. -- Cecil 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this, unprovocated personal attacks of this kind is simply not acceptable, no matter if the user is new to Commons. An apology is indeed in it's place here. Finn Rindahl 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I'm very touchy with the German demolishing and robbering in Poland during the World War II and earlier, and I started this conflict by marking some pictures uploded by Polarlys (witch nota bene didn't have full description) and I apologize for that. But Cecil want only a revenge, he first removed some of my pictures (they should be removed, I didn't get a permission to use them) and then he marked that picture (Image:Ballroom_Castle_Warsaw_September_17_1939.jpg) which had a full description and a permission (Polish copright law), he perfectly know where to hit. He did it purposely and he first should apologize. No further comments. Polaco77 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on Polaco77's talk page. Don't know if we should try to keep this together, but suffice it to say I think we still have a potential issue here. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The history of our native countries is a bad starting position when working together in an international project in 2007 … ––Polarlys 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell me about it. (my mother was German, my father Polish, they were actively on opposite sides during the war) But that nevertheless is not a reason to not assume good faith, and not a reason to air issues in a polite and collegial manner. If there are issues, we all want to work together to resolve them. Your That approach is not the most effective. Put your differences with the past in the past and work for a new future. My parents fell in love despite their differences, after all. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oooooops. I mean Polaco77's approach, not Polarlys. Sorry for any confusion. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. ––Polarlys 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this user (Polaco77) for one week. This was unacceptable behaviour. Siebrand 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no understanding, see the user talk page. ––Polarlys 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems irredeemable, let's not dump more time in than necessary. Keep an eye out, give another chance, but if the pattern continues after the block, go to indefinite and be done. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm not welcome on his talk page and I accept that, could somebody else please improve his general education and tell him where Hitler was really born. And it would be interesting for me to know why his username is a indication to this nationality. -- Cecil 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Intervened. If the user continues to be racist on his own talk page, I am protecting it until the block expires. —O (说 • 喝) 00:56, 26 September 2007 (GMT)

images by User:Dying Artist

Dying Artist (talk · contribs) has uploaded some nice photos of Hollywood celebrities, claiming own work. I notice that the metadata of Image:Elisha Cuthbert CFDA.jpg says "Photo by Peter Kramer/Getty Images for CFDA" and "Copyright holder: 2007 Getty Images". What should we do? Delete all his uploads and block him? --Kjetil r 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask nicely for an explanation, and then block him if his explanation does not suffice. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That image has been copied from http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=74395909&epmid=3&partner=Google. I have deleted it as a copyvio. -No time to check the others at the moment. -MichaelMaggs 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I found File:AJ Cook CBS.jpg here, http://img186.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27260_ajcookcbsparty_021_122_412lo.jpg Conclusion, delete the lot of it. Finn Rindahl 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
All deleted as copyvios. —O (说 • 喝) 23:07, 25 September 2007 (GMT)

User:Sandy Cheeks

User was blocked as being a sockpuppet, then requested an unblock on their talkpage, and now has their talkpage (User talk:Sandy Cheeks up for (incomplete) deletion with some profanities added. What is the course of action here? Deadstar (msg) 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I declined unblocking and warned that the page would be protected if there are any more nonsense edits there. Finn Rindahl 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, seem's like it. I've blocked Flatts for a week pending a Check User (hereby requested - Herby did CU the last time but he's not around right now...) Finn Rindahl 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI there is a COM:RFCA COM:RFCU ;). Anyway, this one is Inconclusive. However this user is clearly hear for disruptive purposes only. I would have just put an indef block, sock or not. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I might drop a note at COM:RFCU the next time Digon3 has extended the block. Finn Rindahl 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos & User:Liftarn

Edit warring on category:islamophobia (now protected) and image talk:gathering of eagles.jpg (already protected). These do seem to be having a great time falling out with one another over some of the world's favourite subjects. I've placed "stop" warnings on both talk pages suggesting "time out" before I (or someone else) enforces it. Other opinions more than welcome.

Equally (& I HATE the idea) should we take a look at a 3RR policy or similar. The problem is that the reasonable people have no use for such a policy but the others make it look rather desirable? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that User:Liftarn keeps widening the dispute by adding "Category:Racism" to ever-new Islamophobia-related categories and images, even though he's fully aware that this is widely-disputed and controversial (see centralized discussion at Image_talk:Gathering of eagles.jpg), and that he's already been referred to this noticeboard before over the matter (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_4#User:Liftarn). If Liftarn can be somehow restrained from extending such ideological activitism to new images and categories, then there will be no immediate problem... AnonMoos 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ejdzej, The Idiot - Ejdzej, His Meanesty / FFFYE

I have recently tagged some photos taken and uploaded by the former Commons user nicknamed Riva72 and, thus, NOMINATED them in the 'featured picture' category and provided the proper explanations of my actions. He reverted all and punished me (sic!) with the ban. I was banned for a day! The explanation given by the individual is: Vandalism (sic!). As far as I know, it was only the nomination on my part and it should be regarded with respect and in case of other opinions one should voice their thoughts on the proper page, in this case this page is called: Commons:Featured picture candidates....... I was forced to revert an Ejdzej's stupidity' and 'meanness.

FFFYA, Marko27. --Marko27 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the guideline how to nominate a picture for 'featured'. You don't have the right to put a {{FeaturedPicture}} in a picture just because you think it's good. First there has to be a nomination, then other users will rate the picture and if there is enough support then it will get featured. You can't make a picture featured without that. And if you don't apologize for insulting Ejdzej you will be banned again, and this time longer. -- Cecil 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I will not apologize an Ejdzej. It is the individual who ought to apologize me. I am sorry but you cannot read with understanding. You are a mean person themselves. The nomination pages for every tagged picture was provided! I am again sorry you have not 'wanted' to notice it. --Marko27 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Marko27, you are banned for three days. Now you should have enough time to read Commons:Featured picture candidates. This is the guideline how to nominate pictures. -- Cecil 12:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Support. The section title itself (as it is now) tells a good part of the tale as to why giving this user some time off is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[11] and [12] suggest that Marko27 wants to evade his or her block and continue insulting. I blocked that IP for a week and ran some checks as it makes sense to extend Marko's block as well for block evasion if that IP was Marko27. So I went digging. It was. I also found a sock, Bastet27. Marko's block is extended to a week starting now, as is the new sock Bastet27. ++Lar: t/c 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • To a Lar: u r the idiot yourself!!! A stupid idiot which is even worse.. :D - I want to point out that the beautiful Bastet27's actions were just these of polishing the nice and easy Marko27's statement. You are also blind, you simple beaurocratic creature! FFFYL and FFFYASCAWA as well! Bye bye, you digger! :D U r just a nasty little Koremişk.

Undersigned: अमुन 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And blocked. Please take your hate speeches somewhere else. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And corrected. The link is now valid. FFFYBTIAANMASch - for the correction: ओसिरिस 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
66.232.105.206, was blocked by Polarlys for vandalism. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to block evasion I have increased the block to 1 month. See the history of this page to see all the vandalism. It should be noted that the vandalism occurs from totally random IPs. However all these IPs run Apache/CPanel, which make me think of a compromised server. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Riva72. I have blocked him and his sock indefinitely. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To Bryan and to all the funny-alike: Hello :D and My-Fuck-Finger-To-You-All :)

undersigned: Blanka27 aka Marko27 aka Bastet27 aka RIVA72 aka my every single IP's edit aka my every single IP variation edit. Bye, bye, birdies! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blanka27 (talk • contribs) at 12:06, 8 Oct 2007 (UTC)


And blocked! --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bene16

Alongside with uploading derivative works of copyrighted works, the user intentionally ignores hints regarding a suitable naming of his files (he uses bible quotes on images with architecture or artworks) and blames his critics for being being an enemy of his religion ("muß ich mich entschuldigen dafür ein Christ zu sein" - "do I have to excuse myself for being a Christian"?) or argues in a very personal and holier-than-thou way ("oder kommst du aus einer Gegend des deutschen Vaterlandes in der schon die Oma nicht mehr getauft war" - "do you come from a part of our German fatherland where even the grandmather wasn't baptised anymore?"). Since he keeps uploading files with counterproductive names, this topic here. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bene16&direction=prev&oldid=7952473#Bildernamen ––Polarlys 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

...auf mein Nachfragen wer den Kreuzweg gemalt hatte, wußte im ehemaligen vermieten Pfarrhaus niemand bescheid. Auch der Messner konnte mir keine Auskunft über den Kreuzweg geben. Auch lag kein Kirchenührer von St. Johann Baptist in Treherz, Gemeinde Aitrach, Landkreis Ravensburg in der Kirche aus. Auf den Bildern ist die Heilige Gottesmutter Maria, die den Sohn des Allmächtigen christlichen Gottes, Jesus Christus unbefleckt empfangen hat abgebildet. Was spricht dagegen das Bild mit Ave-Marie01 = Gegrüsset seist du Maria zu benennen?????.....--Bene16 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the history of your user talk page it's obvious that several users already told you what is wrong with the naming. This is an international project and pictures should be useable for everyone no matter where one lives or what religion one has. Giving non-descriptive names (and yes, bible phrases are non-descriptive) is not helpful for this project and since there are enough other problems in the communication between different cultures/nations/... it shouldn't be a problem to accept this small rule. But from your reactions to users asking you to work within the rules it's obvious that you are not really interested in that. -- Cecil 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Abdullah Köroğlu

This new user removes again interwiki links ([13] and [14]), though I had let a message in his talk page: User talk:Abdullah Köroğlu#Interwiki links.

