Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 5

Herrick (talk · contribs)

I have a big problem with this person. He's running away from explanations I ask (see his user talk history) and he's deciding censorship of my arguments here then here! He clearly wants his argument to be valid so he's strangely asked that to be quickly deleted. Anyway, his behaviour is IMO not acceptable. --86.67.47.175 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you can take a look on Commons:Forum#Stalker-Troll. There you can see that 86.67.47.175 who is User:TwoWings (blocked to stop waisting his time) has apologize for his misunderstanding. But before[1] and after all he insists on attacking other users[2]. "Coward" is such a heavy thing. --Herrick 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a king for misinformation, aren't you? OK I stop. I have other things to do than wasting my time with such a ridiculous person... --86.67.47.175 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

..."coward", "arrogant", "ignorant", "ridicolous" - a nice kind of vocabulary for a french gentleman. --Herrick 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have behave differently. I might have been more polite towards you if you deserved any respect. But your arrogance shows it's not the case. --86.67.47.175 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, last thing: try to give good arguments if you want anyone to believe I'm the bad guy! With honesty, it'll be very hard for you (you actually started to give partial "examples" with no context etc, so I guess I won't have any honesty). --86.67.47.175 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"You should... I might ..." Several rights for different kinds of users? Hello to Mr. Orwell... --Herrick 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you giving me lessons again? You who can't realize how rude you can be? Whereas I did apologize for my first mistake! Does it happen to you to reconsider yourself sometimes? --86.67.47.175 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, mistake 1: I vote for deletion on "your" images. Mistake 2: I have my own opinion on these pictures. Sorry for having my own opinion. But the important "lesson" for both of us: We are waisting our time because it's not our decision if these images may be delete. --Herrick 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you a smart arse or a hypocrite? ;-) Your mistakes were: 1) assuming I was trolling and/or spamming, 2) assuming I was repeating the same message on your user talk, 3) ignoring my questions, 4) deleting my arguments on deletion requests, 5) saying I was lying about my identity whereas I clearly stated the contrary, 6) not accepting my excuses about my mistake (errare humanum est). Should I try to find other mistakes or might it suffice?
In order to be honest and to show my good will, my mistakes were: 1) assuming the deletion requests were not in your watchlist, 2) leaving a message on your user page just 5 minutes after you posted a response to the new argument, 3) using some words that might be unappropriate (but guided my some real frustration towards some opinions that didn't sound logical to me, which is my right to think that), 4) continuing to waste my time while you seem unable to question yourself and to apologize. I've already said I was sorry for #2, I've explained that I couldn't guess #2 and I'm partly sorry for #3. As for #4 I'm mainly sorry against myself!
Sorry for having my own opinion > you don't have to be sorry for that because I've never said you couldn't have your own opinion. But it's my right to try to convince people or to ask for some precisions. Actually, in the message you ignored, I wrote Though you might stay with your arguments and Of course you're free to keep your vote as it was. Thanks for your comprehension. I don't know how I could be more open-minded than that!
As you said, we're both wasting our times for stupid things so it may be time to find peace again and to apologize both for our stupid behaviours! I think I've done it, it's your turn now! --86.67.47.175 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attacks have the smell of persecution mania. For the question "Are you a smart arse or a hypocrite?" you'll have to be blocked for the end of your days. In my answer to Vicond (07:37, 11 December 2007)[3], then - 18 minutes later - on 07:55, 11 December 2007 - came your first personal attack against me. How could I ignore your many superflouous edits on my discussion page where you're insisting all the time on your "new argumente" besides the fact that I've mentioned before the possible reason? That is your general missunderstanding which led us to your prejudiced crusade for the photographers images and your permanent offensive remarks against other users and me. The only thing which I have mixed up was your statement about Viconds mixing of arguments[4] You've wrote: "(IP 86.67.47.175 or TwoWings)" - I understood in this case and time that you are not identical with TwoWings. Sorry for that. But your obscene words and rabulistic blather are a offence of good taste and behaviour. EOD --Herrick 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, please, both of you, stop this. This "conversation" is going nowhere. This is an emergency plea to both of you to step back and breathe - I haven't read the diffs or half of the argument. I'll do that and give some thoughts later on, in the meanwhile please do take a break. Patrícia ^msg 13:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I haven't gone through the deletion requests that are the source of the problem, mainly because they are several and I have somewhat limited time right now.

86.67.47.175: I have problems with the kind of language you are using against Herrick; it really doesn't matter who is "right or wrong" here (if there's such a thing), everyone should {{Be civil}} at any moment. To present apologies and rationalize what you may have done wrong is good, but accompanying that with insulting words is definitely not ok.

Herrick: to start a thread on the german Village Pump titled "Stalker-Troll" strikes me as a severe lack of "assuming good faith". Whereas taking away comments that were not pertinent to the deletion request doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, contrary to what 86.67.47.175, writing why you are taking them away is also a good practice and may avoid further misundertand ings.

Please both of you keep participating in as many deletion debates as you wish, but do not use personal remarks as arguments (including people's own uploads, for that matter) and keep to the point: it's *those* images that are being discussed, not other. Patrícia ^msg 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear.

86.67.47.175, I'm addressing you in particular because we have the same opinion on the basic question, and I'll deliberately disregard Herrick's comments, which should not be seen as an endorsement at all.

86.67.47.175, the images are probably not going to be deleted. "We" are "winning", so to speak and however much I hate to present things in this way (because we're all in the same camp, the Wikimedia one). So there's absolutely no need to harass or provoke people. It's not like you arguments are unjustly unheard. So don't beat a dead horse and stop talking yourself into a frenzy, there's really no need for that. Rama 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I'm not continuing for that reason with Herrick. I think we've both made mistakes and we should stop and apologize for that stupid "conversation". But really, I'm sorry to say that, but it's pathetic to see he continues to deny that I made efforts and that he didn't, and that he can't understand that errare humanum est. He's mixing everything, his argumentation above is nonsense! He said I attacked him a few minutes only after he answered the "new argument" which is partly right partly false! I was desperate to see him ignoring my messages with such arrogance by assuming I was posting the same message again and again! How couldn't it unerve me? Anyway, my previous message here was a clear effort (the first sentence wasn't an insult...), which was his last chance to prove he could finally be reasonable - as I try to be now after this sad episode! I've done it also for him, so that he can prove he's got some quality of mea culpa and self-questionning. But no, he seems to be definitely unable to seize such a chance. I have pity for him but also for me because that ridiculous "affair" might also have some bad consequences on my "image" while my initial purpose was only to inform and discuss. Herrick took it as an agression and spam, then was arrogant, then couldn't understand that I could miss the chronological order of his posts, which created that awful "quiproquo". If only he could have explained that clearly instead of ignoring my messages... Such a small detail would have changed everything! All that is really sad... --86.67.47.199 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, Patrícia, for looking at this disgusting discussion from a neutral point of view. You pointed out what on your opinion lead us to the controversy and how the conflict escalated. By this example can you see that I have no general problems with irritating answers by unknown users, but in Germany we have a good proverb for TwoWings aka 86.67.ff. disbehaviour (by the way): "Der Ton macht die Musik". ("The sound makes the music") You've missed the assume of good faith on my side as I try to put my own discussionpage semi-protected. That is o.k. Only mass vandalism on your own user- and discussionpage (de:) by IPs can let me to this point of view. But instead of the fact that my description has the essence of selffullfying prophecy, TwoWings kind of language was to much to tolerate. And if you have a look at his last posting you can see that there's probably no chance for getting "friends". You know "actio and reactio"? I think this missunderstanding climax is a good example that a (delete) discussion about aesthetic aspects on "erotique photographs" with political and social aspects between a french and german user in third language could be total desaster. --Herrick 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just see that you're unable to question your own behaviour and mistakes. That's sad. I thought you were clever enough to understand that... That's a pity that we can't have a better end than start! Maybe one day I'll try to take a calm time to make a chronology of events of those misunderstandings that led to insults and despise. That's so sad to see such things (for both of us)... --86.67.47.199 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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.[5] // 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[6] 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

Juiced lemon (talk · contribs) blocked

He was really doing well for a while, but over the past couple weeks he's returned to perhaps even more hostile behavior towards new users. I'd like to insist on specific terms that he must agree to this time. The block is indefinite, but hopefully will be short term if he can agree to avoid this sort of behavior in the future. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, even if I think that Juicedlemon is sometimes 'biting the newbies', I feel uncomfortable with an indefinite block, even if he was warned before (well, I'm however not sure about the number of warnings he has get before this).

I've drop a note to his talk page in order to talk about this problem with him. The issue is mainly the way of investing himself in the project: he is very dedicated to categorisation, and seems to forgot that categorising has to be taught to newcomers, as Commons has specific schemes. Furthermore, talking with newcomers may enlighten different ways of categorising that may be interesting for us, so it's something to encourage :)

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merci, Alno! I don't think it's a language issue, but the more people helping, the better :). He has been warned (and blocked) before though, and there's a long history behind it all. The reason for the "indefinite" nature of the corrent block is that when he was given a limited block before, he opted to "wait it out" rather than work on moving towards a solution. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment - I did not mean that JL shouldn't have been blocked. I just believe (may be wrongly) that blocks length should be on a progressive basis: 1st warning => block 1 week, 2nd warning => block 2 to 3 weeks, 3rd warning => block 1 to 3 monthes. Maybe I've missed the whole blocking history! I also did not write that the problem is a language issue. I wrote in French on his talk page as this is easier for both him and me, that's all :)

Best regards, -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I  Support the block. I appreciate the categorization work he has done here, but his behavior is completely unacceptable. He may continue his work once he agrees to treat fellow Commoners like the humans they are, subject to making occasional and involuntary mistakes and deserving of respect and fair treatment. --Boricuæddie 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say, having a few run-ins myself with Mr.lemon, he definitely does need to work on his communication skills. Personally, I don't mind if he communicates with me that way, cause now I know how he is. He has his own way of dealing with things that takes some time to get use to. However, I agree, the way he talks to new or unexperienced users is completely inappropriate and worthy of a block. Keeping in mind all the good he has done for Commons, we should make any effort to work with him and overcome this problem area. He's a very dedicated user and has done tremendous work with categorizing. He is truly a valued editor, yet he may be detouring other potentially equally valued editors. I just hope this block works.

On a side note, SB Johnny, how do you feel about being the same admin that blocked him the last two times? I'm not implying there's anything wrong with this; I think you did the right thing. I guess this is more of a general question. Rocket000 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A first comment is that I appreciate that SB_Johnny has the energy and the courage to tackle a difficult and delicate problem, a problem where most people prefer to walk around. I am completely against blocking myself and see it as the very last resort. On the other hand, a blocking forces to continue the discussion and one cannot hide in "the usual" work. The previous blocking proved to cause a major improvement in JL's behaviour. Moreover, it is a strong signal that the community here has the highest priority.

A fundamental problem I see is that JL has a complete other vision about incivility than most people here, especially if he is the source of the message. On the receiving end, his vision on incivility seems more normal, if not more touchy than others.

I think the major aspect JL has to learn is that when helping, informing and educating people, one gets cooperating wikipedians. When insulting them, one gets enemies or people leave. Helping people requires a serious investment but in the long run, brings a lot of return. Unless one wants to be the emperor of the game, we have to create a community.