He didn't answer to this message, but I suspect him to have used IPs User:88.228.171.4 and User:88.227.38.83 for an insulting message in my talk page and these edits [15] and [16] respectively (IPs range of TurkTelekom). --Juiced lemon 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user reverts my contributions without discussion:
  • destruction of Category:Buoyancy about an encyclopedic subject (Buoyancy)
  • removal of correct categorization (example: Mass, a fundamental concept in Classic mechanics and Special relativity)
--Juiced lemon 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Szczepan1990 totally out of line in threatening me

Concerning: User talk:Pjahr. This admin is competely out of line. He has threatened to block me. Not only would this block be against the rules (i.e., him blocking me because he's in a conflict with me), but he himself has reverted 4 times (does 3RR exist on commons?). Not only that, but there was no reason for him to undo my template notice of a copyright violation; and, if he really had to do so, he at least could have not used the automatic reversion tool (another violation). Someone please deal with this; he is totally out of line. I am a long time WP user (mostly on en),; and have never had any problems with anyone. Patstuart 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on logs, this is my version of what has happened:
  • User:Pjahr uploads an image from en:wp: Image:Rafter Patrick.jpg
  • In Patstuart's opinion this image is a copyvio and he tags it with {{Copyvio}}.
  • Patstuart notifies the uploader with {{subst:copyvionote|Image:Rafter Patrick.jpg}} ~~~~
  • Szczepan1990 reverts the change made to Pjahr's talk page.
  • Patstuart and Szczepan1990 revert each other a few times
  • This discussion takes place on Patstuart's talk page where Szczepan writes: "then write to him what's wrong, not in idiotic way; next try of reverting it will cause blocking you"
In my opinion Szczepan1990's edits are groundless and threating to block someone for followinf instructions is not acceptable. Samulili 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition Szczepan1990 went ahead and blocked Patstuart [17]. I have removed the block. Samulili 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the unblock. It appears I had the famous en:WP:MASTODON reaction. I think, perhaps, we do deserved to be blocked for edit warring, but better to just let things go. Patstuart 19:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's true that revert wars are never good nor allowed (except when fighting vandalism). Now is a good time to calm down and also hear Szczepan1990's side of the story. BTW, I'm also a little involved as a I added that line about notifying the uploader some 16 months ago :) Samulili 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

It certainly looks to me like this is an edit war. Page was protected, but it looks like this version of the page is POV pushing "Catalonia is a nation occupied by Spain", edit summary translates over google to "Can anyone here hate the truth?". I'm not sure what to do, but I think that people need to be watching this page. Patstuart 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've protected it (again) but someone who has some knowledge of the situation/language should take a look I think --Herby talk thyme 07:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am familiar. Catalonia is a part of Spain that has often tried to achieve independence, much like Scotland is to the UK, or Kurdistan is to parts of the Middle East. It would be like saying "Scotland is a nation occupied by Britain" vs. "Scotland is an autonomous region of the United Kingdom" (it's a little different, as the terminology changes between the regions) - it's clearly POV pushing (and, the user's English and Spanish are pretty bad too). Patstuart 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Vasilis

This user has already been blocked one week, and received warnings afterward about constant copyright infringements. And he's at it again: an example is Image:Metriacanthosaurus1.jpg, which says "modified image mine" (after latest warning), Image:Pelecanimimus3.jpg (after block but not warning). One person tagged a supposed copyright from http://www.marshalls-art.com/pages/ppaleo/paleo22.htm, which has strict licensing. I hate to see this user blocked, as he's good faith and helping the project, but the copyvios just aren't stopping. Patstuart 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff

Moved to COM:AN#User:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff. Siebrand 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Koalorka‎, copyvios

I have marked every single one of User:Koalorka‎'s uploads for deletion on the grounds they are obvious copyvios. I'm not sure this user is able to participate in the community, given that, after warnings, and many months, he has continued to upload copyvios from the same website and lie about it (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Koalorka). Should we save the trouble and indef block this user now? Or should we keep an eye on him? Patstuart 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Please delete everything, as I've already closed the DR. I've also started to delete stuff, but I am currently busy and don't have the necessary time at the moment. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:18, 23 October 2007 (GMT)

User:Huebi

Huebi (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded an image that I deleted persuant to a request for deletion, and has been warned twice about uploads without source/licensing. I blocked him for a day.[18] Subsequently, s/he left an uncivil message on my talk page.[19] At the top of his/her talk page is the statement, " I'mnot wasting any more time in this project." Users are free to contribute or not as they see fit, but Huebi is being disruptive, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for incivility. There's also user talk page blanking without archiving that needs to be undone, but I don't have the time to do it now. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The user talk page is now protected for the duration of the block because of repeated hostile blanking by the account holder in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Julio Cesar Martins

This user uploaded several copyvio photos, and after several warnings, continues to remove to copyvio tag from the image. Please temporarily block this user and delete his images. Patstuart 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the imagas but I have not blocked the user because he has only made one edit after your warning not to remove copyvio tags. Samulili 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I warned him once, and he did it a bunch, and then, I warned him again, and he made another edit. But it's cool. Patstuart 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Reco-X

User:Reco-X has continued to upload copyvios after an end of copyvios warning. Image:2007-03-12-camila.jpg most probably a copyvio; Image:B000F2CBZU.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V64214222 .jpg definitely is. Short term block may be appropriate. Patstuart 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eximius.vkm originally uploaded several copyrighted images which were a copyright violation from http://www.mammootty.com/gallery/newlooks.htm. User then went, created a flickr account under the same username: [20], uploaded the files there (notice upload date of today), and tried to change the license locally. User received a stern warning from me to stop or be blocked, and has now uploaded the same picture(s) under a different name to avoid my scrutiny: Image:Mammootty in 2005.jpg. Patstuart 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the speedies, which you'd tracked down nicely. I'm tempted to speedy the last one as well, but I'll hold for the COM:DEL discussion. User warned with {{End of copyvios}}. I'll block if I spot anything that makes it necessary. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the licenses of imaged from other Wikipedia copied to Commons by User:Rosarinagazo

Dear all!

Rosarinagazo has contributed a lot of images to Commons by copying images from Wikipedia project, especially from the English Wikipedia to Commons.

However, most of the time he failed to use the original licensing terms and therefore misrepresents the licenses on Commons. I have told him that and warned him on the end of June (see: my message) but he kept on using the wrong licenses. Therefore, yesterday I have blocked him for one month.

The problem is now, that almost every image he uploaded has to be checked for the correct license and I do not have enough time to do it on my own. So please help! I am currently stuck at Image:Acacia bonariensis 1.jpg uploaded on 2007-04-12 20:19 (not checked yet!) and I am going backwards in time. So please help! --ALE! ¿…? 07:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not only a license problem, he did not tag these images as NowCommons nor did he always upload the full resolution image. --Denniss 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked the images from April 12 2007 to the last ones of 10/2007 and uploaded full res versions as well as tagged the en versions as NowCommons. Maybe I find some more time to help you from april 12 downwards ( That's a hell lot of images to work on). --Denniss 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Checked files 2007-04-13 — 2007-03-19. --GeorgHH 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this is nearly the problem you have said it is. If someone uploads a picture under the public domain, it means that it can be reused (and, for that matter, questionably doesn't even need sourcing). If he decided to reupload the file and place his version under GFDL, I'm not even sure that's illegal. Blocking for entire month after only one warning seems excessive; what was wrong with the original one week block? Patstuart 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See the comment by Denniss and just look at the mountains of work we have now. --ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think blocking was reasonable. Remember, it's not a punitive instrument; it's used to protect Commons. In this case, it's used to protect Commons from having this user upload more files which need to be reviewed for licensing accuracy and resolution until the user's existing uploads have been reviewed. Not only did the user continue to make problematic uploads in spite of being warned, but they did not attempt to aid in reviewing existing problematic uploads.
If the review takes less time to complete than the duration of the block as it is currently set, I think unblocking is in order. If the problematic uploads continue after that, I would recommend a full one-month block to give the user time to read up on licensing and technical aspects of cross-project image tranfers. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Status update: Finished with images April 07 to February 07. Maybe some more to come later today.--Denniss 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
January 07 to October 06 finished. More next week. --Denniss 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I'm finished with those images. Let's see how this user behaves when his block expires. --Denniss 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. I really did not have the time lately. --ALE! ¿…? 09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Humorstefan.jpg#filehistory

Please can somebody deal with User:Alex:D and User:Anittas to stop the excessive file overwriting. Thank you (I'm to tired now.) --GeorgHH 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well taking a look at this I've reverted the picture to the original upload and protected it for a week so that we can sort this. In my opinion the original is different to the ones that have overwritten it and I feel that the "higher resolution" one should be uploaded to another name - it is not (again in my opinion) the same. I'd appreciate others views and will leave a pointer to here on both user pages, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The original photo, which was uploaded by Daos, is taken as it is in real life, from the monastary. The one that Alex wants to replace it with has been brushed into being more concrete showing, more complete...but I don't want that photo to replace the original one. I have written Battle of Vaslui and Battle of Baia and I don't want the photo of Stephen to be shows that way. He can simply upload his version on his own and then if someone likes his version better, they can use that version for the articles, as long as it's not Battle of Vaslui or Battle of Baia. --Anittas 13:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, anyone can modify an article at wikipedia. And the picture ain't brushed, rather scanned than photographed (no glow at the golden areas). --Alex:D 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How can this be GFDL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The original version is the one uploaded by me. Check these:
  • The painting, cca. 1928-1930
    The painting, cca. 1928-1930
  • Same image in colours. Note that the deteriorations are the same!
    Same image in colours. Note that the deteriorations are the same!
  • Cropped from previous image (587 × 587 pixel)
    Cropped from previous image (587 × 587 pixel)
  • The image as today (236 × 239 px). More "white spots"...
    The image as today (236 × 239 px). More "white spots"...