So I fully support SB_Johnny and I trust that he will find an arrangement with JL. --Foroa 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of "me too" I don't think I could put it any better than Foroa. I really do not want to see a genuine indefinite block. However JL's behaviour over a long period of time has tried almost everyone's patience here. We should be grateful that Johnny is prepared to tackle it and hope that we can get a positive outcome. JL's work is good, the communication is not --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... me three. It's all been said before, so no need to reiterate but it's all true. I think it's a tribute to the way things are here at Commons that we're trying so very very hard in this case. JL has many many valuable things to bring to the table, but we can't have newbies getting alienated, there is too much work to do. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, for an example of JL's expertise and abilities, just take a look at User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Post_offices ... the analysis there by JL is thoughtful, helpful, and spot on, in my view, and a thorny (if minor, but still thorny) categorization problem has been addressed, working from first principles. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I  Oppose the indef block. While I agree, and fully support, a cool down for a while, indef blocking someone who has worked positively on this project is not a standard I think we should be setting. — Giggy 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've said this enough times in various places that I need a little template for it <grin> but indef block != forever block. indef block = block for an indeterminate time period, until the situation is resolved. If it turns into a forever block, it should then be discussed as such. I think SB Johnny did well and hope that some resolution can be reached. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 09:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It's not a forever block. It's a block until JL internalises there really is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and commits to do so. That could be in the next 5 minutes, which would be awesome. I certainly hope it's not "never", that's for sure. He's a very valuable contributor. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure the "ditto" comments aren't misunderstood: the "indefinite" is not intended to mean permanent, although it could end up being permanent if he's unwilling to acknowledge the problems and give us some assurance that he'll try to avoid them. He was a lot more careful in his dealings with others for a while after the last block, but he's lately returned to taking a rather hostile approach to people he feels are being counterproductive. If history is any indication, it will probably be a few weeks before he engages in constructive dialogue, but I have faith that he'll come around. He's our Aristotle, but he sometimes has a short temper and a biting approach. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You won me over with the Aristotle analogy :) — Giggy 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, Juiced lemon emailed me requesting an unblock, which I declined (see here). I've suggested that he take on board Riana, Lar, and Johnny's comments here. I've also specifically stated that despite not initially agreeing with the block, I will not be overturning it at any time. — Giggy 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was just responding to an email from someone who was trying to start an email correspondence with him but hasn't had much luck. I would urge anyone and everyone to please try to engage him in discussion, because I don't think he will talk to me.

On that note, I'd like to answer a question that Rocket000 asked me earlier (which I only just noticed): the reason I'm the blocking admin for a second time is because I really am perfectly neutral regarding Juiced lemon's contributions. I really don't care whether images are categorized, shown in galleries, or just have good long-winded descriptions, as long as people can find the image they need when they need one. I do, however, hold J.l. in high esteem because he's offering a visionary sort of vision for how our categorization system can work. I don't, on the other hand, believe that Juiced lemon can (or should!) categorize the whole of commons by himself, and so I think that we need as many new contributors as we can get to bring his (or anyone else's) vision to fruition,

In brief: I will not unblock him until he acknowledges that his approach to those he feels are being counterproductive is, well, counterproductive. I also want him to give the community some assurance that he will try to be more respectful of others, but (like last time) I won't insist on that and will instead just be watchful and block him again when he crosses the line.

J.l. is an amazing contributor. A contributor with vision! However, he's just another contributor like any of us, and if he's being hostile and mean, we should deal with him as we would any contributor who's being hostile and mean. He's been a great contributor for a long time now, but he's also been hostile and mean for a long time. It's a conundrum, but the safest bet it to keep him blocked until he at least acknoledges the problem. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I of course agree with you, but I don't think he needs to agree (that he has a problem). As long as he changes his actions, that's good enough for me. Rocket000 00:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, one way or the other :). I just don't want to unblock him and then have to reblock him again, because it's unseemly. At this point I really just want a good excuse to justify unblocking, but if that's all I see, I'll probably end up in this position again.

The second-worst case scenario is that we'll just repeat the experience of the past few months and he'll be careful for a while and then stop being careful, and I or someone else will block him again for a while, and we might just have to be happy with that. My only interest is that we shouldn't put up with people being hostile to other people who don't deserve hostility. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From commenting on his talk page and reading the discussion, it's now obvious why he's a pain for us to handle: he does not assume good faith and pretty much only follows the letter of things. If he could just step back, think, and give motivation to others, that's pretty much the whole situation. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (GMT)

JL also emailed me. I hope we can continue to show a united front on this issue. I replied that it would not be possible to return to editing without making improvements in civility. I also asked if there was anyone they would prefer to work with besides SB Johnny. Johnny, you are making hard decisions that need to be made and making them well, but it's not too surprising that JL may prefer to work with someone else. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. To recap my views, JL has a good and important vision, does a lot of hard work, and is a valued contributor here, but his actions mean that the status quo ante isn't a good long term place to be. We could unblock again, and maybe get a few more months of relative peace and quiet, until matters boiled over again. But perhaps this time it is time to grasp the nettle. I don't support an unblock. If one happens, so be it, but I'd sort of put the onus on whoever unblocks to take a very active hand in helping monitor and guide and take future action if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's really not an issue for me who he works with, as long as he works with someone. Unless there's any objections, I'd rather be the one doing the unblocking, so I can stay in the background and monitor it while keeping that pressure off of whoevever is working with him. I'm "fervently neutral" about it, so in a way it's better that I stay on the sidelines as a referee :). As herby can attest, I have a very thick skin and am not easily angered in these situations. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a native French speaker act as a mentor. I think a lot of the problem is due to different mindsets of native French and English speakers dealing with this. This seems to be causing a lot of frustration on JL's part. That is what I see in my discussions with JL. I speak some French, but not natively, and not good enough to be of much help. On the other hand, any mentor is better than none. I am not volunteering though. --Timeshifter 15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am available if another French speaking admin is needed, but it seems that AINo is talking to JL. Yann 16:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is really native French, certainly not on the cultural level (this is not a judgment). I could be wrong of course. --Foroa 23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A native French speaker is not necessarily from France. The main language of several other nations and territories is French. --Timeshifter 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: From what I've heard, heard of, and been told on the back channels, Juiced lemon has not been receptive to those who are trying to help him, is still insisting that he did nothing wrong, believes that my block is out of order, and is leaving the project. With that in mind I must sadly declare this "case" closed for the forseeable future. I strongly believe that it would be unwise to unblock him without some commitment on his part to proactively avoid further difficulties. Users who are interested in this should make sure to add his talk to their watchlists, and join me in hoping for the best. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sucks, but I don't think any of us would unblock him without at least consulting you. *Fingers crossed he changes his mind* Rocket000 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of those who are active on back channels. I just want to make clear that from my point of view I cannot confirm SB_Johnny's summary, i.e. this case should not be considered as closed. --AFBorchert 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mathiasrex loves PNG

Some time ago I tried to persuade to Mathiasrex that:

• PNG format is not generally better than JPEG, especially for photos
• converting from JPEG to PNG is totally useless

Apparently, with no success. Not only this user keeps uploading large, blurry PNG files, but also converts existing ones to PNG like this one: [7]

A.J. 08:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG format is better for photos elaborated in graphic programs because in LCD monitors efect is less blurry than JPG. JPG is better only for photos uploaded without any change.

• 
  This image seems to be taken through red stocking
• 
  This one representing diffrent sharpness and making ilusion of depth, colours are more natural

Mathiasrex 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Monitors do not interpret PNG or JPG, either LCD or CRT, they dispay raster images, generated by processor. If you would aplly all enhancement effects in your graphic program and save effects as normal or high quality JPG no one would notice any difference. I talk about full resolution version: thumbnail generation in MediaWiki is different matter. In my opinion left image is still better: the edges are sharp even in thumbnail, while right one is blurred. A.J. 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth the left image is noticeably sharper for me too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"PNG format is not generally better than JPEG, especially for photos"
PNG is generally better than JPEG, except for photos
The resolution of Bug 4421 (Image extension should not be part of the name) would make this a nonissue. ¦ Reisio 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You lost some image details by apllying contrast effect or simmilar. I guess your opinion about PNG's looking better is because you make contrast/color enhancements on them, not because different compression algorithm. A.J. 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

On the *.png-Image (right exemple) above you can see many artefacts which are the result of contrast and color enhancements. The only thing where I could prefer *.png-Images are Black/White-Pictures. And another "little" argument against *.png: it's needs a little more time to show a clear image after "clicking" on the thumbnail. XnView - for example - doesn't show a *.png-thumbnail. If Mathiasrex loves PNG he can upload his own images in this format, but other images should be on their original graphic data format. --Herrick 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem I see here was the marking of the JPG version with {{Duplicate}}, that template is very specifically for *exact* duplicates or merely scaled down versions of other images. Any changes between the images make them in-eligible for {{Duplicate}}, and if you think one version should be deleted then go through a normal deletion process so it can be discussed. The reason is that very often one persons 'improvement' is another persons 'degradation', just look at the long discussions in FPC and QIC to see the myriad of considerations that can be important.
• Anyone is totally at liberty to upload new versions that they've 'improved' in any supported format
• Also the new version should have {{Retouched}} and an explanation of the modifications (if there were no changes then the conversion is pointless) --Tony Wills 05:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Lomize (talk · contribs)

all uploads of this contributor appear for me as copyvio of this site : http://opm.phar.umich.edu/ which claims copyright on its work. The contributor signed as one of the creators of this databank but I presume an imposture.

ex Image:1spf opm.gif

For me all files are to delete but I am perhaps in false also someone can perhads send a e-mail to Andrei Lomize to ask him is opinion about these uploads.

Sorry, my english is not good enough to send myself this e-mail Oxam Hartog 21:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He's got some notices on his talk page which he hasn't acted on, but I think he might need another warning. Anyone else wanna do the honours? — Giggy 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in false all is correct Oxam Hartog 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Vispec & Babylone: Moroccan nationalism/vandalism

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vispec
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Babylone
¦ Reisio 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Shooke

User tagged dozens of screenshots as copyvios of Windows, even ones not using Windows or ones just incidentally using the interface, for example using the API to draw a dialog box. Such features of the OS are pd-ineligible under Apple v. Microsoft. In fact it was Microsoft's position in that case that an OS's interface is not copyrighted. -Nard 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Vispec and associated sock puppets

Help please User:Vispec is pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda, lying about having created redundant images, uploading redundant images and Moroccan propaganda pieces, and has had three sock puppets banned today by User:Bryan. Please assist. Koavf 22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Newest alias It appears like he's User:Tetouancity now. Koavf 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And again Looks like now he's "Dead.one". Does anyone have checkuser rights? Koavf 06:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (if you spot any more let us know) - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, he's not. Koavf 10:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Err seems like he is Gone to look! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As does this? Glitch, oddity, me or what? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Round seven And here's a new one. He's also on en.wp, if anyone is an admin over there; it's getting frustrating. Koavf 08:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done (I actually spotted it yesterday but with no edits decided to assume good faith!). I'll look again soon. Any links to en wp that would be useful? I'll go take a look later. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

en.wp Contribs, such as mass deletion on a WikiProject (twice) insisting on using a redundant image (in several other places as well), politically-motivated attempts to divorce any mention of Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and using deliberately ambiguous maps for nationalist purposes. Here he has uploaded several speedy delete/redundant images, such as Image:Just test.svg and Image:Morocco Flag Map.png Koavf 13:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the images. I see what you mean about the en wp contribs. Personally I think you should be placing a report on the user on en wp with a link back to the issues here. It would almost be surprising if there was not puppetry there too I think. If you see anything else here post again (I have just rechecked the IPs and there is nothing at present). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I came a little bit late to this but better than never. User koavf has one of the longest block records in wikipedia (if not the longest). A well-known edit-warrior and POV-pusher for Polisario propaganda for which he was blocked tons of times, he was even blocked indefinitely. He is on revert-parole now. It seems that user vispec has found himself facing two usernames (koavf and Reisio) reverting him in tandem and with identical agenda, that he, mistakenly, took them for one person. That is why he wrongly resorted to using sock puppets. The images in dispute have the wrong name on them. While Western Sahara is a geographical region and has no flag nor coat of arms, there is in Commons a flag and coat of arms for it. Ridiculously, they are not used for it, but for the Sahrawi arab democratic republic. What vispec was doing is to correct the names. This is a content dispute, and unfortunately, while using sock puppets is wrong, vispec is definitely not a vandal nor a disruptive user. Koavf is using this isolated case to try to discredit vispec on other mainspaces and wikis. He knows he abused of Herby's and Bryan's ignorance of his background and the dispute around these images in general. The 3-month block seems to me too harsh. Those images and other articles will be the subject of a mediation by some admins on the en wiki.--A Jalil 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's primarily an en content dispute (ATM; I'm sure other language wikis will have to suffer it more eventually), and that's probably the only place it can be resolved (even though the many times it has been presented to the powers that be, nothing has come of it). Trying to solve it from Commons would be backwards/nonsensical. Banning disruptive sockpuppets on Commons is of course helpful, though... and if you don't see him as at least disruptive, I think you probably need a reality check. ¦ Reisio 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lorenzop (talk · contribs)