So, which one is the original? The small one should follow the Redundant/bad quality procedure, but I thought that "rewriting" it would spare the time needed for replacements on other wikipedias. --Alex:D 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We have CommonsDelinker for that. Please upload the different revisions to different filenames. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:28, 27 October 2007 (GMT)

Liftarn (talk · contribs)

Moved from Commons:Deletion_requests/Uploads_of_Liftarn#Further_comments. Other user's affected are at least Samulili, Collard and Jeff G.. Quote from there: -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn has been been nominating my images for deletion because they depict graffiti which I am not the copyright holder for (!). See this and this. Beware of commenting against him, because you'll be harassed just like I have been. Not particularly pertinent to this deletion request, but it should be mentioned nonetheless. if any of you have had this problem, then list them below. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If Liftarn thinks that the graffiti is a copyright violation, it is his right to nominate it for deletion as much as Jeff Q may nominate all of Liftarn's upload for deletion. Liftarn's two deletion requests are not what I consider disruptive actions to prove a point. Note that the question of copyright on graffiti has been discussed and that there is no reason why it should not be a Derivative work.
But what's the deal with this edit summary? [21]
I was upset. I shouldn't have done that. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fred J 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Kingdom is a little unclear in the case of graffiti. O2 (息 • 吹) 22:11, 27 October 2007 (GMT)
I think Fred meant "Jeff G." (me) rather than "Jeff Q". In any case, it's up to three deletion requests (including Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Louisa May Alcott headshot.jpg), and probably more (I haven't looked at User talk:Samulili lately). Plus, Liftarn continues to annoy by failing to do the following, despite polite requests to do so four and five months ago:
  • Categorize files.
  • Use Edit Summaries.
  • Date posts, in addition to signing them.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And that is required? I would also reccmend that you back down from your personal vendetta. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
That feels like a personal attack, as does this.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to point out that you have been nominating my images for deletion, for frivolous reasons. // Liftarn
Haha. Nice try, but that's my line. :D :D Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Per Bryan's closing note on Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Liftarn[22], I'd like Liftarn sanctioned because, time and time again, this user has disregarded this project's policies and transwiki'd copyright violations, and for the reasons specified above. Enough is enough. See also the archives of this very noticeboard.

Samulili "would like to see us prohibit Liftarn from uploading any more images until he has helped us to sort out this mess."[23][24]

Patstuart wrote "Countless times I have seen this person upload images or transwiki them inappropriately. He has shows little regard for proper sourcing, or, when it fails to exist, he often uploads it anyway and just places some tag on it, leaving the rest of us to actually deal with the fallout. A perusal of the history of thie person's talk page should show this. Enough is enough - if he wants any specific images saved, he needs to source them all better now."[25][26]

I agreed " Support - This measure taken to deal with the user's violation of policy would go beyond previous such measures, and it would certainly limit the damage and the necessary cleanup work."[27]

Lewis Collard! wrote " Support a similar measure: let's temporarily sanction this user, so that he does not upload any files that he did not take himself until he cleans up behind him. His gallery shows a lot of confusion; most of these aren't bad uploads but many are tagged badly, missing source information, etc."[28]

Patstuart also wrote " Support - user uploads unfathomable amount of images; he should take a break to sort out licensing, etc. on all the old ones."[29]

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could stick to the point, nomination of 2 images that can legitimately be questioned is hardly a hanging offence. Ignoring of a polite request to "Categorize files, Use Edit Summaries, and Date posts" might be annoying but isn't exactly disruptive behaviour. The problem appears to be bulk transwiki-ing of images. I find the tools and procedures commonly used to move images from other wikis to commons are totally inadequate. Often information is lost, normally revision history (ability to see previous versions), and any discussion page are lost. Often the page history, editors and sometimes original uploader are lost. User:Liftarn's trans-wikis sound as though they are as bad as the average transfer, the difference is he's blindly transferred lots. Whatever types of remedial action that User:Liftarn needs to make should also be required of all trans-wiki-ers.
Personally I would prefer a moratorium on trans-wiking until it can be done without any loss of information. I also find links on the commons image, that point back to the 'original' image on the source wiki, are rather pointless for most uses as the page pointed to is just linked back to the commons page (ie it points to itself). I'm not quite sure about why commons can't just be linked to the original image on whatever wiki in much the same way the other wikis transparently link to the commons images.
Is there a better forum for discussing trans-wiki-ing in general? --Tony Wills 11:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And it's more than that, Harassing users because they tell him to wipe his ass behind him, is plain *not on*. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do. Some problems seem to be based on some assumption of bad faith from both sides. I'd wish that the crusades against each other are stopped and that we start discussing some more fundamental problems. What exactly has caused the trouble we are currently in. And how can we solve it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this crusade.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
All I'm interested in is that Jeff G stop harass me. I people don't want me to transwiki images than I'm OK with that too. It's simply not worth the effort if you get insulted and harassed for it. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
Did you have realized, that Bryan had talked aoubt both sides? You are one side, you should'nt be happy about the end of the opponents "crussade" you should tell, that you also will stopp doing more from you're side. It seems, you think it's all only a problem of the "other side" and you are only the Victim. That's not the best style. Marcus Cyron 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have stopped the behavior that you call "harassing" and Bryan calls a "crusade" as of 19:28, 28 October 2007, over four hours ago (I regret it took me an hour to post about that above).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, I was rather uncivil to you after you nominated my images for deletion; what's more, I'm partly responsible for you being here. That, as pissed off as I may have been at the time, was wrong of me. And, given that you had all your uploads nominated for deletion, and I was not exactly on your side in the discussion, I can understand that you, too, would have been every bit as pissed off as I was, plus a ton more. In short, there was a lack of cool-headedness and understanding on my part, at least, and probably a lack of the former on yours. That's all there is to it.

Grudges are stupid. For that reason, I'd like to work towards a cease-fire with you. K? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn, I'd also like to work towards a cease-fire with you. K?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Jeff has a point (although I've asked him to slow it down). Liftarn, as an administrator, is often negligent, sometimes willfully of the copyright. I can't fathom what in the world led him to this edit. Administrators ought to know better than to give bad licenses to such files. Patstuart 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Liftarn is not an admin. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Joymaster (talk · contribs)

This admin abuse his admin rights to restore images uploaded by himself which was deleted in regular deletion requests for missing permission and/or license or source. Files was restored from follow deletion requests:

I can't find a reason which justify his action. --GeorgHH 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to the user about the matter, but without much luck it seems. Part of the problem seems to be a bit of a language barrier. Even though the user has {{User en-3}} on their user page, they insist on speaking Polish. Do we have anyone who speaks Polish here?
I agree that using administrative powers to restore one's own uploads is inappropriate. I don't know if it was done in bad faith in this case or if the user is simply unaware of our procedures. In any case, I think this kind of behaviour shows that the user (and here I speak in general terms; this isn't the first time I've seen this) is not ready for the responsibilities of adminship.
With those cases that I've seen in mind, I've often felt that we lack a procedure for suggesting and deciding on revocation of administrative privileges. We have such a procedure at Swedish Wikipedia (in addition to annual re-elections of current administrators), which I believe adds credibility to the administrators, giving users a way to voice their concerns and (if they're wrong) see that the administrators represent the community. I think this is especially needed at Commons, where it is so easy to gain adminship (and has been even more so in the past). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Admin Pimke is from Poland, he speaks other languages very well. Marcus Cyron 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is completely inappropriate, and someone needs to warn Joymaster that s/he is in danger of a block. I understand the language barrier can be a problem, but the way s/he is going about things suggests s/he is simply being obstinate (I realize assuming good faith is necessary, but Joymaster's actions are speaking quite poorly). This adminstrator has to know that it's not OK to restore one's own images after deletion, and insisting on ignoring any messages addressed in a language s/he claims to understand is a severe problem. This needs to be handled properly. Patstuart 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact the language barrier is difficult as they claim en-3 which really should mean that tehy understand what has been said. This is certainly blockable when we are happy that the user actually understands. That said a short block may improve "understanding" but that may just be me! --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocking an administrator would be rather meaningless, as they could simply unblock themselves. And I feel that if a situation with a user is so bad that we feel that we have no other recourse than to block, we can't claim that the user is a "trusted member of the community" who we expect to "agree to follow relevant policies and respect consensus of the Commons' users". I think that's the question that needs to be addressed first before considering a block. Is anyone sharing my feeling that we don't have procedures for de-adminship nominations that are as well-defined as they should be? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In part I agree. However an admin who removed a community approve block would leave me pestering a steward for removal of rights so it may be worth a try. Fred was working on some de-admin stuff I know --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, after diskussion in June with the deletion request of this user and the fact that he is not willing to follow relevant policies, a de-adminship is to consider. BTW, Joymasters work of administrative things is very low.--GeorgHH 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the user has done exactly 5 administrator actions in about 8 or 9 months, and none since June. Except, of course, for the mass restoration. One must wonder if, in a few months, this administrator would be eligible for deadminship anyway. If Joymaster is willing to redelete the files and stop now, then obviously no action should be taken. However, if he is not, then we should take action. And, Herby, you state that blocking this user would do nothing. This might be the preemptive measure needed to avoid a nuclear strike. Surely you know that unblocking yourself is a de-adminable offense in and of itself. If this user had all their content redeleted, and was blocked a week, that might get the point across. However, like I said, admin activity has been fairly sparse, so one must wonder if Joymaster is up for deadminship anyway. Patstuart 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Patstuart - for clarity the comment you attribute to me is LX's --Herby talk thyme 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