I believe that Lorenzop is laurentius87 on Flickr and that he is is uploading images to Flickr, licensing them in a way that is suitable for Commons and then uploading them to Commons.
You can notice that photos of important people he has uploaded on Flickr don't have information about the Camera and are licensed in cc-by or cc-by sa:

• Romano Prodi
• Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa
• Bernardo Bertolucci (cropped version of the photo that you can see here)
• Bernardo Bertolucci
• andrea bocelli
• Manfredi

All those photos, except one, were uploaded by Lorenzop here on Commons, all the same day they were uploded on Flickr:

• Prodi ritratto.jpg
• Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa.jpg
• Bernardo Bertolucci.jpg
• Andrea Bocelli.jpg (from here)
• Manfredi.jpg

Other photos uploaded by laurentius87 on Flickr (eg) are © and do have information about the Camera in the metadata.
You can see in User talk:Lorenzop that many photos he has uploaded were deleted because they were copyright violation. I believe that he had found a way to avoid that. See also Commons:Deletion_requests/laurentius87. What do you think? --Jaqen 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Exif Data of Manfredi's photo you can see that the Artist Name is PIETRO COCCIA GRANATA IMAGES. By a little research on the net, i found out on this page this photo. Even if the eyes are in different position, I think, by the identical status of the hair, the two photo are the same. Maybe his other photos too, are copyviol, I don't know. --Terrasque 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, my Exif Datas are private so you can't look at them. As for what Jaqen wrote ("other photos [...] eg [...] are ©"), I suggest him and you all to go to eg, you'll be able to see that that photo is not ©. As of your other assumptions and insinuations I would suggest you to spend more time in something more useful and edifying than in acting as Wikipedia's Sherlock Holmes (and Dr Watson). --Lorenzop 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

@Dr Watson: thank you, brother ;-)

@Lorenzop: The google cache can demonstrate that you have just changed the license, and that you have removed the exif data (manfredi as it was).Your tricks don't wouldn't prove that you're not a copyivioler, you're just proving your bad faith.--Jaqen 19:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NB. I remember having tagged Image:Andrea bocelli.jpg as a Flickr copyvio from CNN some time ago. It struck me that such a professional photograph would be available on Flickr under a free licence. A cursory Google search revealed that it was in fact from CNN. RedCoat 19:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The EXIFs of some images indicate multiple types of high-hand professional cameras; some others are very small-resolution aerial views of buildings; and the user has a history of blocks for fake attributions and licences. In short, I award him an indefinite block, and I have removed the most blatant copyright violations. Rama

Reisio

I have a problem with User:Reisio I am not able to solve; I hope this is the right place.

The problem arises from Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg: here Reisio proposed a "new" version of the Italian flag, with a "grey" middle stripe. His proposal was rejected after a very long discussion by majority: consensus is that the correct Italian flag has a "white" middle stripe, and that the version with a "grey" stripe is not an Italian flag.

While it looks like he gave up with modifying Image:Flag of Italy.svg, he loaded up his own "grey" version under the name Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg, inserting it into Category:Insignia and Category:Flags of Italy. As it is clear, by consensus, that this is not an Italian flag at all, I removed the categories, asking for a reason of its inclusion after my edit was roll-backed: Reisio answers were "Sell it to someone who's buying it." (twice in Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg) and "rv sockpuppet nonsense" (in the page history).

Is it possible to have this user accept consensus and collaborate? --TcfkaPanairjdde 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if someone could block the sockpuppet Panairjdde (again) or protect Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg with its original category, that would be helpful. ¦ Reisio 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear demonstration of the way Reisio is "collaborating".--TcfkaPanairjdde 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One, two, three, four. ¦ Reisio 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you were up to this: keep on reverting with a provoking edit summary ("rv sockpuppet nonsense") and mocking me in the talkpage ("Sell it to someone who's buying it."), carefully counting the number of reverts I did, just like it was a trap? I tried countless times to settle this matter, but you are simply trying to game the system. You think you are smart, don't you? The problem is that nobody agrees with your green-grey-red "flag". --TcfkaPanairjdde 12:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You did that all on your own. Just like you got permabanned on en for being a disruptive sockpuppet all on your own, and once before here, all on your own. ¦ Reisio 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've always seen the middle stripe be white, and if I was editing a Wikipedia article, that's the one I would choose. Guys, we just host the images. Let others decide which one's "correct". Rocket000 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ¦ Reisio 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For an official reference see this website of the government of Italy: La Bandiera degli italiani. -- Túrelio 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reference that is particularly relevant to Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg is already linked from it (source field). ¦ Reisio 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rocket, there was a long and tiresome discussion on this matter, and it was decided against Reisio point of view; against consensus he made a "spin-off" of the flag, with a name of his creation, and placed right besides the version which has consensus. Allowing this file means that we endorse his action of bypassing the consensus: do you agree with this? --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, we do have a version of the Italian flag that follows that same law that Reisio mentions. The image is at Image:Printable Flag of Italy.svg and I suggest we move all versions at the Italian named image to the one I am linking now. As for having it in the category, there should be no problem keeping it in the category, since it shows a legal variant of the flag. The Polish flag images do a similar thing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg is the perfect name, particularly as this sockpuppet and his cohorts will almost certainly never let up. "Image:Printable Flag of Italy.svg" doesn't make particular sense to me, either, and the files are not the same. ¦ Reisio 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if thi version is "legal", should we add a version for every possible conversion from Pantone to RGB? The Polish flag example is not fitting, they actually have a correct Pantone-to-RGB conversion (if I remember correctly), while here it is missing. --TcfkaPanairjdde 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I do not have the software to go from Textile Pantone to whatever color code we need. I just have normal Pantone. I still see no harm putting that flag image into the category. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

@Reisio: you are tryijng to remove the focus from the fact you have no consensus for your image. @Zscout: you say you have no software for the conversion, but only the Pantone code; so why this particular shade? who decided that this is the correct conversion from Pantone to RGB? The discussion was against these conversions. --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus, because there's absolutely nothing debatable about this image. It's the same as if I'd uploaded Image:Red square with black border.svg that depicts a red square with a black border. The source for the Pantone color conversion for Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg is linked from the source field, if you're interested. ¦ Reisio 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversion from Pantone to RGB has been largely rejected in Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg, as you know well. Therefore, any reference to a RGB version of the Pantone color of the Italian flag is inappropriate. --TcfkaPanairjdde 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that well, because it's inaccurate — it's also irrelevant, because Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg is not Image:Flag of Italy.svg. ¦ Reisio 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I got this wrong, but wasn't the consensus against Resio's version being uploaded over Image:Flag of Italy.svg? Uploading under a different name is exactly how to solve the issue. Even if the consensus was for removing the image from Commons all together, there's a greater consensus that all images are allowed as long as they're free and within our scope. We can't really redefine our project's purpose based on a discussion on some talk page. Rocket000 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A lack of consensus for, anyways. ¦ Reisio 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocket, did you read my initial statement? The problem is that Reision is including his version in the category of Italian flags when it was decided that his version does not represent an Italian flag. Is that clear? Would you please answer this concern? Or are you claiming that uploading a random image giving it a misleading name is acceptable? In a similar case I have been blocked for uploading another flag with another name, why is Reisio's case been considered different?--TcfkaPanairjdde 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This conflict seems to continue. See Special:Contributions/89.97.232.11. The proxy has been blocked and its edits reverted. This type of behaviour is really not acceptable. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Panairjdde is not really in my simpathy, but if an user is right, is right and stop. Reisio behaviour is problematic, no other ways to describe it.

You think I'm wrong? The facts: Italian flag is green-white-red. White is white, not gray... It's stated by costitution of Italy and by Italian laws. The specific Pantone shadow of white, is only for cotton-fiber flag (say the law). Reisio charged his (false) interpretation-flag of these laws, and want to insert that image everywhere he can.

Now I want to demostrate to you, why Reisio is problematic.

• I'm going to apply the rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point rule.
• I'm going to upload a casual flag... USA flag for example.
• I'm going to change white color from #FFFFFF to an other white that I like (nowhere US gov. says that textile colour Cable No. 70001 (White) have to be #FFFFFF in the web... neither it has to be Pantone safe see ref.)
• If you provide a source that states "in web-application US-flag's white is #FFFFFF", simply I ignore you.
• I'm going to insert this wrong USA flag all around...

Can I do this? -- ELBorgo (sms) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. We have tons flags that don't use official colors. Some don't even have official colors. If you uploaded a neon version of the American flag, I would categorize it under U.S. flags. That's what is. More realistically, upside down American flags or even ones with a different number of stars, like 51, should also be categorize that way. Let's keep POVs and politics out of this. Sources don't matter here either. This isn't Wikipedia. Go there and argue about what flag to use. Here we can have all the versions we want. Rocket000 11:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The point is, we don't contest the existence of such picture itself. We contest that it exists with the name of "Flag of the Italian Republic" and is continuously inserted in the en.wiki article regarding the Flag of Italy. Our Constitution (art. 12) says that our official flag is composed by three equal vertical bands, Green - White - Red - period. I.e, for entertainment purpose one can also draw a flag with their football team's crest in the white area and upload on commons, but never call it "Flag of the Italian Republic". So the image uploaded by Reisio is not the flag of the Italian Republic and it must not be named in deceitful way. Blackcat it 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... obviously the (for you) wrong USA flag, that I'll upload, is (for me) the real official USA flag, and I'm going to insert it whereever USA's flag is needed... This is so obviously for me (I have read all the pages, that are on this case), that I don't repeat it. Very sorry, but it was so obvious... -- ELBorgo (sms) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I don't editorialize on Commons. If you're gonna start inserting that in other projects though, you might have a problem there. And if they take the argument here, I'll tell em the same thing. Rocket000 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really care who is right or wrong at this point. Using open proxies to conduct disruptive personal attacks over a bloody colour conversion indicates a severe lack of perspective and better things to do. This is seriously en:WP:LAME, folks. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Rocket000 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes... no editorialize on Commons... So I can upload hard-metal music and categorize as classical music? Why correcting this? You don't editorialize... simply fantastic...

Probably I have a wrong idea about what is commons and how interact in commons... so I shut up. Do what the hell you want to do, with that image. I'm too bored, and I'll ignore this problem in the future. -- ELBorgo (sms) 14:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll learn :-) If you did what you described with the music example, it would not be acceptable because no reasonable person would do that in good faith. The point would be to be disruptive. However, let's make that analogy fit the situation. Let's say you upload some heavy metal band's music and someone wants to categorize as pop music. Of course, being a true hardcore fan of this band, you reject that label even though it's reasonable to believe someone else truly sees it as pop music. Whose right here? How about both. Categorize it under heavy-metal and pop, that way it doesn't matter how you view the music, you'll be able to find it in the category you think it's in. Rocket000 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Erik Baas

I am having issues with User:Erik Baas regarding the geocoding of this image. We are locked in a reversion war which, if on Wikipedia, would have likely gotten us both in the noose for 3RR by now. Discussion is on the image's talk page. I would appreciate further input. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for two weeks. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (GMT)

User:AnonMoos

Personal attacks like calling me a "blatant hatemonger"[8] when I asked AnonMoos not to insert his own political views in image descriptions. He also left a rather long response on my talk page about what he called my "tedious tiresome boring nonsense" and "bureaucratic jargon acronyms" (i.e. citing policy) and "exigent demands for "proof" of the extremely obvious" (i.e. asking for reliable sources for his far fetched ideas). An interesting case of double standards is that AnonMoos removed (rather then inserted) political views other have put in image descriptions.[9][10] // Liftarn

Can you give us diffs to what you claim is AnonMoos inserting his own politival views in image description, please. Otherwise the situation is impossible to evaluate. Samulili 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Liftarn refers to diffs such as this one. I note Image:Cry-wolf.png has been the subject of heavy reverting. As a side note, Liftarn, giving your message to AnonMoos a title like "personal pontifications" was not very neutral. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't? I used this[11] as a template. // Liftarn

User:Simplicius

Hi.
Simplicus got a 'be civil' template from me after a verry unpolite statement on Commons:Forum. After this he corrected his statement and removed the warning, wich I reverted according to our policys. I also added the 'do not remove warnings' tag. He removed all this and gave a short message on my talk page. Because removing is not okay in my oppinion I reverted again and answerd on my talk page. Then I saw Simplicus has removed other warnings in past. So I would have blocked for a duration of 1-2 hours, but I am to much involved, so I would feel bad for blocking. Can one of you check up this case, please? ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're over-reacting. I didn't perceive Simplicius' statement as impolite (neither version). Lupo 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there actually a policy against removing messages from one's own talk page? / Fred J (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering too. Regarding Simplicius' case, you, ABF, asked Simplicius to be civil. I felt it was natural that he should correct the offending declaration. After that, the warning isn't needed anymore, is it? I mean, if I got a warning because I had forgotten to choose a license for one of my pictures, I would personally remove the warning after having provided the said license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Talk page guidelines -Rocket000 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If Simpilius remove it, he shows, that he has realized it. So you can be lucky. Not much realize such things. What he does after all will be the important thing. Marcus Cyron 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for saying all this. I really have over-reactet. I will say sorry to simplicus. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand ABF's views regarding talk pages. It is a pretty accepted guideline that users shouldn't remove talk page comments; this is why we have {{Dont remove warnings}}. OTOH, it is their talk page. When it comes to the user namespace, we generally allow them a little "ownership". Personally, I oppose users altering/removing comments on any talk page regardless of who's it is (except when moving/archiving), but if it's their own talk page I try to ignore it. Users have different ideas about what they "have a right" to do with their page and everything's persevered in the history, anyway. Rocket000 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always interpreted {{Dont remove warnings}} as having three meanings. 1. "Don't remove warnings on other pages than yours" (of course). 2. "Deleting warnings on your talk page without heeding will not make the problem disappear (and incidentally you're showing bad faith)". 3. More generally speaking, "don't disturb our procedures" (eg. by deleting a DR warning on your talk page, making it look as if the DR were incomplete).

What's the use of keeping a DR warning after it has followed its due course? What's the use of keeping a "no source" or "no license" warning after you've fixed the problem? If you've lost your temper once, should bear the stigma till the end of days? I feel this falls under the remark "Others delete comments after they have responded to them" in Commons:Talk page guidelines. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that users tend to remove messages without responding to them or as a response, often selectively blanking uncomfortable messages and letting other messages stay even after they've been responded to. To avoid doubt, one should always archive. There's really no reason not to. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I treat my talk page as any other talk page. Maybe I'm weird, but I like persevering it just the way it is. Bot spam and all. I just figure why remove anything? If it gets too long, start a new page (archive). Ask yourself why your removing stuff. Rocket000 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too. In a wiki environment, you are what you have done. Clearly some people try to cover their true identity by blanking their talk page, hence making counter-vandalism/educating some users more difficult. Samulili 07:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand people removing templates, which get spammed too readily on peoples pages. Their removal of them is at least an acknowledgement that they have seen them. Should one be relying on seeing other templates on a persons page as a marker of whether they have 'offended' in the same way before? Just as 'blocking is not a punishment' posting messages on a persons talk page is notification to them, not a 'star of David' pinned to them to warn others. --Tony Wills 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My pseudonym is Simplicius, I am here since 2004, these are my uploads. Genereally I clean up my discussion page when my homework is done.

In this case ABF critized a formulation on Wikipedia:Forum, I suppose. He did not say actually which wording he meant at all – but I smoothered everything as good as I could although there were no insults.

When cleaning up my discussion page I left a message in my pages history (here). After the first revert of my discussion page by ABF, I left a message on ABF's discussion page (here). After the second revert I asked for help on the German forum.

Maybe a mentor program for new admins would help to avoid such strange editwars with normal users. A good and successful 2008 to everyone. Simplicius 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocket000

For abusively closing this request for deletion in spite of the vast majority of voters asked for deletion of a false flag of Italy; further, for his vaguely xenophobic, anti-Italian, behaviour kept during all the discussions involving both such deletion and the problems created by Reisio (see above). Blackcat it 15:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, refrain from personally attacking other users. If you believe a deletion closure was in error, it is best that you discuss it with the admin who closed the discussion first. If you still do not get the response you want, you can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. RedCoat 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If I believe it was in error? It was AGAINST the consensus: 8 users vs. 1 so far asked for deletion, and Rocket000 closed the poll anyway calling it "ridicolous". It's me who's personally attacking others? Blackcat it 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting or polling, so as I said, discuss it with the closing admin. Also, you are not one to assume his motivation; "[h]is vaguely xenophobic, anti-Italian, behaviour." That sounds awfully like a personal attack to me. RedCoat 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I truly apologize if you thought my actions had anything to do with nationality. I'm sorry. That aside, I'll let my actions speak for themselves. Rocket000 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blackcat, deletion requests discussions are not votes. They are debates, where arguments are exchanged; the admin's task is to read arguments on both sides and make up his/her decision. You're attacking Rocket000 by accusing him of being xenophobic and anti-Italian. I have read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Reisio and cannot see any evidence to support your accusation. As far as I can see, his position has been consistently: "Guys, we just host the images. Let others decide which one's "correct". His decision does not vindicate Reisio's behaviour, which I would personnally call disruptive. He's just answered "no" to the question, which was: "can we keep this picture on Commons or not?". I understand you're disappointed. Please, take some time to cool down. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jastrow completely. It is not a vote & I do not see that Rocket000 has behaved incorrectly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I contest to Rocket mainly his use of the term "ridicolous" about our issue. We want for a false flag of Italy to be deleted because is named in deceiptful way: that's not our official flag. We asked for renaming it in a way that indicated clearly it was false, and nobody listened to us. We asked for deletion, 8 italians who know how their official flag is done explained why it had to be deleted, and Rocket kept it without even listening to our reasons and calling them "ridicolous". That's really frustrating. Blackcat it 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "Kept. Invalid reason for deletion. It's freely licensed and within our scope. This is getting ridiculous. Commons is not place for this." I wasn't calling you or even the nomination ridiculous, just this whole thing. I was not against renaming (I even suggested it), just deletion, which is what you were asking for. Sorry again if you got the wrong idea. Rocket000 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, before of all this facts I was sure that w:Wikipedia:ANOT#IMMUNITY, was a fundamental rule of all wiki projects. Obviously I'm wrong. In commons an admin is above consensus. Now I know. I know that here my arguments are a zero. And you tell me this only now? I have only wasted my time. I'm going to come back to common's service pages, only when I'll be an admin. All right people this is commons. Bye. -- ELBorgo (sms) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin is in no way "above consensus". The closing admin duly listened to your reasoning and closed the debate based on his discretion and the reasoning submitted which was, in this case, deemed invalid. RedCoat 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get overheated. In a vote, arguments count for nothing. In a debate, on the contrary, arguments count. Please understand that Commons deletion requests are much more technical that the ones held on local projects. One voice quoting a law case weighs more, for instance, that a ten voices just saying "we should keep this copyvio because the picture's nice". Elborgo, your arugments are valued here. You have taken time to explain your position and we thank you for this. However, you adressed the wrong issue here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are correct, admins have no special power in this regard. The thing is, however, eight people can't just decide to redefine our project's scope. There's a much much bigger consensus I was following. Rocket000 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is above consensus, no matter how you call a rose, it will smell the same (euphemistic version of an old proverb). Blackcat it 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But consensus is not a vote so a supermajority will not automatically win the argument. RedCoat 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocket, if you wanted to rename it, you might do, since we have evidence that you ignore debate, consensus and act by yourself. We asked for deletion just because nobody renamed that file. The fact is, that file as it is must not be there because is a false. Is that so hard to understand? Blackcat it 15:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down, edit conflicts everywhere :-) I didn't say I wanted to rename it, I was just trying to help someone that might. Rocket000 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if someone bothers to rename that file and makes clear that in no way can be related to any official flag of the Italian Republic it would be good. But we made clear that the flag is false, and you shouldn't have ignored that Blackcat it 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think he did. Being false is also not grounds to deletion. RedCoat 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. Images can't be true or false. This isn't really the place to discuss this, but I have tried in many other places to explain the issue (or lack of thereof). The image is clearly related to the official flag. It's based on it, isn't? That's "related". I believe Resio and others have taken the necessary steps in order not to mislead people. Renaming the image from "Flag of Italy", naming sources, and even stating "This is not the official flag of Italy, since the middle band is not white as required by the Italian constitution." on the description page. I believe this is way more attention then most images get. A slight color difference should not be causing this much trouble. Rocket000 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<- What on earth is this all about? Rocket000's closure was pefectly correct, and so far as I can see he has done or said nothing that should offend anyone. It's by no mean unusual for an admin to close a deletion request in a manner contrary to the wishes of most, or even all, of the users who post comments. Admins are expected to close requests in accordance with the relevent law, as they understand it, and with regard to policy and precedent here, and not to close on the basis of a vote nor even of the voting users' consensus (neither apply in this context on Commons). As to whether the flag is 'false' or not, we do not apply Wikipedia-type sourcing-rules to our images: we simply host them and let other Wiki projects decide whether to use them or not. It's not our job to make decisions for our sister sites as to what is 'true' and what is 'false'. Otherwise there would be no end to the political wrangling. Let's leave that to Wikipedia ;) --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll not talk about the admin's decision, but I see the fact that in this moment Commons has a fake image named as true; can you guess what an italian user coming here to take an image for his own use will think about the reliability of Commons seeing that?--Frazzone 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1) "fake image named as true" doesn't mean anything. Nothing in the name of the image says "true".

2) Content and material in general are to be taken with some critical distance.

3) The point of Commons is not to be "reliable". It is to host Free content.