S/he also restored files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Joymaster III. Has anyone checked whether OTRS permissions have been received now for these images? If so, do they reliably indicate (check also mail headers to see where the mails came from) that the third parties who own the copyrights have agreed to GFDL licensing, and if so, what's the ticket number(s) to use for adding the OTRS tag? If not, the files should be re-deleted and the user should be de-adminned for not being familiar with our policies and not willing to comply with them. (If Joymaster does have e-mail permissions, then why not forward them to OTRS? If the photographers are his friends, why is it so hard to get e-mails confirming the GFDL releases?) But as I said, first check whether there's something new regarding these images (from www.3elt.com, Borys Andrachiewicz (transport.asi.pwr.wroc.pl), and a variety of other places) in OTRS. Lupo 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have conducted several searches on OTRS (using "Borys Andrachiewicz", "Dariusz Ludwikowski", "transport.asi.pwr.wroc.pl", "www.3elt.com"... I have zero retrievals, so no, there is no permission stored on OTRS about such images, as far as I can tell.
Having permissions on wiki or from private e-mails is always dogdy because of reliability issues and that's why we have OTRS now. If someone speaking polish could please convince Joymaster to forward such permissions, we could maybe dismiss this unpleasant situation for this time, and get on with our lives. If this is not done any soon, I agree with speedy-deleting all illegaly restored files and ask for the user's deadminship. In what concerns licensing, Commons admins have to set the example. Patrícia msg 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Now Joymaster add a entry Licensing to the information template on his images, for example [30] [31] [32] He gives a invisible link to an image ( Image:Zgoda Komendanta WKU Gdynia - Wikipedia.jpeg ) which shows a permission or similar, but it looks like to give permission only to wikipedia.pl. Translation by a polish speaking user is needed! --GeorgHH 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The permission is OK. It allows to put images in Wikipedia as Public Domain, but it does not restrict it's usage to Wikipedia. Let's  Keep those files and give Joymaster some time to collect permissions for others. A.J. 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • At least something. But note that s/he already had several months to bring by the permissions. I wouldn't wait another couple of months. Lupo 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    If the original permission is Public Domain, then Joymaster will also have to change the license of most of those pictures from Oficjalna strona WKU Gdynia as they are currently provided with a GFDL license. — Xavier, 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Per the logs, there was one restoration 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) and then many restorations over the two hour period from 20:15 through 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC). Each and every file restored should have its restoration justified within one week from the restoration. While some of the restored files now say "(see: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zgoda_Komendanta_WKU_Gdynia_-_Wikipedia.jpeg permission])", which evaluates to "(see: permission)" and could instead reference Image:Zgoda Komendanta WKU Gdynia - Wikipedia.jpeg directly, the permission should really reside with OTRS, as specifically mentioned in the existing deletion requests for those files. Similarly while Image:Biuro Hydrograficzne Marynarki Wojennej - Reklama wydawnictw2.jpg says "(see: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BiuroHydrograficzneMarynarkiWojennej_-_zgoda.JPG permission])", which evaluates to "(see: permission)" and could instead reference Image:BiuroHydrograficzneMarynarkiWojennej - zgoda.JPG directly, the permission should really reside with OTRS, as specifically mentioned in the existing deletion requests for those files. Even more troublingly, Image:BiuroHydrograficzneMarynarkiWojennej - zgoda.JPG says "Public Domain", while Image:Biuro Hydrograficzne Marynarki Wojennej - Reklama wydawnictw2.jpg is licensed {{Cc-by-2.5}}. The user continued to restore the files and upload new files for over an hour after LX posted to the user's user talk page about the problem.
Thus, it appears that the user has done the following:
  • Lied about its understanding of Commons Policies and Procedures.
  • Lied about its understanding of English.
  • Uploaded files that were not its own.
  • Lied about the licensing on those files.
  • Restored files that were removed via Deletion Requests without proper justification.
  • Misused its administrative powers in performing the restorations (it could have just reuploaded the files).
  • Changed the licensing on those files to licensing that is incompatible with OTRS.
  • Continued to upload and restore files that were not its own after being told not to, claiming rights it did not have.
  • Failed to redelete its files to comply with consensus.
  • Failed to express sorrow, regret, or remorse for the above.
Any normal user doing such things would be banned. We should hold Administrators to a higher standard, not a lower one.
I agree that we need deadminship procedures, and could use the bureaucratic en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request_comment_on_users and en:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship as models, but we could also include "and the user's sysop bit" in a Deletion Request.
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think someone needs to just be bold and go ahead and either block him and delete his stuff or issue the ultimatum. We really shouldn't waffle about this. This is admin abuse of the most egregious kind, and to simply ignore it would be to completely flout the rules. The issue isn't even whether he's right in the license; ti's the complete disregard of policy by undeleting and basiocally only using his administrative power for that function. Is anyone willing to close this discussion? I wish we had an arbcom here, as the result of this case would be unequivocal. But we don't, so we have to go with the response here. Patstuart 18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't talk some weeks about this problem. I made Nails with Heads: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Joymaster (de-adminship). Marcus Cyron 11:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

About a de-adminship procedure

I see that there are people who are willing to initiate a de-adminship procedure. We should be really careful about this. This will be Commons' first involuntary request for de-adminship and I would like to share some thoughts.

What is consensus about de-adminship? It can be basically seen from two ways: A de-adminship procedure is a confirmation of trust in an administrator. This means that the administrator is required to get support from a super majority similar to a regular adminship procedure. Another view is that a de-adminship procedure is a procedure that show that there is community consensus to de-admin the administrator. In this case, a super majority is required to remove the adminship. The third option, with a normal majority, is not very wiki-like, because we are used to decide things in ways that have wide support among the community, but it may be the option the most acceptable to everybody.

Something that is not really relevant for this case I think is when a de-adminship procedure can be initiated. Adminstrators normally attract a lot of fire and we may soon be dealing with ridiculous de-adminship procedures where one user requests de-adminship because their images were deleted... For the specific case of Joymaster, this appears to me to not apply since there are at least substantial reasons to start such a procedure.

So far my thoughts about the de-adminship procedure. I would like to have the general case separated from the specific Joymaster case, because we are setting a precedent for the future. Opinions? -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A procedure that clearly requires the nominator to name specific deviations from the expected behaviour of administrators (listing examples and counter-examples) with reference to diffs or log entries should eliminate bad-faith nominations or at least give other administrators than the nominated one the mandate to speedily close them.
In my opinion, the requirements to overthrow a previous decision to grant adminship should be as high as the requirements placed on the original decision. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I support LX's opinion, though no one has voted to keep Joymaster an admin as I just voted to fire him/her. Steward policies from Meta suggests: "Stewards are not allowed to make decisions, such as 'this user should (or should not) be promoted'. Their task is to implement valid community decisions. If there are any doubts on the election, the steward will not act or take decisions before the uncertainty is eliminated. The only exceptions are in emergency cases where no local user with that right is available, or for projects that demonstrably have no community." Since we have no steward here, any steward there can desysop a highly problematic admin in an emergency, which is not fully defined. I consider Joymaster's unilateral undeletion of too many problem images like an emergency, but I also consider that should any admins be desysoped in an emergency without votes, they should also be able resume adminship when the emergency is over without a new vote. Any comments to my thoughts?--Jusjih 01:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that requiring a supermajority to remove an administrator may lead to the retention of an administrator whose behavior is not as egregious as in the current case, but who is nevertheless disruptive. Given the typical number of participants in a RfA, an administrator who has not mobilized the collective ire of the community could likely avoid removal with the support of two or three cronies. Instead, I think a supermajority should be required to keep an administrator. Additionally, a nomination for removal should be endorsed by two uninvolved editors, in addition to the criterion suggested by LX, to prevent frivolous or spiteful nominations. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Walter. I have been at en.sp for a while, and when there are a lot of users, it is almost impossible to get a supermajority on anything, even the most obvious things. I almost guarantee you this deadminship would have failed on en. I would say, given the easy manner in which users can seek adminship, requiring only about a 50% majority is not a problem. In fact, it's rare that users have 50% vote against them in an RFA. What this says to me is that if a user manages to get over a 50% deadminship approval, after being able to garner over 80% support, this user is probably not worthy of adminship. I do not think that 50% of users will vote against someone simply in a revenge/gotcha sort of way. Patstuart 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this before, recently. My view is that we have wide latitude as a community to define exactly what the permanent deadminship process is, within reason. I think 50% to deadmin is not unreasonable. Certainly not 80% to deadmin by any means. I think requiring 80% KEEP or else you lose it is too much... some admins do difficult things and may make enemies. As for temporary deadminship I think as long as an admin or two or three certify that there's a genuine emergency reason to do a temporary deadminship, and that it's caveated as a temporary thing, that's no big deal. We don't need a LOT of people commenting on it. It can always be undone, and better safe than sorry. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We might want to decide this ASAP, as it appears there are a lot of Polish Wikipedians coming over and supporting Joymaster, and it will be close. I suggest within a few days we write it as policy. Also, another suggestion: a bureaucrat can close the discussion just as s/he normally would, otherwise, we will never reach consensus on close issues. The 'crat can then contact the steward over the issue. Patstuart 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a 'crat, and I planned to close the discussion after 7 days, more or less, and adjudge consensus, then take the heat if any about that, and then go to the stewards if necessary. (unless some other 'crat beats me to it on one or more of those steps) Note that consensus is not necessarily a strict numerical vote. Sure, it would be nice to drive this policy to conclusion before the close but it's not strictly necessary. That said, what is standing in our way on finalising the policy? Lets, if we can. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot of faith in our 'crats here however I do share some of Patstuart's concerns. There does seem to be some voting that may not be fully informed and so may be supportive for reasons other than most workers here would consider valid for this. When it's over we do need to dust off the dormant admin policy and make sure we can deal with situations in the future --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Herby)
I oppose Patstuart's suggestion and Lar's "consensus"-idea... If users from Polish Wikipedia come and support him, they ought to count as well (as long as they have at least some useful activity on Commons in the past). When the vote started, it was said that 75% or 50% removes should lead to removal, and such a voting system must be upheld. The voting should not be closed pre-maturely at a time most suitable to "our" prefered outcome...
I furthermore think that >75% removes should be the limit because that would be closest to true consensus. If it lingers around 75% after 7 days then the vote should be extended; if it still lingers then the 'crat can decide.
Fred J 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. Why is it that everybody can vote at RFAs? Why not add a rule for both admin and de-admin that people have to be regular contributors at Commons to decide who gets extra rights. Don't know how it is handled in other wiki projects, but at German WP you must have at least 200 votes and be 2 month registered to vote at RFAs, while here this is the minimum for getting admin. -- Cecil 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Cecil!) Just to stress - in my view all votes count. But when this is over the policy is done carefully so that we do not lurch into another of these without thought & planning. It is a pity, however equally in my view it is necessary. Another one should be better prepared for --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(inserting my comment here)
Note that I just added to my comment that a user must have had at least some activity here on Commons in the past. It might seem obvious that you can't register just to vote, but I thought I should mention it...
@Cecil: Commons is different from Wikipedia. Even if a Wikipedian hardly contribute to Commons, he might still be dependant on what happens here and should be eligible to give his opinion in RfAs and the like. Here is an example from earlier today that would prove that point.
Fred J 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the appropriate sections at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship‎, for which there seemed to be universal consensus. Please feel free to change the wording. I have also opened a poll at Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Desysopship_as_a_result_of_power_abuse to establish consensus the approximate margin necessary to remove adminship. Patstuart 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Cecil: We haven't had formal sufferage in the past, we've looked to bureacrats to use their good judgement.
Fred J, I do not favour requiring more than 75% remove. I am coming around to thinking that 50% remove is sufficient. That is actually a harder hurdle than retention on some wikis that have a reconfirmation process... They sometimes require the same majority as initial confirmation so in other words, a 30% opposition, for example, would cause a failure. I think requiring 75% is a bit too high (this is a change from what I said earlier I admit) and would favour 50% to deadmin. That's a higher bar than the initial adminship (which technically requires about 30% to "not admin"). Again all of this is cast as 'strict votes' but really is more of a guide to adjudging consensus... as I said, I would tend to heed people who had no contributions at all who just turned up here this once less than I would heed long term regulars who have experience of the issues raised. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to the consensus-issue above.. I fully agree that users with very few (less than 20 or so) contributions can almost be discarded. My point is that the current support voters are established contributors and shouldn't be disregarded. [33] [34] [35] [36]. Alright, enough said about that!
Re the % limit. Once the policy is written, I support a lower limit, such as 50%. But in this particular vote I prefer 75%, to avoid accusations that we lowered the limit after people started to vote for keep. Anyways, I can accept 50%.
Fred J 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Basically I am with Fred here. It is unfortunate that we are trying to make policy on the hoof. 50% would be fine with me given the serious concerns involved but for this one I think a higher figure would be correct. However I do think the reasons folks give with their votes should be seen as at least relevant if not important. --Herby talk thyme 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you COULD argue that since Marcus said "this is like a regular adminship" that the threshold is not 75%... not even 50%.. but rather that there needs to be 75% or so in FAVOUR of Joymaster KEEPING his adminship. I think you very well COULD argue that. But let's not, it's too wikilawyerish. I would totally support needing to see about 75% or so of the reasoned comments being in favour of his losing it before we considered it clear that we have consensus, in this particular case, with the understanding that for any ones run after this, it's 50% or so.... so that we are absolutely as fair about this as we can be. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bruno Lamothe