4) Just rename this bleeding image and stop wasting everyone's time. Rama 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. This is not a user problem. User:Rocket000 is not a problem user. This should be at Commons:Disputes noticeboard if you really want to continue this, but be aware that it is beginning to become quite disruptive. Please consider whether five percent luminosity one way or the other is seriously worth the attention of all of the Commons administrators for several weeks. This is not a matter that needs to be resolved right this second. Nobody is in danger of death or lawyers, so please find a way to discuss the matter in a more calm, collected and civilised manner with fewer accusations and less name-calling. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of messing with this. Someone else wanna give me a hand? Rocket000 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for renaming the picture. Elborgo's suggestion (File:Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg) is fine by me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems to me a much better name for the image. --Fioravante Patrone com 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So they just wanted it named in English and without the Pantone number? If that will make everyone happy, by all means, do it. Rocket000 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that "Italian flag" (or "bandiera italiana") could be an Italian flag, whereas "bandiera della Repubblica Italiana" (or "flag of the Italian Republic") can only mean the Italian flag. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

okay :) Rocket000 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If a rename satisfies the concerns, then by all means rename. Durova 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage a rename here - consensus definitely pointed to that and Rocket should have (IMO) considered reuploading as part of his closure. — Giggy 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile now (the DR was just a new little uprising). It was previously renamed per consensus. This time they wanted it deleted. Rocket000 21:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could rename it Image:Magical pumpkin llama.svg and they'd still try to get it removed from the category and deleted. There are only three realistic options, IMO: protect the page, rename it something POV/inaccurate like Image:False lame retarded GRAY unofficial flag of Italy.svg (I doubt even this would make them happy), or delete the file altogether. ¦ Reisio 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be File:False lame retarded GREY unofficial flag of Italy.svg :P Rocket000 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Should've anticipated that. :p ¦ Reisio 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what consensus are you talking about? Only one person mentioned renaming it - and no way was I going to try that. I would have no idea what it should be called nor did I know how much backlash it would get. Rocket000 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Every delete vote that states that the image is an incorrect version of the flag can be used to justify renaming it to something that implies unofficiality. By that count, most of them do. Either way, I didn't mention this above, but I think you did the right thing (in essence). — Giggy 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't know if there would be people on the other side saying it is the correct version. I was just tending to the deletion request. Someone with more knowledge of this could have renamed it. (I didn't even know what it said) Like I said, it already was renamed per a previous consensus. I was not about to get in the middle of that. Rocket000 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, to those arguing that Rocket000 somehow erred, I think you all need to throttle back the rhetoric here quite a bit. Reading over this conversation I can see several people that forget that commons ought to be a mellow place. We are not going to delete images just because they happen to be colored or named in ways that not everyone agrees with, absent some other compelling reason. I may have to upload an image called "Fake Italian Flag.svg" consisting of lime green, pink, and gray bands tilted 23 degrees from horizontal just to prove the point... :) Repeat after me: "commons is a mellow place and I will do my bit to keep it that way" ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lar, may I respectfully point that you forget that we're talking about an official flag? Is not a matter of "not agreeing with". Is that our flag colours are stated by our Constitution: Green, White and Red, not Lime, Grey and Purple. That doesn't prevent you to picture a flag as the latter, provided that you name it "funny Flag of Italy by Lar" or something similar. In no way you should name it "Flag of the Italian Republic" or any other deceitful way. Anyway, if someone bothered to rename that file, I guess all this mess will come to an end. Blackcat it 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And Yes, Rocket, we are all Italian and we all requested the rename if for some vague reasons that untrue image can't be deleted. As Italian we know well what is our flag...

Why on earth didn't you suggest a rename then, during the deletion discussion? And further, why did you open this discussion with a statement that Rocket000 is abusive, deceitful, xenophobic, anti-italian and forgets to wash behind his/her ears on a regular basis, instead of a statement along the lines of "I think maybe a straight keep wasn't the right outcome, what if we worked together to find a better outcome, like perhaps a rename to make it clear this isn't an official flag" ??? Really, you need to assume good faith, Rocket000 is just trying to do a job. I don't think R personally has it in for Italians or anything at all like that. (R may or may not wash behind R's ears often enough, I can't say) ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait: I didn't say he was deceitful, but that IMHO he went abusively against consensus on deleting an image with a deceitful name. If we knew that a lot of Italian users' opinion - who happen to well know their own national flag - could be simply overturned by a single admin that said "kept" we would have studied better rhetorich at high school: yes I know that on it.wiki an image is deleted after a one-week-poll (unless it's a copyviol of course) and only if those who want deletion are at least the double as those who don't, and here an admin decide by themself, nonetheless the terms used ("ridicolous") and the fact that all the 8 people who asked for deletion are Italians led me to supposition there was somewhat discriminating in that. Or wouldn't you have supposed the same if you were at my place? Blackcat it 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I spelled "ridiculous" right. Rocket000 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Consensus can be rendered invalid, and therefore at an administrator's discretion when closing deletion requests can render some comments invalid to agreed conventions, though all comments are taken into consideration. As Rocket000 said, he has nothing with racism or whatever you assert. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:16, 05 January 2008 (GMT)

Your constitution contains RGB codes? Cool... —LX (talk, contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] They are Pantone; RGB codes do not exist. The ongoing debate is all about how to convert Pantone into RGB, and apparently there are two results of that conversion. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:16, 05 January 2008 (GMT)

There's only one result of that conversion (though in the past different matching methods have been used, and different Pantone colors have been specified, IIRC)… some users just want it to be #ffffff regardless — no scientific process or matching system (provided by Pantone or otherwise) has ever matched the Pantone color to #ffffff; meanwhile the green and red color conversions remain almost completely uncontested. ¦ Reisio 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it time... Rocket000 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(It was a rhetorical question.) On that same note, would I be vandalising and disgracing the Italian flag if I turned down the brightness on my screen while watching it? —LX (talk, contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why yes, and I expect you to resign your adminship over it as well. (pulls off his pink tinted glasses to squint at the screen, then turns his in too). I'm really sorry if it now sounds like I'm making fun of some of you but come on! ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

lol. I'm sorry, but this whole thing is making me laugh. Just think about what we're actually doing here. Rocket000 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, guys, let's not get carried away in the opposite direction. The national flag is important for many people. I fully understand why Italian users are baffled by a green-grey-red flag. Second, while I understand what you mean by there being no "true" or "false" pictures, I don't want our Italian friends here to get the impression Commons accepts just about anything. We are bound to host educative or informative content. Misleading or dishonest content, such as a picture of me named young_Queen_Elisabeth_I.jpg, would be deleted or renamed. This being said, Reisio, would you agree to another renaming (such as Image:Italian Flag with Pantone textile color.svg)? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not unless all other flag images on Commons that use Pantone-derived colors are renamed, too. I've already put 'PMS' and the date of the legislation whose data it depicts in the filename. ¦ Reisio 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What does 'PMS' mean? I'm afraid it means only 'pre-menstrual syndrom' for me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

PANTONE MATCHING SYSTEM® ¦ Reisio 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Flags seem to be a rather contentious issue (I seem to remember a recent, similarly hot, debate about keeping an 'erroneous' Lebanese flag, I think we need an FAQ page about deleting flags :-). I agree the file-naming and description need be the only contentious aspect --Tony Wills 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the Flag of Northern Ireland Ulster Banner... RedCoat 11:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this really what we should be wasting our time on here? I didn't think Commons was the place to have arguments over what's the "correct" color of something. Wikipedia? Yes, but not here. We shouldn't be misleading, but it's only misleading depending on your POV. I'm not sure why this flag should get more attention then say pictures of Mohammad we users say it's inaccurate and misleading because we don't know what he looked like. We can't please all the people all the time, sometimes we just got to say "just don't use this image if you have a problem with it. Sorry." Rocket000 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't close it this time. Have fun. Rocket000 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a criticism of Rocket000, but several things about this case seem to suggest the admin instructions need revamping. The deletion request was kept open for under 24 hours: in general only true speedy deletions should be closed in under a week. Second, Rocket000's closure reads more like a 10th opinion than a consensus-based closure. Finally, his continuing involvement in the details of the debate, both above and on the re-opened deletion discussion, suggest he is not really an impartial admin with regards to this image.--Nilfanion 10:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said Nilfanion, I agree with you. :-)

Fred J (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, without looking into it much but knowing Rocket000 to be a usually thoughtful guy, let me point out that it's very difficult to avoid becoming involved in a debate when people are shooting peas at you from one side or another (it can be done, but requiring that level of restraint from every administrator is honestly unrealistic). Commons can be a real "wild west" sort of place sometimes, because we really don't have any built-in structures for keeping a lid on disputes, and I don't think it's at all surprising that someone who is confronted about an action they took in a low-key and everyday manner might end up getting pulled into a debate they previously did not have any strong opinion on.

Regardless of whatever else is involved in this issue, Rocket000 has clearly been getting an undeserved drubbing over this, and that's beginning to grind on my sense of fairness and collegiality. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I don't see anything indicating that Rocket000 had a strong opinion on the matter before closing the deletion request, which is what ought to matter. Can we archive this or at least move it over to Commons:Disputes noticeboard with a less finger-pointing subject? You may disagree with closing a deletion request so quickly, but as I've said before, there is no "user problem" with Rocket000. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, SB_Johnny and LX. I did feel like this whole thing was a little undeserved. I didn't think anything of it when I close the deletion request. I, along with all other deletion-closing regulars, close similar requests like that all the time. I would have closed it even earlier if I had seen it. I maintain that it was a invalid request. That's not really an opinion about the image itself, it's just we don't delete things because people don't like them. Requests like that are always speedy closed. I just happened to get stuck with a touchy subject one.

This user report of course got me involved. I started looking more into the situation more. I was aware this might affect my judgment so I stopped all admin action. I didn't protect the page myself. I never even interfered with the edit war. I told one of the key players when he came to me about Reisio that I was too involved to do anything. And, even after getting support here from everyone besides those already involved, I didn't close the second deletion request. Even though I know I should have treated it like any other request—I refrained. Maybe we're becoming more like en.WP. Maybe our policy is slowly shifting over this, which is fine, but I still stand by my decision. Rocket000 00:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's do everything we can to NOT become like en:wp... learn from it, use technology developed there when it's appropriate, even let their experience guide us in shaping processes but we should strive to keep things simple, friendly, multilingual and above all, mellow. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You and that "mellow". :) I love it! I think that should be policy. COM:MELLOW? Rocket000 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not policy, not ever policy I hope!!! But now a blue link. :) Edits and expansions welcomed! ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

lol. That's awesome. Rocket000 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VeroStupido

Attack account. Name is insulting. User's only contributions are to insult another user in a deletion request and to upload a burlesque version of the Italian flag to mock another user in that request (Image has bad colors and unevenly wide stripes). I'd love to request a checkuser as well but sadly I don't have enough evidence to make a credible accusation against the puppetmaster. -Nard 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Name is insulting"... To whom? --Boricuæddie 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Vero Stupido means "truly stupid". The name is clearly mocking the object of his joking, who is User:Reisio. -Nard 01:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

w:WP:AGF? Or, as Lar would put it, mellow out. --Boricuæddie 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Try as I might, I really don't see how that could be done in good faith. I don't think we should be mellow about users creating accounts purely to attack other users. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LX and N. This is at best a very bad case of WP:POINT. Block indefinitely. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, I strongly disagree. His contributions are an attempt at calming the atmosphere through a simple joke in a discussion more ridiculous than his name or his image. We have to learn not to take everything as an attack and start assuming good faith. Only then can our goal to provide images for our sister projects can be peacefully met, IMO. --Boricuæddie 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:True Flag Italy.png may be a joke, but calling someone stupid is an insult. I don't see how "Image:True Flag Italy.png this is the true flag of Italy for Reisio!!!!" (please note the use of four exclamation marks) is calming the atmosphere either: it's just ridiculing Reisio's position. It's more like pouring oil on fire to me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving the history of this flag thing, I would say that kind of joke is inappropriate. The account was created for the purpose of attacking a user. I'm a big supporter of "assume good faith", but it's still assuming, which no one should do if enough evidence to the contrary exists. But as Eddie shows us, not everyone would interpret the user's actions as block-worthy. Rocket000 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

attack account not really, it is a throw away account used in an attempt to add humor to a long running debate unfortunately its been lost in the translation. IMHO block the account delete the contributions, including the image and move on. Gnangarra 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Gives lesser weight to this than debating what to do about it anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that on Italian Wikipedia he would have been blocked indefinitely without discussion for inappropriate user name ;-) --Jaqen 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the it:wp and we don't block usernames that are insults in languages other than english as a routine matter but in this particular case it's clear what they were up to. But I see it more as an attempt at humour in this than as a true real insult. But as B and others say, this particular humour may not have been well considered. Since it's obviously someone socking for effect, (and I'm no stranger to that particular humour form, I confess) it's best to block and move on as G says, rather than wasting cycles on a discussion that will harsh our buzz. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't block users with offensive names not in English? Are you sure? link proving who my main account is. Te meto la verga 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't routinely block users with offensive names not in english, as there are too many languages, it narrows down the words quite a bit, but we sometimes do. Did you want yours blocked? Was that the point? ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now who's making a WP:POINT :) "I put the yard to you"? That's not very offensive. ;) Now I remember what "cock" is in Spanish. Rocket000 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We only block offensive names if they are in English? That doesn't seem fair - to both sides. I'm not talking about this particular name, as "very stupid" isn't really offensive in itself. (It's implying that that's what Reisio is, that's why it may be offensive. I don't think language has much to do with it.)

This whole flag thing should be over but no one seems to want it to be. Everyone's got comments but they don't act on them. (If it's fear of getting a user report, I understand ;) Rocket000 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the indef block proposal but I'd also suggest that a check user is performed and whoever it comes back to is given an appropriate block also. Things like this whilst they may be intended to be humorous only serve to disrupt processes and are unconstructive so should be discouraged. This isn't a "simple joke" as "an attempt at calming the atmosphere", this is a waste of everyone's time and serves only to stir up this issue further; just look at what it has caused. Adambro 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? a CU? I think that's a bit much here, best to let it all go and not inflame matters (see w:WP:DENY which has some wisdom on this I think) but COM:RFCU is available to make a request if you feel the need. Don't let yourself be trolled into doing it though. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This also relates to Rocket000's comments further up, "assume good faith" is not just about giving people the benefit of the doubt (in case you have misinterpreted their intention), but it also works to diffuse peoples aggressive behaviour. If you *act* as though a persons behaviour was well intentioned (regardless of whether you believe it, and however much it makes your blood boil) it tends to diffuse rather than aggravate any real element of aggression (and certainly helps when you did mis-interpret things :-). This way of interacting also has an element of w:WP:DENY in that you are seemingly oblivious of their attack :-) (not so useful with blatant vandalism, or direct rather than indirect personal attacks ;-) --Tony Wills 11:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a CU might not be necessary unless it continues. I wouldn't oppose one if it's done, but I'm generally a bit apprehensive about open-ended CUs ("who is the puppetmaster of X" rather than "is X a puppet of Y") in anything but very severe cases. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing... I hope the other CUs would decline any "who is the puppetmaster of X" (unless X were highly highly disruptive, way more than in this case), just as I would. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for WP:POINT. I recognize the benefits of assuming good will, but I was not able to find any signs of it even after thorough research. (Regarding good will in general, there's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. Samulili 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC) )

That is the most amazingly mangled rendition of "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." that I have heard in a very long time. Thank you very much for making me spit diet cola on my keyboard. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, he didn't invent it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related

(Are the Bushisms better known on this side of the pond? ;-) Fred J (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't pay attention to That Man (except to count the days left) so I missed the reference, but yes, bushisms are popular here too. Perhaps if Samulili had drawled or used New clee arr in a sentence? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:True Flag Italy.png closed and deleted image, this closure is not prejudicial to any other deletion, only reflection that it was humour gone sour. Gnangarra 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg comment by VS have been removed as well. lets closed this discussion and move a long. Gnangarra 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Samulili and Gnangarra for taking action. Discussion's always good, but some things don't need that much. Rocket000 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've unblocked and reblocked, as WP:POINT (original blong summary) is a redlink. — Giggy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reisio

User Reisio keeps on calling me a "sockpuppet". This is quite annoying and not exaclty a collaborative way of behaving. Is there a way to oblige him to behave in a civil way? --TcfkaPanairjdde 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this discussion Gnangarra 13:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

These are two different problems with the same user, one is a problem of consensus bypassed and the other of unrespectful behaviour. Should they be mixed in the same section or it is possible to put them into two different places? TcfkaPanairjdde 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it was pointed out just for reference. You are referred to as a sockpuppet there. The question is: Are you a sockpuppet? :) Rocket000 14:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody would want to see this? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:13, 03 January 2008 (GMT)

Interesting indeed. The above discussion is definitely relevant. There seems to be some sockpuppetry and politically motivated actions going on. This edit seems to also be you, but Reisio didn't call you a sockpuppet there. I suggest stopping the edit-war, then I'm sure the sockpuppet name-calling will end. BTW, this is a warning. That kind of behavior is inappropriate. Edit-warring doesn't solve anything. Rocket000 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a block may already be in order. Reisio should have been the one that came here. Rocket000 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He beat me to it. I did link to that when it arrived here, however. It's more poetically karmic this way, anyways. ¦ Reisio 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re blocking, let's not jump the gun. If any block gets instituted, it would have to come from a community ban. I would not take the rationale from the past CSN discussion, as it is now inactive due to it being low-traffic and poorly maintained for a matter so sensitive (editing privileges).

Anyhow, the last block on Panairjdde was for threats on Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 13:12, 03 January 2008 (GMT)

May I ask why I am being treated with a block, while nobody is taking into consideration Reisio's behaviour? The name calling has been going on since (at least) July 11th; I have been kind for this long time, but he did not stop, and now you are telling me it is my fault?

It is he who is accusing me of being a sockpuppet (of whom?); it is he who created a new image when consensus was against his opinion in Flag of italy svg and now you are treating me of block?

Please, check well the situation before taking action. Nobody actually had a look at the situation. --TcfkaPanairjdde 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reisio is not at ease either. The conduct at Image talk:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg is simply unacceptable. However, a discussion on Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg would not affect the other image in any way, so consensus is not being violated in this case.

If Reisio decides to throw another bomb at another user, then I will be blocking for harassment. Who knows how long the possible block will be.

Re the sockpuppet question: yes, but a legitimate one, by choosing to abandon the original account, and then come back on another account with a time gap in between. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:46, 03 January 2008 (GMT)

Bomb? ¦ Reisio 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it literally. You should know what I mean. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:30, 04 January 2008 (GMT)

Well I don't. ¦ Reisio 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify. I wasn't personally suggesting that TcfkaPanairjdde should be blocked (and definitely not banned), I was just mentioning that for those more involved. I didn't know the history here, so I was just throwing it out there that a block may already be in order. Anyway, that aside, the larger issue here isn't the name-calling but the edit warring. The former seems to be a result of the latter. So that's why I was addressing that. Sorry, TcfkaPanairjdde.

To conclude this, Resio please stop calling TcfkaPanairjdde a sockpuppet (regardless if he is or not) and both of you stop the edit-warring. My comments regarding the flag-thing can be seen above (trying to keep that separate from this). Rocket000 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If my humble opinion is somewhat valuable, Panairjdde is not anyone's sockpuppet as I have known him for long time in it.wiki. Blackcat it 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course your opinion's valued here. It's just not really important if he is or not, IMO. It would be if he was banned or going to be or something, but his sockpuppetry isn't the issue here. Even if he is a sock, he made it pretty obvious it's the same user, which is cool here. A legitimate one, like O said. Rocket000 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocket, the problem is that this name-calling has been going on at least since july 11th (did you check Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg?), way before the new image was uploaded. This name callingwent on also during what you call an edit-war, with Reisio mocking me both in the edit summaries and in the talk page (did you check that?)

Is all of this allowed, that is more than six months of name-calling and mocking another user, just because of a (possible) edit-war in the last week? This is all this section is about: up until when Reisio will be allowed to behave in this way, provoking those who don't aree with him? --TcfkaPanairjdde 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reisio is still at it: personal attacks, in the form of an incorrect heading section [12]

Why he is allowed such an hostile behaviour for such a long time? --TcfkaPanairjdde 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because he thinks you are banned from Wikimedia entirely, for which you are not. The only ban was from the English Wikipedia, which does not affect Commons. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:16, 06 January 2008 (GMT)

No… I just don't differentiate — a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet, and IIRC the actions leading to his ban on en for sockpuppetry were a direct result of the conflict regarding Image:Flag of Italy.svg (here, for which he only received a normal ban). As for his alteration of the heading, it alters context. ¦ Reisio 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

@O: I do not care what he thinks: I am writing in this page to ask why he is allowed to behave in this way.--TcfkaPanairjdde 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And again at it: he is trying to insert an irrelevant external link in a discussion: how long he will be allowed to be uncivil? --TcfkaPanairjdde 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

@Reisio: No, you just don't understand. A sockpuppet is a puppet of a puppetteer: who should be mine? And no, my "ban" from en.wiki is unrelated to commons. So stop calling me a sockpuppet. (The bit about the heading is ridiculous: you added an heading which is not related to the discussion, the heading goes away).--TcfkaPanairjdde 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As nobody with administrative powers cares, this happy guy is still trying to provoke me, adding material, which (according to his twisted mind) I would not let be public, to a discussion on his twisted version of a known flag. Up until when will Reisio be allowed to mock and provoke people? --TcfkaPanairjdde 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we care, we're just at a loss as to how to start to untangle the mess. There is a lot of bomb throwing hereabouts of late, and Reisio is not the only thrower nor the only throwee. I note that this topic, or one somehow related, came up on w:WP:ANI in the context of their Flag of Italy article. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So, exactly when I throwed anything at him? --TcfkaPanairjdde 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Oi Massimo

I believe he is a sockpuppet of Lorenzop, that was blocked indefinitely on 26 December (discussion). On the 27 December Massimo Oi on Flickr uploaded a photo of Prodi with a cc-by-sa-2.0 license. The photo is the same that Laurentius87 uploaded on Flickr and that Lorenzop transferred on Commons (as Image:Prodi ritratto.jpg). Oi Massimo uploaded it here on Commons on 7 Jauary (as Image:Prodi foto mia.jpg).
Also Image:Veltroni ritratto.jpg (flickr) is suspect: small dimension. Also, I think it is strange that someone who is able to make photo like this one at the United Nations has simply a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T7, as the EXIF data that says. I believe he changed them. Concluding, I would block Oi Massimo as a SP of Lorenzop and I would delete the photos he uploaded on Flickr and then on Commons:

• Image:Buttiglione 2.jpg
• Image:D'Alema ONU.jpg
• Image:Veltroni ritratto.jpg
• Image:Gioberti edificio 2.jpg

The other photos should be ok. --Jaqen 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

About that EXIF data, as strange and fanatical as it would be of him, I, too, am as certain as I can be that he's inserting fake data in order to make this one seem more convincing. For one, it's highly implausible that such a photo could have been taken with a point and shoot camera like a DSC-T7; it looks manually focused and probably is. Also, the name "Sony" is not upper-cased in the EXIF data, as real EXIF data from such a camera would be. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Will delete uploads listed here, contact me about any others. — Giggy 02:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegation on my user page

User ABF has made an unjust allegation that I added material that was not within the scope of this wiki; there is discussion on my talk page and his talk page. I think that he has accidentally made a mistake, because I have only added appropriate material. He may have misunderstood because after I made an error with a page, I personally asked for it to be deleted myself, and then I opted make a category instead of a page. I feel that user AFB should clearly indicate that he has made a mistake and should not have made this allegation. I have given user ABF an opportunity to re-think, and now I feel that I should report this to administrators here, as I do not want this unjust allegation to remain on my talk page. Snowmanradio 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was a mistake, move on. Remove the warning, if you want. No administrator is required to apologize here. You should also read COM:MELLOW. --Boricuæddie 19:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I will remove the warning from my talk page, and move on. Snowmanradio 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! If only all disputes could be resolved like this... --Boricuæddie 19:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was the COM:MELLOW... Rocket000 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator abuse of power, insults and harrassment

I request that the acts carried out by administrator Ecemaml and Boricuaeddie be reviewed, as I feel that they have abused their power by blocking me, they have engaged in personal attacks and are currently carryng acts of harrassment. Admin Boricuaeddie has even posted and accused me of attempting to break the law, thus of criminal intent. To this I demand an apology for it is a serious accussation, defamation, and since I sign in with my name, it does great harm to me.

The entire story can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_%26_protections, under the heading Administrator abuse of power, and in this discussion about the deletion of an image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Catrinas_2.jpg

I request that admins that have not interacted in that discussion and who read Spanish review the case.