Please check his contributions, about 75% of my checks were obvious copyright violations, presented as "personal works". I haven't time to check them all (time to go to work...) Michelet-密是力 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you have ask him? Marcus Cyron 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary; copyvios are obvious, and user has already had many images deleted. I suggest a mass deletion request (I may get to it myself). Patstuart 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal of the GFDL

In a recent deletion discussion, א.שטיימן (talk · contribs) stated that he would like to withdraw his release of Image:בורקס.jpg under the GFDL. As I'm sure you admins know, Section 9 of the GNU Free Documentation License ("TERMINATION") states that the license is non-revocable. I have told the user this, both on the deletion discussion and on his talk page, but he continues to ignore me and revert my edits to the image, in which I re-add the GFDL license. I hereby request that the discussion be closed and the user be warned not to revert me and reminded that the GFDL is not legally revocable. --Boricuæddie 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not cross post - this is already dealt with at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FImage:.D7.91.D7.95.D7.A8.D7.A7.D7.A1.jpg. Patstuart 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that discussion until after I posted this. My mistake. --Boricuæddie 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Charles Belmont

User:Charles Belmont is still uploading copyrighted pictures after like 10 warnings, including a last one. Someone please block him for a day or two. Patstuart 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The user Denniss has been reverting copyright tags which I have changed--all of these images have been directly uploaded from the website WWII in Color and I have noticed under the FAQ that:
Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).
Please see user contributions. I have already alerted this user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denniss, this user has also failed to state why he/she has reverted the copyright tags.
The following images have been vandalized


-TabooTikiGod 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this vandalism, but probably a misunderstanding of copyright status. You are right in the fact that the copyright status is unknown. Normal deletion process for these types of images shall proceed normally. O2 (息 • 吹) 22:46, 15 November 2007 (GMT)
This user has made some of the same changes on the English Wikipedia Denniss along with another user Akradecki I have left notices about why I have changed the copyright tags on those images. The user, Bzuk, who has uploaded the majority of images from WWII in Color is attempting to protest this issue on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Help_needed_on_Image_challenges as well as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_of_Images_uploaded_from_website_WWII_in_Color Please see discussion. -TabooTikiGod 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright status is known for the US military aircraft photographed by military personnel. No matter the source, the photo will be in public domain because it is the work of a US Government agent in the course of their duties. Binksternet 07:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Read the FAQ from the website, the webmaster has a disclaimer concerning the copyright status. -TabooTikiGod 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The website's disclaimer can say anything it wants to but if the photo was taken by a US Government party then it's public domain under {{PD-USGov}}. We don't have to look at who took the photo originally, who digitized it, who is storing it on their webserver, or who feels they have exclusive rights to it, though we can thank these people for their time and energy. The photo is public domain if the photographer was US Government. Binksternet 08:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Administrator O2 (息 • 吹) says otherwise. -TabooTikiGod 08:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is likely these images (of US equipment anyway) were taken by US government employees but unless a chain of provenance can be shown, that's not enough. The source asserts they don't know and can't warrant they were. Therefore these images don't have a clear license. I think bringing them all over from en:wp (where they could easily have been used under fair use) to here (where they are pretty clearly deletable unless someone can find evidence of who took them, or at least some assertion on a reliable place to that effect) may have been wasted effort. Nevertheless, I'd like to see a bit less focus on who said what when and a bit more focus on what to do next, if possible. For the record reverting copy tags is not vandalism, it is edit warring. Calling it vandalism is inappropriate. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator violating Wikipedia policy

It is clear that from the source of this image from WWII in Color that the "Copyright : unknown"

Even after knowing this information, the user Akradecki chose to revert this copyright tag twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AP-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg&diff=171792994&oldid=171760889

Image History page

-TabooTikiGod 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the English Wikipedia. You need to use either the noticeboard there or the incidents board there. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:25, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)

If you look at User talk:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) you will see that this bot uploads (too) many files with missing source, license or permission information or copyvios. And it looks useless to notify Magnus Manske. It seems that other users can use this bot, but I cant see a way to identify who uses this bot and so its impossible to contact the uploading user. Any idea how we can reduce the numbers of faulty files uploaded by this bot? --GeorgHH 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful but I agree with you completely. Plenty of uncategorised pages too. It would be interesting to know how multiple people can use one bot account? I'm inclined to think the bot flag might be revoked for now even? --Herby talk thyme 19:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Magnus is super-helpful in creating tools and this looked in theory a really good one, but apparently it's misused quite a lot. I'm in favour of limiting the number of uploads per hour so all images can be properly checked. It's not a flagged bot, right? Patrícia msg 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - the word "bot" got to me! Magnus's tools are great but it seems like this one is being abused - the talk page at present tells it's own story - needs something to be done I guess --Herby talk thyme 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If Magnus can somehow limit the number of uploads per hour, I'd be fine with that. After all, it would just be some more contributions to check, together with every other upload. Also, I'd like to see if a system where users could be verified somehow could be used, so that only trusted users could use the tool. Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see what Magnus can do (GeorgHH has invited him to join this discussion) Patrícia msg 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot is a great tool. At the nl wikipedia we have a template which links directly to this tool. Me and some other users use this to easily transfer a lot files from the nl wikipedia to commons. Multichill 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing the discussion tree here... First, there's two tools of mine using this "bot", commonshelper (transfering files from other wikimedia projects) and flickr2commons (transfering CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from flickr). Commonshelper will check for a suitable license tag, and refuse transfer if none can be found. Flickr2commons checks for the license given on the flickr image. That's about all check a tool can reasonably do on the respective sources, IMHO.

As for "trusted users": I am forbidden by toolserver policy to ask for user names and passwords from wikimedia projects, so I can't really check if someone using the tool is a trusted user or a vandal (or just a newbie who found the tool). I could roll my own user management, but IMHO that would introduce buerocracy without any real results. I could probably limit the upload per IP per hour, but that would hinder some good, busy people and not affect AOLers (changing IPs) etc.