--Tomascastelazo 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the administrators did anything wrong. Please move on; the image was kept. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (GMT)

This has already been discussed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections as you point out. Please keep it there. The lack of responses to your increasingly long-winded diatribes there probably indicates that others share my feeling that whatever you're trying to achieve at this point does not seem very productive. As O says, please put it behind you and move on. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue is as good as done. We aren't going to about punishing admins just because we can. Image was kept. Chill, and move on. — Giggy 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rebelxd

This userpage looks like one big advert + the images have no info on source or copyrights on them. Delete all? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that certainly is what it appears like to me... My suggestion: Tag them, give the user a bit of time to respond, and if it becomes clear that the appearance (of using this resource as a private web space) matches reality, yes, delete them. But maybe there's a chance for a turnaround, so I'd start by explaining that all this stuff is outside our charter... we even have templates you can crib wording from for this. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oup, without seeing your notice, Lar  deleted all of them ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jonesy22‎

The user is removing valid categories from images. When asked to stop[13] he replied with "for my perspective they dont deserve to be in these categories."[14] // Liftarn

True, I did this, because from my point of view, these pictures is disgusting and they dont deserve to be in these categories, as mentioned above. What should say families of these suicide bomb attacks or these dead soldiers in Iraq, when they see these pictures here in commons in these categories? So called "artist", who created them have already his own category here. --Jonesy22 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Being in an artist's category is irrelevant. What matters is content, and the content clearly tells us that the image belongs in the categories. As Commons is a free media repository that shows multiple points of view, you may not like what you see. That, however, is no reason to remove correctly categorised images. Please see COM:C for more info. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

User:Alfonso2

After being denied a deletion of all his pictures (Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Alfonso2) the user run riot tonight and began to overwrite all his pictures with a disfigured wiki-logo (copyvio). Since at the time I just wanted him to stop I blocked him for a week, only noticing his motive later. All the 52 vandalized pictures are restored in the old version with a clean version history, but I fear that as soon the block is over he will start again. I'm not sure if he should get another chance or be blocked indefinite. -- Cecil 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try explaining things (as to why we don't always just delete every contribution that was properly licensed and why overuploading logos isn't a good approach) politely and then offering to lower the block to time served if he agrees to not do that again... that might work. If he won't, or if he gives his word and goes back I'd support a longer block but first let's try that, if you agree. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Everybody should get a second chance. If he does it again, indefenite block. But if you do one time such an idiotic thing in anger, we should forbearing with him. One time. Marcus Cyron 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224

godwin, personal attack, removal of a NfD, spamming. I think we should get rid of this contributor and his sockpuppet User:Liberator1. Code·is·poetry 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 Blocked. Commons is not the place for his comments. --Boricuæddie 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention trolling and just plain vandalism. An indefinite ban would not be out of order in my opinion—the user is evidently not here to contribute constructively. RedCoat 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I felt merciful, and, since he is just a child, I blocked for only a day. Feel completely free to extend the block. --Boricuæddie 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you block his IP as well? -Nard 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock was on. Both his IP and his alternate account should have been blocked automagically. --Boricuæddie 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I was just about to complain about him changing comments, blanking, and self-closing Commons:Deletion requests/User:Ionas68224. -Nard 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comment: Block extended to a month; user vandalized his own talk page. If he continues his disruptive behavior after it expires, we should ban him. --Boricuæddie 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block extension. The user's edits here serve no purpose other than disruption and are an example of trolling. If he decides to turn over a new leaf on his return, so be it. If he persists in behaviour which could justifiably be characterised as trolling, I am afraid he will have to find himself another place. This discussion also left a bad taste in my mouth. RedCoat 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of problems on other WMF projects and is banned indefinitely from en:Wikipedia. I do not trust the claim that he's 11 years old. Durova 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pity so many people pointed to me calling him a vandal as a reason to oppose my adminship request. Since he is, you know, a vandal. And he's been blocked as one. Yet people crucify me. How strange. -Nard 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to characterise the concerns that others raise as "crucify"... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Atencion! Imagenes robadas!

Soy habitue de la wiki en español, y en el dia de hoy estuve investigando los upload del [Usuario Lancha 8795].

Si ven sus contribuciones veran que ayer subio 5 imagenes Contributions.

Las mismas son: 1, 2, 3, 4 y 5.

Debajo de ellas ha argumentado que "Esta imagen fue tomada por mi, Usuario: Lancha_8795, con una cámara digital en el Estadio Gigante de Arroyito. Doy el permiso absoluto para utilizar esta imagen en commons libremente."

Sospechando de la calidad de las mismas, me aventure a recorrer la web; siguiendo mi corazanada, corrobore que las mismas no fueron sacadas por el, sino "robadas" de una web!!!!!-

Pueden encontrar a todas ellas en estos dos links: aqui y aqui.

En adicion, chequie el historial de bloqueos de el en la wiki en español y oh sorpresa! Usuario conflictivo! ver aqui

Y no solo eso, esta utilizando las imagenes para nominar como articulo bueno un articulo lleno de ellas: aqui.

No conozco casi nada de commons, ni llegue a tener usuario, y por eso no se donde hacer la denuncia.

Les pido a los biblios que tomen partida en esta "trampa" de robar fotos de sitios web y usarlas con copyright propio.

Atte.

Santiago

thanks to altavista babel, your saying that the five images are copyright violations from here and here. Looking at them I agree and have deleted them as such. Gnangarra 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

gracias a Altavista Babel, su refrán que las cinco imágenes son violaciones del copyright de aquí y aquí. Mirándolas las convengo y he suprimido como tal Gnangarra 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ATENCION! El usuario trampozo que robo las imagenes ha vuelto a repetir el "robo".

Nuevamente cargo las imagenes y nuevamente mintio con que son de el, pero las robo de las paginas arriba.

Aca las que cargo: [15], [16], {http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hinchada_Ros_Central.jpg] y [17].

Por favor solicito las mismas sean borradas urgente, y que esta vez por favor se bloquee al usuario.

Atte.

Santiago —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.17.109.81 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done deleted Gnangarra 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarify User has also been warned and advised of this discussion in both English and Spanish. Gnangarra 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copio de vuueta debajo de todo

Por favor mirar mi post arriba [18].

Gracias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.17.109.81 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Death Walking Terror

I believe this user is User:Dethzone from Wikipedia. B/c he left this message on my talk page. Looks like he's doing here what he couldn't get away with on Wikipedia (basically, using it like a Myspace page). Your attention to this matter would be much appreciated. -Ebyabe 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To cover his bases, I think he's created an account as User:Deth Demon also. -Ebyabe 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpages deleted as spam. Thanks for picking it up. Regards, RedCoat 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Found another one. Will keep an eye on this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. Please feel free to use this page I created, if you think it will help in future detection. Regards. :) -Ebyabe 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check User:Death Walking Terror again. He's doing... I don't know what, but it doesn't seem appropriate for here. Thanks. -Ebyabe 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I've also watchlisted his userpage in case he recreates (contact me or leave a note here about other pages). — Giggy 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Walking Terror (talk · contribs) was warned previously; a strong warning may be appropriate. I warned the user about civility per the diff cited by Ebyabe above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He has left another "message" on my talk page. Could this be dealt with, please? Thanks. -Ebyabe 02:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the message. A block is coming any minute now... 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (GMT)

User:AnonMoos

Personal attacks, calling me a hatemongerer.[19] // Liftarn

I've left him a warning, may block if he continues. — Giggy 09:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not the first time either.[20] // Liftarn

These recurring provocations are beginning to be annoying. Both users are capable of behaving properly most of the time, but they keep on appearing here. Maybe they should both avoid certain topics and certain users.

I also cannot be see that we have recurring problems with these cartoons by Latuff. Some of these cartoons are truly repugnant (Image:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif, Image:UnitedweRAPE.gif); the repulsion that they inspire to me is matched only by claims like "some of which, such as Image:Cry-wolf.png, are transparently based on raw religious bigotry and religious hatred" [21], which clearly demonstrates that some people have become incapable of telling political criticism from racism, or are maybe deliberately attempting to blur the distinction.

These cartoons pose of problem because

• removing the most offensive ones will be denounced as white-washing Latuff by Right-wing (pro-Bush, pro-Likud, ...) users and possibly as censorship by Left-wing ones
• keeping them will induce recurring conflicts
• and deciding on a "benefit for the project/annoyance" basis will open the door to Right-wing astroturfing. Rama 10:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Go and tell that to Anthere. Patrícia ^msg 11:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons is not censored so potentially usefull political commentary cartoons should be OK. // Liftarn

Indeed, usefull.

I am not saying that potentially offensive cartoons should be deleted. I am saying that cartoons which create disturbance and annoyance greater than their value are not advantageous for our project. And while we are indeed not censored, not being censored is not a matter of principle which can force us to accumulate more and more content poisonous to our projet. Rama 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope. Can a vocal minority bully the project to delete files they don't approve of? // Liftarn (09:19, 29 January 2008) (not utc)

Bully is perhaps not really a very neutral term. But it's a valid question. Ditto the converse, can a vocal minority convince/pressure a project to keep files that most of the project doesn't feel are needed? ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not since every file can be brought to a delete vote. In this case the result was to keep them per overwhelming votes.[22] But now the issue is is it's OK to call other editors "hatemongerer". // Liftarn

That's a no brainer... "no, it isn't OK to call other editors hatemongers" is the obvious answer. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, AnonMoos did not exactly call Liftarn a hatemongerer, but accused him of using Wikimedia Commons as a platform to disseminate hatemongering after (quite correctly) labeling the Latuff cartoons as "hatemongering". Though AnonMoos shouldn't have done that, it is not the same as directly calling another user a hatemongerer. -- Túrelio 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He did call me a "blatant hatemonger" earlier.[23] Labeling political cartoons you disagree with "hatemongering" says more about AnonyMoose than about the cartoons. // Liftarn

You are right. I did refer to the link you provided in the first line of your complaint. But with your second sentence you are getting personal against AnonMoos by yourself. --Túrelio 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And again[24]. // Liftarn

Per Rama... I'm wondering if we have something that is "widely" considered offensive, whether we should require that the item actually be used (and supported by the community) in some project or another of some significant size instead of just "potentially" be useful someday, to protect it from deletion... that's not a policy proposal yet, it's just me thinking out loud, as it is somewhat spongy (what is widely, what is significant size, etc)... but maybe? ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly considering it offensive to see normally valuable users like Liftarn and User:AnonMoos behave like overexcited kids in a kindergarten every couple of weeks -- as if having to endure the vision of some of these cartoons was not bad enough as it is. Can't we sit them apart or something? Rama 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If User:AnonMoos finds them so offensive why not just stop looking at them? // Liftarn

I have to agree with that. Commons can't satisfy everyone's personal likes and dislikes, all this inclusive. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

It may just be that the people that are in favor of deleting "widely" offensive images speak louder than those who oppose because they're the ones that are being offended. However, many of the ones that oppose censorship are offended by things here, too—they just don't see it like that. "Commons is not censored" we say, yet discussions like this continue to go on. Maybe we should try to all get on the same page so we can hopefully cut back on all this drama? Rocket000 01:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in my user's gallery

• Hi! I have a problem in my gallery - internal error

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:George_Chernilevsky George Chernilevsky

The tool server is down. Other tools are also affected, such as the 'orphans' and 'untagged' tabs. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I greet, my the case the addresses of Gallery wikipedysty as well as tool CommonSense ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CommonSense.php ; http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Alians_PL ) – they are unactive, this lasts already several days? All tests of starting of showed addresses end with mistake Error HTTP 500. Because in first day after it creation account Gallery Alians_PL she functioned easily I ask about help or explanation.--Alians PL 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

I've been having problems with User:Le Behnam for quite some time now. He is bothering me and bothering the images I upload. He just stated that he have seen my picture and that I am dark and hooked nose like the person in this image.[25] He is also descriminating other Pashtuns, for example King of Afghanistan from 1933 to 1973 Zahir Shah. He is not even telling the truth about my appearance because I don't think I'm dark or with a hooked nose, my picture is displayed for the public to see at the top of my page. Le Behnam is here for ethnic edit-war with those who he thinks are Pashtuns. He is also showing hate towards people that may naturally be born little darker than others. He claims to be an ethnic Tajik himself. I think it's about that time for him to be blocked for some period of time, otherwise he will continue misbehaving. His account (en:User:Beh-nam) has been indef blocked on Wikipedia so he came here to cause trouble.--Executioner 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It takes more than one user to create an edit war, but if you think that's what it takes to make your edit warring stop, we can always block both of you. Other than that, I can only urge both of you to find more worthwhile pursuits than to argue over ethnicity. The problem with scientific racism is that it's not, so you're unlikely to reach any objective conclusions. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so, LX. I would be happy to block both of you if you like, but I'd rather the both of you mellowed out. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