I think the solution is more simple: Besides showing up as a "regular" upload, all uploads through the "bot" will be in its upload history, gallery, and Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review. So, I recommend to be extra trigger-happy with these uploads. Even if a good image gets deleted in the process, there's always our deleted copy to restore, not to mention the original image at the source. IMHO we can expect the "transferer" to fix the description before transfering, or immediately afterwards. If that doesn't happen, nuke it. --Magnus Manske 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see a part of the problem is that everybody can use Move-to-commons assistant with switched on the field „Directly upload file (using commons user name 'File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)')“. Then we cant see who the uploader was has started the transfer from Wiki to Commons and have no contact person here on Commons (in this case we could delete problem files directly). So I think this tool should be changed to a version without this option, or it must requiere to state a commons user name. --GeorgHH 08:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We can see who the original uploader was and that is probably what is needed. It is ofcourse a problem that you have to go to the varius source wikipedias. // Liftarn
I think you have misunderstud me: it is right that we can see who was the uploader on Wikipedia, but we can't see who transfered the file to Commons. (I have corrected my statement above, see undelined section.) --GeorgHH 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
See the bottom field at commonshelper. I dont think many people use this field. You could make some sort of authentication scheme like erwin did for his categorybot. Multichill 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My main problem is that there is nothing stopping users from using this bot to upload images to commons which are currently nominated for deletion (or tagged as no source) on the original wiki. Also since there is no check if the username field in commonshelper agrees with the user who uploaded it that means that this can be missused (I've seen several images tagged with my username and I have never used Commonshelper). Wouldn't it then be better to remove this field completly? /Lokal_Profil 13:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That is totally unacceptable, in my opinion. I agree with GeorgHH that it should ask for a valid Commons name. If this is not possible, then I'd kindly ask Magnus to change CH back to its original state, where uploads would always show up as being done by a Commons user. Not as quick as the new version, but reliable, at least :(. Patrícia msg 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"SeRiOuSLy?™" (talk · contribs)

1.) Is that an acceptable username? 2.) He's been uploading several obvious copyvios and claiming that they're released under the GFDL. Somebody please stop him. --Boricuæddie 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted every image uploaded by this user as a clear-cut copyright violation. I also think this is an unacceptable username, but I would like the input from other administrators on this issue. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I asked the user to contribute in accordance with Commons policies and guidelines and to choose a difference username.[37] Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't edited since then, although I think a block may be appropriate with such a username, just to encourage him to get a new one. Giggy\Talk 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Such accounts are usually vandal ones in my view - however maybe just keep an eye on this one for now --Herby talk thyme 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, what is the problem with the username (inclusion of tm ?) ? --Tony Wills 10:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Taken literally, a claim is made about the username that is either not accurate, or likely violates our view of acceptable username, i.e., it endorses a product or brand. Also, it does not appear on most keyboards. Hence, many may not easily be able to type a name containing that symbol, an inconvenience to other editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly my reasoning. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Una viejaputa

The name means "An old bitch", which seems to be referring to the woman in the pictures the user has uploaded. This is an obviously unacceptable username; somebody please block. --Boricuæddie 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Kleber.ferreira/Jurema Oliveira

Kleber.ferreira (talk · contribs) appears to believe that the act of uploading transfers all copyrights to the uploader and is consequently uploading vast amounts of problem images. The user seems undeterred by and unresponsive to instructions and warnings.

Jurema Oliveira (talk · contribs) has created Kleber.ferreira's user page. The two users frequently edit each other's uploads[38][39], adding or removing each other as authors (but giving sources that contradict these claims).

Is it time for a checkuser? Blocks? Can we get someone speaking Portuguese to make sense of what he/she/they are trying to do? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jurema is a pt sysop, let me talk to her and see what's going on. Patrícia msg 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I asked Jurema if she could clarify the situation, she replied that she was engaged in getting permissions from a cousin of Kleber, who was the author of several photos; I further insisted to clarify why she was editing his userpage, etc, Jurema replied that Kleber is a guy living in Italy, a newbie, who had asked her about editing images on Commons, and she was just trying to help.
So, I am guessing that it's all well-intentioned editing but maybe not very good guidance (at least visible guidance on Commons) from Jurema Oliveira? She is a trusted user on pt.wiki and even agreed to a checkuser if necessary (right now I don't see any reason to do it). I can try to talk with Kleber to guide him through the permissions processing (I'm on OTRS too). Patrícia msg 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your help, and my thanks to Jurema for clearing things up a bit. I agree that CU doesn't seem motivated. Please do continue to work with Kleber.ferreira to sort out existing issues and educate him about licensing (for example, don't use {{PD-self}} for works by others and don't use {{Gfdl}} for public domain works). Thanks again. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn (talk · contribs) personal attacks


In edit summaries for some debatable edits, User:Liftarn refers to personal attacks on other users. First, he personally attacked User:Jaakobou by writing „No, your paranoia doesn't count.“ in an edit summary[40]. One day later, with nearly identical words as above “No, paranoia doesn't count.” [41] he removed a category that I had added to an image.
Apart from his behaviour against other users, he removed the Category:Antisemitism that I had added to the Image:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif‎. -- Túrelio 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no sign of any antisemitism in the image so I feel the removal was correct. The edit comment was a bit out of line. // Liftarn
Please do not further engage in edit warring, since this is not a solution. I'm happy to see Liftarn admitting the comment was out of line, and you should work from that on. Please present arguments in favour or against having such a category before altering more images. My personal view: a category which can apparently be so biased, and not sounding very NPOV, should probably be very little used, if at all. Patrícia msg 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Putting cartoons like this one, drawn by a cartoonist who is apparently not antisemitic, in the antisemitism category should be thought about thrice. To me, author's intentions are to denounce Isreali violence against Palestinians and it has nothing to do with antisemitism nor antizionism. This said, Liftarn, if you think Túrelio has misinterpreted the cartoon, and if you really want him to understand his mistake, you could have explained this to him in a more civil manner. — Xavier, 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You are going to try to tell me that Carlos Latuff is not anti-Semetic? No offense, Xhienne; the man claims not to be anti-Semetic, but his artwork says otherwise: Image:Bombman.gif, Image:TelAvivbuststop.jpg, Image:Freud have an explanation.gif. Patstuart (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing even remotley antisemitic in those images. Image:Bombman.gif gives a theory about the psychological background of a suicide bomber, nothing antisemitic about that. Image:TelAvivbuststop.jpg is a warning sign. How can that be antisemitic? Image:Freud have an explanation.gif is (again) psychological background. What's antisemitic about that? You could try some other images. Image:Forgiveness2.jpg clearly shows an Arab terrorist strangling an innocent Jewish boy. Obviously antisemitic, right? // Liftarn
Though one may not call Latuff an anti-semite, his cartoon Image:Latuff cartoon Israeli soldier voting.jpg, which is about to be deleted for copy-vio, is without doubt anti-semitic. You simply have to read what Latuff has put into the mouth of the jewish soldier (upper balloon) I'm a religious soldier and love to kill palestinian kids for fun .... -- Túrelio 11:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Noting antisemitic about that. It's an Israeli soldier, not a Jewish soldier. // Liftarn
For my part I guess I find that image offensive. In the end no one can see that image through my eyes any more than I can see it through other peoples. Explaining to me that it is not offensive does not change what I see - just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And we can't add categories based on personal bias. Especially when dealing with living persons. In this case is's extra wrong since he explicitly states he's not an antisemite and there is nothing to indicate that he is. // Liftarn
So, if en:Alfred Rosenberg or en:Joseph Goebbels would have said "I'm not anti-semitic", we also shouldn't call them so? -- Túrelio 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a very different case. a) they admitted it, b) we have reliable sources saying they were antisemites and c) they undeniably were antisemites. Using spurious logic and own interpretations you can easily call anybody an antisemite. For instance Charles Lazarus is clearly an antisemite. He founded Toys "R" Us. Toys "R" Us sell Pampers diapers. In a commercial for Pampers they used Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries". Adolf Hitler liked Wagner's music. Hitler was an antisemite. Ergo: Charles Lazarus is an antisemite. // Liftarn
For my part, I'm satisfied with Liftarn's above statement in regard to his edit summaries. Though I still disagree with him about some of Latuff's cartoons (Category:Antisemitic pictures may be less POV-looking than Category:Antisemitism), that was not the issue of my claim here. -- Túrelio 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too there. While it can be difficult to see them, there are lines between anti-semitism, anti-zionism, and anti-isrealism. However, nasty edit comments don't help anything, and I hope Liftarn will choose his words more diplomaically in the future. --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two different things. Antisemitsm and Antiisraelism. So the Category was false to add. But do we need these unencyclopedic pictures? I don't think so. The only show one side of the medail. The Wikimedia-Project should bring the peaople of the world together - not to help them to build new agressions. And I mean both sides. Marcus Cyron 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They are free pictures that can be used to illustrate a lot of things. Free political cartoons (especially of good quality) are hard to find. // Liftarn

I've looked at the images, some of them are deffinatly anti-israely/antizionist/whatever you call it - it deffinatly can offend me as a Jewish and Israely. Imsges like Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg, Image:ArielSharon.gif, Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif, Image:BabyKillerZiombies.gif, Image:WekillforFUN.gif and such, are Racism. I do agree with images such as Image:2 war.gif, Cruel.gif, and I understand Image:Freud have an explanation.gif and such, but I do have my limits. Yuval Y § Chat § 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, personal views is not a reliable source. There is no objective evidence of any racism. // Liftarn
A quite useful strategy for any discussion: my position is the objective one, yours is a personal view aka POV. -- Túrelio 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
More of a "do no harm" strategy. If there is no evidence of any racism, the image don't gets added to Category:Racism (or Category:Antisemitism). Quite siple really. I don't think spurious logic like "the image is critical of Ariel Sharon -> Ariel Sharon is Jewish -> the image is critical of a Jew -> the image is critical of all Jews -> the image is antisemitic" is a good idea. Especially since so many other images of the same artist makes his position very clear. Like I wrote earlier. Using that kind of logic you can easily prove that for instance Charles Lazarus is clearly an antisemite. He founded Toys "R" Us. Toys "R" Us sell Pampers diapers. In a commercial for Pampers they used Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries". Adolf Hitler liked Wagner's music. Hitler was an antisemite. Ergo: Charles Lazarus is an antisemite. // Liftarn
I can understand the motive in Image:Denial.gif but do show me ONE "Political caricature" displaying the person as a blood hunting deamon or such - which is not about the Israely goverment or Zionist - and then you can claim it isn't racist caricature. I belive you saw what happend when Muhammad was painted as a pig - those 'caricatures' are as bad or even worse. (Why do I have a feeling we're getting nowhere..?) Yuval Y § Chat § 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Easy! Bush as devil, Chaves as devil Serbians as devil (now that may be racism), another devil, Bush as devil, bin Ladin and Saddam as devils, Bush as satanic nazi, Bush as satanic nazi again, Castro as devil, as nazis and dogs, with blood on hands, as devil and nazi, Puiin as witch, again, and again, Bush as troll(?). Do you need more? // Liftarn
I found the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Can you compare them to the above? Yuval Y § Chat § 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What has that to do with anything? // Liftarn
It refers to the Muhammad caricatures. Anyway, may I say that none of the caricatures you've linked are as vulgar as Image:HisnameisTERROR.jpg? Come to think of it, do you understand why I don't claim that Image:Denial.gif is antisemintism? Yuval Y § Chat § 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what does the Muhammad caricatures have to do with anything? Anyway, they all have the same theme. A political figure is pictured as devil/witch/demon/hitler/vampire. The level of vulgarity is about the same. The major difference seem to be the media (photoshopped vs drawn). // Liftarn
If http://www.triunfotel.com/personal/cslacuesta/BushSatan.jpeg is "Bush as satanic nazi" than how would you call Image:HisnameisTERROR.jpg? Yuval Y § Chat § 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sharon with fangs. Clearly nothing racist about it. Anyway, that is a moot point since it probably will be deleted as a copyvio soon anyway. // Liftarn

218.251.28.129 and Category:Commons-ja

For an reason unknown to me, 218.251.28.129 (talk · contribs) has removed all Japanese templates from Category:Commons-ja. This may have something to do with this modification that I don't understand. Am I missing something or should all his/her actions be reverted? — Xavier, 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Japaneese category for category:Commons-ja has a Japaneese writing (Category:お知らせテンプレート) and Autumn Sky fixed the templates.
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Le Behnam

Hi folks! User:Le Behnam is breaking the rules by removing deletion tags from images that he/she has uploaded which are being considered to be deleted and not yet decided. He/she stated: "rv, its my image and i decide what stays on it!".[42], [43] Le Behnam is removing multi-dated and multi-language maps from Maps of Afghanistan, stating that all the mulit-dated maps are the same with different colors.[44] He/she is over-categorizing images but I think has stopped after I explained this on his/her's talk page. This user accuses me of only uploading Afghanistan and Pashtun related images, probably thinks that I am racist. My reasoning is that I'm having hard time finding images of Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc, with licenses that are acceptable here. This user (Le Behnam) is also on the English Wikipedia as Beh-nam, with a very long block history for disruptive activites, harassing people, spreading racial discrimination, edit-warring, being incivil to others, etc.[45] Just the other day he/she tried to hide its English Wikipedia information by blanking its user's page on Wiki Commons.[46] Please do something about this user because I don't think he/she will listen to me. P.S. I think he/she may be a sockpuppet of User:Jahongard.[47] --Executioner 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of your conversations, I'm under the impression you both have some sort of dispute going on, with sockpuppetry accusations from each side. Notwithstanding user Le Behnam's behaviour in inappropriately hiding deletion tags, that action is not stopping the deletion request process anyway. I'll try to go and reason with him; may I suggest you keep away from this user in the meanwhile? If it's obvious to you that he will not listen to you, it's good if you don't give him any reason to be upset at you. If you have some solid reason to think this user is using illegal sockpuppets, please file a case at COM:RFCU. Patrícia msg 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Executioner... allegations are flying in both directions. To reveal results we need clear evidence of misuse, and some evidence that does suggest the users are the same. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Patrícia, I was not the first to contact or bother User:Le Behnam. Please be aware that it was he/she who first posted on my talk page, in a manner that I found it to be rude and bothersome. [48] Le Behnam (a.k.a. Behnam on the English Wikipedia) provokes other editors/users by vandalising articles in a secret way so that most administrators don't notice. This later creates an edit war, and since he's been on Wiki for a long time, he learned how to quickly report the other editors and get them blocked. Here is just one example out of so many [49] He has the page on watch and he knows that Pashtun editors will read the rude statement Behnam wrote about en:Nadir Shah, on the en:Ahmad Shah Abdali article, (he wrote "Nadir Shah was known to be a child molester and it was not a surprise that he kept Abdali as one of his slaves....") and will try to remove it, then Le Behnam will start his edit war with those editors. Le Behnam is supposedly an ethnic Tajik, a group which is the main rivals of ethnic Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Just watch and follow his contributions on the ENG. WIKI Special:Contributions/Beh-nam here to see what happens later. Anyway, I'm not really in the mood to play these games with anyone here, I wish not to be bothered by such people like him. Also, I have no intentions to upload images that have false licenses because they will be deleted.--Executioner 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody please protect أفغانستان and Maps of Afghanistan from Le Behnam, he is removing useful images probably because he does not like to see them. Thanks in advance!--Executioner 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Le Behnam

User:Le Behnam needs to learn to behave here. He is harassing and personally attacking me. He keeps calling me NisarKand and is saying that I am member of the Taliban and warlords of Afghanistan. "very funny NisarKand, labelling Tajiks as warlords huh? what about your Sayyaf, Gulbuddhin, and Taliban? that label is a POV" [50], [51], [52] This person has racial issues and is bothering me. I had already warned him before. [53]--Executioner 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sent this message to the user, I think it's best to talk before taking drastic measures. The last paragraph on that message actually applies for both of you; please try to not take things so personally, and please ask for intervention when a new dispute is arising. Patrícia msg 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Le Behnam is having trouble understanding licenses, he keeps removing clean licenses from images by saying nonsense that the image was not taken by Syrian government and accusing me of fabricating licenses. [54] He thinks that only images taken by government are allowed. He is unwilling to discuss anything at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Queen Soraya Tarzi.jpg and instead removes clean licenses. Can somebody tell this user to stop this distruptive behaviour because I already explained to him many times but he refuses to listen. By the way, he has been banned now from the English Wikipedia for distruptive behaviour and is now here to do the same (see en:User:Beh-nam).--Executioner 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Carlos (talk · contribs) and Ismênia Duarte (talk · contribs)

I've noticed that Ismênia Duarte had edited some of the images uploaded by Daniel Carlos, while both of them uploaded unsourced images tagged as {{Attribution}}, and now I've noticed that Daniel Carlos begins to vandalise the Commons. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up" Ismênia Duarte (talk · contribs) now indef blocked as a puppet of Daniel Carlos (talk · contribs). I suggest we keep a close eye on the later when the block ends --Herby talk thyme 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Who himself is a sockpuppet of Ismeni (talk · contribs), hence his retaliation towards you.
As a side note, he may have gone crazy in the first place because of the avalanche of warnings on his talk page, and the block that followed because he didn't fix the description of his images. I'm quite certain that the pictures he uploaded are his but that he is completely unaware of Commons rules. I'm not writing this to excuse his insulting and disruptive behavior but to stress that, sometimes, some complete newbies can be overwhelmed by obscure bot messages and feel upset when they are subsequently blocked without knowing what exactly they did wrong. If a Portuguese speaker would like to talk to pt:User:Ismeni and explain why he was blocked in the first place and why he should try to speak with us instead of vandalizing Commons, maybe this could calm down his anger towards our admins. — Xavier, 01:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Some intervention here would be good. I hadn't realise that connection which explains why I was targeted. I'll assume good faith for now (though I've only placed a couple of blocks so far today:)) --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a talk with the user on pt.wiki. Patrícia msg 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Patrícia, appreciated --Herby talk thyme 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, where are we standing now? Both Ismênia Duarte and Ismeni are blocked indefinitely - would the user like to use one of the three?
As for me, when I've decided not to block users indefinitely. Yuval Y § Chat § 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had any reply from the user on pt.wiki, she has not been editing there. What do you suggest? Patrícia msg 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Sse (?) would like to start again, she could choose one account, and stick to that. I guess the rest would be blocked - simply because they're not needed... Yuval Y § Chat § 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with "pick an account, use it and the others are blocked" for what it's worth --Herby talk thyme 08:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Then pick this one, because she's back........ I'm trying to tutor her and asked to please please please not vandalize again. Patrícia msg 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggested it simply for avoiding the "Sockpuppeteer" stuff. Yuval Y § Chat § 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Crayon de papier (talk · contribs)

This user, I think he/she is from France, uploaded files about Schneider Electric tagged with {{Copyrighted free use}}. I cant verify this. Also he re-uploaded deleted files like Image:Jean Pascale Tricoire Président du Directoire.JPG which I have deleted because the stated permission was "no authorizations". Help by a french speaking admin is needed. --GeorgHH 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not admin (yet? :) but I'm dropping a word in French to this user.
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've checked the talk page and the contribs of this user, and it appears that he hasn't contributed since then. I think that all the uploaded images from the company website should be processed on COM:DEL.
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yuval Y (talk · contribs)

In a page where he is part of the conflict Yuval Y first blanks content[55] and then locks down the page[56]. When asked about it on the talk page Yuval Y resorts to personal attacks[57]. // Liftarn 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I talked with him several times, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Liftarn (talk • contribs) personal attacks, User talk:Liftarn, this page, and other places. Can I tell that I have tried the best I can? Yuval Y § Chat § 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it would depend if the cartoons are useful. Also, Yuval Y should have not used admin tools, since he/she is involved in this dispute. Perhaps Commons may need an NPOV guideline 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:48, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
I agree with the proposal to make an NPOV policy/guideline. I also agree that using your admin tools in a dispute you're involved in is a big no-no. --Boricuæddie 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it help if I'll unprotect the page? Yuval Y § Chat § 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a nice day. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That would help. It would also help if you did not blank valid content. But I see you have gone on a wikibreak so that's not going to happen any time soon. // Liftarn
I too think a NPOV policy is in order. As I said in Talk:Ariel Sharon - It is clear to me that racist cartoons are not what the Wikimedia Foundation had in mind when they created Commons. Yonidebest Ω Talk 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Racist cartoons can also be usefull, for instance we do have Category:Antisemitic pictures, but here that argument is an obvous strawman since none of the cartoons in question are racist. Even if they were it would be irrelevant since Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. // Liftarn
I have posted to the mailing list ragarding this issue. Basically: I think that offensive/POV material can be useful, but generally only if it is notable. Also, we should take care to apply good taste in the way we present such material. A policy about that might be in order. THis is the wrong place to discuss it, though. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is probably not the best place to discuss that issue, but the issue about missuse of admin privs to push a POV. // Liftarn

Use of admin tools to edit a protected page

Listed as a sub-section since it's about the same issue. The page is locked and Anthere uses admin privs to blank part of the page.[58] // Liftarn 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation as a problem strikes me as a, eh, bad idea, somehow ;). As stated above, the issue is larger than this particular problem, and we should discuss about what are the limits of NPOV on Commons. So I started drafting something in a subpage of mine, but have not come up to the point of formulating proposals. You're all welcome to do so, and improve the text that's already there. Patrícia msg 13:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ambivalent about this particular action, except that it is generally considered wrong for admins to edit protected pages - especially in connection to the dispute that caused the protection to be placed. If Anthere was acting in her capacity as a board member perhaps she should have pointed this out? Otherwise her action should be considered as that of any administrator, I think. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If the edit was done in an official capacity, I think we need at least an interim statement about what's going on, that seems to be an escalation of huge proportions. Otherwise it does indeed seem to be an abuse of power (or are us mere contributors being put firmly in our place ;-) --Tony Wills 13:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps it would be good, but now it's too late, no? If she says she was not acting as a board member, shall we ask for temp desysop? Or even if she was doing so as a admin, will she now admit it, instead of sheltering with the board member position? It's a bit late to clear up things and come up with an answer that will satisfy us all, although whatever Anthere says will be presumed as the truth and taken as is, of course. All I know is that the edition was done after a complaint to the board, done through the foundation-l mailing list. Patrícia msg 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Shoun't it be some paper trail to follow if it was a board decision? // Liftarn
This is neither a bureaucracy, not a democracy. Anthere decided on something, she holds an important position in the organisation, that should be sufficient. Did it ever occur to you that she might know things that you don't know and don't need to know? I am amazed at the lack of discipline and discretion of a few people who, apparently, believe themselves to be at some sort of political rally, and are incapable of putting the Commons project above their little personal opinions. These petty politics are sickening. Rama 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*raises eyebrows* I'm not sure why her position should be a justification, especially as she did not invoke it when taking the admin action. The action was obviously not sound, as there are people who wish to discuss it. Petty politics would be us just letting it go because of her status. An open community means that we wish to know the rationale behind her invoking not only her political status but also her technical status in bending the issue. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't quite see what you're getting at with "just letting it go because of her status". The heart of the matter is a trifle. It's blown way out of proportions by two sets of people which I regard as equally repugnant.
The Wikimedia projects do not work as a democracy. I ressent your "just letting it go" as opening the door to blowing things out of proportions and inventing "scandals" to push particular interests, Kenneth Starr-like. I am certain that you do not mean it, but that's what you are doing.
The point of Wikimedia projects is to be efficient. Given the intellectual nature of the activities, this means that non-hierarchic are usually the most efficient way to work, which we do for the very best. But there may be time when arbitrary decisions can be the way to do it, and that's fine by me too. And I do think that people who are so allergic to this that they cannot refrain from blowing things out of proportions, cast exagerated accusations publicly, and whine in circle, are in the wrong mindset. They are acting against the letter, spirit and interest of the project.
And for the record, I am not saying that I support Anthere's action or that I would have done the same. But I do think that when someone like this intervenes, we should consider it as settling the issue and be done with it. Rama 08:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This makes it seem like you do support her decision. Which is fine, BTW. But it wasn't a intervention. - Rocket000 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(resetting the indentation)
Hi, maybe we should ask her instead of guessing why she did that? :-)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thhought this[59] made it quite clear it was a personal desition. // Liftarn
Hi, thanks for the link, I'm not on fundation-l and did't know that she sent this email.
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, Anthere was gracious enough to also comment on her action here. - Rocket000 14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that even after being made aware of it Anthere has not made a self revert or even bothered to comment even if Anthere has been active in other parts of Commons. // Liftarn

Personal attack by Peterblaise (talk · contribs)

Preemptive  Comment from Peter Blaise: I apologize for my ambiguous inaccuracy in using the word "you". I meant "you" as a non-personal plural, equivalent to "one" or "someone" or "all of us". I have edited the page in question to read:

  •  Keep "...shocking..." is reason enough to KEEP 'em! Now, on the other hand, Hitler would have quashed cartoons against him. If we don't want to be compared to Hitler, then let's not act like Hitler in trying to quash criticism and ridicule against us, as illustrated in these cartoons! (See reaction) By the way, thanks for leading us to Latuff's cartoons - GREAT! -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So, let's please verify our personal interpretations (misunderstanding?) of each other first, and allow any of us to "re-send" our intended message, before judging. Then let's not judge anyway!

Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise Peterblaise 13:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the requested mass deletion of the controversial Latuff cartoons by User:Yonidebest, User:Peterblaise personally attacked User:Yonidebest by writing "If you don't want to be compared to Hitler, then don't act like Hitler in trying to quash criticism and ridicule!" [60]; so he ultimately said that User:Yonidebest acted like Hitler by making this deletion request. Such a behaviour is totally unacceptable and should be followed by a heavy sanction.
Also, I'm quite disappointed that this attack wasn't rejected by any one of the other users who made comments on that page after the one by User:Peterblaise though several of them are admins on Commons. I don't know if Civility is an official policy on Commons, but IMHO this should be an ideal on all Wikimedia projects. -- Túrelio 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of trolling, but it's kinda hard to believe someone actually would take offense at that. It was silly Hitler joke. Maybe it's a language thing? Who knows, but no offense was meant. What's up with all the over-sensitivity on Commons lately? Rocket000 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Be real, please. If you wrote that about me in the real world setting, I would sue you for sure. Also, how do you know what User:Peterblaise meant? -- Túrelio 08:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the comment was not pleasant & might be taken as un civil by some. I read it by replacing "Hitler" with a more generalised "dictator" which is what I took the meaning to be. We do need to be careful on Commons of cultural/regional sensitively and we sometimes fail, we must keep trying. Commons is a good place with some great people on --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I know what he meant in the same way you can tell someone's joking when someone uses humor you're familiar with. Replacing "Hitler" with a more generalized "dictator" loses part of the joke, because comparing someone to Hitler (evil personified) in this manner is so ridiculous it can't possibly be taken seriously (speaking from a Americentric view, I guess). I believe you also took Peterblaise's words slightly out of context, which helps show his intent. I agree we need to be careful with our wording because of the various cultures represented here, but on the flip side, we also need to assume good faith. We should avoid accusation of personal attacks when it may just be the author's intent was simply lost in translation. If anything, I think a inquiry on Peterblaise's talk page would have been more appropriate. Rocket000 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comparing to Hitler weights very heavy to people that were really close/involved to/with Hitler. Some folks cannot tolerate jokes referencing God, the prophet, their kings or leaders (E.g. Mussolini, Ata Turc, Churchill, Sarkozy, George Bush should be hardened by now), their family (son of a bitch). So it is good that Túrelio brings it up for discussion. But he should not be surprised indeed that nobody reacted as for most users, it is just too ridiculous, so not credible. --Foroa 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I've asked the user to please {{Be civil}}. We all lose our temper from time to time. Patrícia msg 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which user? Rocket000 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the user did not mean to offend me by comparing me to Hitler. On the other hand, since Hitler was responsible for killing over 6 million Jews, comparing him to anyone can definitely be insulting, especially when talking to a Jew who probably has relatives that were killed by him (and yes, I do have, sadly enough). One should be aware of this and avoid comparing killers and other bad people to others, even if some of their actions are similar.

Furthermore, comparing ones' actions to Hitler's actions or a dictators' actions is demagogic and nothing more. Instead, you can say "You should be able to receive criticism and ridicule" and thus point out the same point: I am allegedly doing this because I oppose freedom of speach. That would probably be a much more preferable way of litigating in a disscusion with participants from different cultures. Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Answering Rocket000) I sent the {{Be civil}} request to Peterblaise, but I'll state here, and make myself very clear on this: I didn't like at all that there was a mass deletion request as the one done by user Yonidebest; requesting several images to be deleted on the ground that he doesn't like them is not ok. It's the kind of behaviour that can trigger passionate arguments and therefore can be seen as disruptive. Personally, if I see such behaviour coming again from the same user, the {{Be civil}} will migrate to another talk page. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but actually I do intend to be harsh on disruptive actions. I am also quite upset that user Yonidebest tried to persuade the Foundation board to take actions on these images and on the type of contents Commons is allowed to host without discussing this with the community. Patrícia msg 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm reminded of a bit of trashy TV I saw many years ago, when w:Sally Jessy Raphael had w:Andrew Dice Clay as a guest and said something along the lines of "people are reciting your jokes in one voice like you're hitler or something", to which Mr. Clay (who was actually Jewish) replied: "Hitler killed millions of people, I just make jokes". Ms. Raphael obviously didn't mean to imply that Mr. Clay was a mass murderer, but the exchange does illustrate the point that people tend to throw terms like "nazi" around without really intending to connect people with NAZIs.

Sometimes we need to just step back, breathe, and realize that (a) the other person maybe wasn't meaning to be hurtful, and (b) we might have been hurtful when we didn't mean to be. Horses don't have this problem: miscommunication is one of those awful liabilities entailed with being human. --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_4&oldid=264579312"