LX decided to protect both of the images to Le Behnam's version, and he LX ignored Le Behnam's 2 personal attacks. [26], [27] Is this what administrators do, choose one editor over the other regardless who is innocent or who is the trouble maker? I'm not afraid of illegal blocks by admins, I am not aquiring to become an admin, also, I don't plan to use Commons that much. Can somebody please put the images at my version?--Executioner 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, as a matter of policy, habit and innate predilection inevitably protect the wrong version. And I promise if it comes to blocking, it won't affect anyone innocent – only the troublemakers participating in the edit warring will be blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said. And I would prefer not to block users and see mellow discussion, since blocks prevent users from editing everything except their own talk page. As for making pages at one user's revision, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as I have extended protections of four pages for another week from seeing this additional drama. The parties involved will need to sort this out themselves (as said from my talk page) hopefully working out a compromise, and if more drama erupts, blocks may come into the picture as a last resort. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 06:09, 04 February 2008 (GMT)

I agree with O, I hope the parties work it out. If not, I'd reluctantly propose deleting all the images in question, and blocking both users for being disruptive. (baby, bathwater AND tub get the heave-ho) To Executioner's point, he's not AS disruptive as his adversary, so if it will make him feel better, we can block him for slightly less time. But both of them seriously need to stop casting aspersions on each other and work through the issues, calmly, reasonably, assuming good faith on the part of the other party, and trying to find compromises that move the project forward... the images are neat and would be a shame to lose but if we can't get them properly tagged, out they go (I suggest that if we can't determine the ethnicity of someone, which normally we can't, move the image to a neutral name, don't claim ethnicity one way or the other, and leave it be... who really cares one way or the other?). Because this episode seriously strains my ability to stay mellow :), it is with great sadness I propose this, but propose it I do. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across an incomplete deletion request, which I fixed: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WikimediaCommonsUserExecutioner'sGirl.jpg - it reads like a personal attack. Nominating User:Le Behnam has been reported by User:Executioner for disruptive behavious a while ago (per above). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I have closed request & kept image. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Por tercera vez vuelve a subir imaganes "robadas"

Luego de realizadas estas denuncias here y here y de ser advertido y amenazado con ser bloqueado here, el usuario ha vuelto a subir otra ver imaganes robadas: aqui la imagen y aqui la fuente.

Solicito por favor de una vez por todas se bloquee al usuario en cuestion, ya que es la tercera vez que postea imagenes robadas sin hacer caso a las advertencias.

Atte.

Santiago —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.17.50.168 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3. Feb. 2008

Le pido a algun administrador que, ya que Gnangarra no se esta conectando, atienda este pedido aca arriba.

Atte. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.17.50.168 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6. Feb. 2008

Yo no veo el imágen en la fuente que proveíste.

I do not see the image on the site you provided. Patstuart (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Si, esta en la tercera fila, la ultima empezando de la izquierda, bajo el nombre de "telon de rosario central". La diferencia es que el usuario la puso en espejo (efecto de programa grafico, es la misma imagen pero es como si se viera en un espejo, lo de la derecha se ve a la izquierda y visceversa.

Fijate que ahi esta.

Atte.

No. No lo veo tambien. Esto foto non è lo mismo que Image:Hinchada de Rosario Central Bandera151.jpg. It's taken from the opposite point of view, and if the image were swapped in Photoshop or a similar program, the texts also would've been swapped. Also, the people on the field are different. Lupo 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. [28] y Image:Hinchada de Rosario Central Bandera151.jpg son dos imágenes claramente distintas. Patstuart (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, This doesnt appear to be a copyright violation definately not the same image you've linked Apesadumbrado, este doesnt aparece ser una violación del copyright definately no la misma imagen que usted se ha ligado Gnangarra 12:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case

Someone please handle this: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sharadtriyama. Any admins from en might want to deal with the user there, as impersonating a real life person who has edited Wikipedia before and asked specifically that her images not be featured is a big big no no. Patstuart (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Results were made available there, and action was taken. Please advise if there is other information needed or additional action suggested. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez aka Bluemarine

Please handle accordingly this. Thank you. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a warning on his talk page. giggy _(:O) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He has further attacked me on my talk page, apparently before the warning but it should still be pointed out here. See this diff. "Allstupo" as in "Allstupid". And again after the personal attack I mentioned first was removed. See this diff. This is typical of Matt's behavior and is part of the reason why he is banned for a year from EN Wikipedia. Warnings won't stop him, as he has proven at EN. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He will be mellow or else he won't be here at all. That's not really debatable and I see no reason to pussy foot around on this. In addition to the edits mentioned above, I find edits like [29] that one unacceptable. And yes, that's him, I Confirmed it. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Per [30], I encourage admins to block if the incivility continues. giggy _(:O) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nod. I've reinforced Giggy's final warning. If folk see suspicious behaviour from IPs or other IDs that might be this user, please advise me, Herby or any other CU, (offline if you're not comfortable online), so we can check. If you need help in any other way, please ask (here preferably) as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not as simple as it looks. The dispute between these users goes a while back, and over to en Wikipedia, where Bluemarine was indef blocked for as much, and Allstar was blocked by Jimbo himself, initially for a week, for his improper conduct in this issue. In addition, Allstar has been following Bluemarine unfairly, and has certainly not been a saint himself. Patstuart (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And thus, I hope Allstar is aware that incivility from him will not be tolerated either. We are no EnWP, we don't want EnWP's drama, and we are mellow. Let's all keep it that way. giggy _(:O) 08:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Patstuart has his facts wrong. Jimbo's block had nothing whatsoever to do with Matt Sanchez or any related articles, in any shape, form or fashion. See the thread for the truth at w:User talk:Allstarecho/Incidents Archive#Civility. Additionally, statements that I have been following Sanchez are also ludicrous. I edited the w:Matt Sanchez article twice, participated in a consensus discussion on the article's talk page and was made a part of the Arbcom case, of which I withdrew myself from considering my minimal interaction with him and the article that did not require my participation in the Arbcom case. So, bottom line is that Pat's accusations, as well as account of why Jimbo blocked me, are a lie. Additionally, to Giggy, I haven't been uncivl anywhere on Commons. Thanks. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I hadn't suggested that you had, of yet, been incivil that way, I just want to make sure we all know where everyone stands on this. A level ground is the easiest starting point if we're going to make any sort of progress. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 09:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, it is in fact quite simple.

• Matt Sanchez has been incivil here, egregiously and repeatedly, to multiple people. That won't fly. We don't tolerate that here. Full stop. Doesn't matter why, if he was provoked, if he's a hero, if he thinks people pick on him or whatever. If he does it again, he'll be blocked.
• As for Allstarecho, he'd be advised to remain civil as well, the way he does things on en:wp won't fly here either. The archive Allstarecho references puts him in rather a bad light, frankly. Carrying on that way won't be tolerated here. Full stop. Doesn't matter why, if he was provoked, if he's a hero, if he thinks people pick on him or whatever. If he does that here, he'll be blocked.

I think that clears everything up. No need to belabor this further. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This archive says otherwise. ;] ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a link to your contributions on en:wp. Please elaborate, if there is some conclusion to be drawn from it. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed sometime today that Sanchez removed the deletion notice from Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg even though the deletion discussion hasn't been closed. I've restored it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And warned accordingly. Think we will need to keep an eye on this. I'd half a mind to protect the image for now (but only half :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to just peremptorily override you there Herby, but he was warned not to do this and did it anyway. Blocked for a day despite the fact you warned him instead of blocking. I see no reason to protect the image if the source of the problem is one particular user. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Block extended for 3 additional days based on the response. Since there are images that need info that are subject to deletion, I advised him to post the info on his talk page for now. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Three days? My turn to question your leniency now. I haven't followed this from the start, but with a response like that, there's no reason to believe it won't continue once the block expires. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for leniency. Rather I feel that we should stop wasting our time. The images that he uploads without regard for copyrights, norms, our practices or basic civility are mostly self promotional so it's not like we actually need them for much else. This user has a pattern of abusive behaviour at en:wp (we know it's the same user and it's self admitted) and basically no redeeming qualities that would be mitigating factors. The pattern of behaviour needs to moderate or he won't be successful here. I'll leave the next block, if one becomes necessary, to someone else, but I think escalating blocks are what is needed here at this point. ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He is still able to communicate with OTRS (COM:OTRS, if you're watching Matt), right? giggy _(:O) 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OTRS is purely email based. ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was coming to this slightly fresh (I'd seen the thread but kept a distance, always useful to have people who aren't deep in it at times) so the block is fine. Sadly I see this going indef fairly quickly but I would urge all to stay calm and try and keep a sense of perspective - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

user:201.224.142.1

User has previous blocks for "fixing" images without proper licenses and adding licenses to them. User has returned and done this again today on several images. -Nard 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again. I'm sure some of the contributions could still use a review. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kazimierz222

Could someone with knowledge of the Russian language check all the uploads of this user? I suspect that some if not all of them lack the necessary source information and are potential copyvios. --ALE! ¿…? 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Odessaukrain

I marked several of this users pictures for missing source/author with the result that he called me a copyright nazi. More details can be seen here at Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Odessaukrain, where I got confirmed that next to some other not so nice comments he has also done that one, which I actually don't think is acceptable. -- Cecil 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What warnings have been given? That would be a good thing to include in the report here. The CU came back positive, but it's not too relevant overall, is it? Actions by the logged in account are certainly concerning. Was there a particular course of action you wanted to recommend? I see Herby gave a warning, but that's AFTER you reported him here. In future I recommend rather a different order... ask the user to be polite, if that fails, warn them, and only then report them. That may help. (notifying them they were reported was polite, thanks for that). ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have asked him to be polite if there would have been just the statements he didn't do anonymously. But a Nazi-comment is in my rulebook a comment that is to serious for the please be polite-section (especially since he was cowardly enough to try to do it not under his name). In German WP that kind of statement is an indefinite, which I do not request, but a simple be polite is for that kind ouf serious liable comment not enough. -- Cecil 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a sense in which I am with Larry on getting some warnings in etc but for me "nazi" and a number of other terms used in a derogative way are fairly much blockable (there is a section of my user page that allows me to do this :)). If I see such phrases my thought is usually "how long" not whether to - the only reason I did not in this case was that there was no current action (by the time I got to it). Any repeat of such phrases & I will be happy to block --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not like people don't know better than to say Nazi, and as Giggy said recently, we're more mellow on commons, so let's just avoid the drama and go with a short block for a first offense, or with a warning a longer block. Fair? Patstuart (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Let's see how the user reacts when coming back. -- Cecil 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. My point could be distilled down to "next time, even if it's Nazi as the insult, let's try one warning first"... I do agree some insults are worse than others and some degree of differentiation in how much warning we give is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I appreciate your amount of AGF and kindness, but calling an austrian "nazi" is way beyond normal insulting. I see no possibility for Cecil do continue working with that guy, a report was clearly the only way she had. Regards, Code·is·poetry 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar is being nice & mellow which is good. You, me, Cecil and likely a few others view any abuse in these terms rather more strongly. I agree with positive interaction & loads of AGF however I really cannot recall having a rationale interaction with anyone who is willing to use such terms & similar ones. Let's leave it at this & if anyone needs a block review on such a basis I can be reached and will happily oblige. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

insult on my userpage

User HFAA insult me and other users on my userpage. ← Körnerbrötchen <✉> 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - user warned, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:FXXX violating GFDL

Hello, User:FXXX recently uploaded Image:Coat of arms of Algeria.svg, however it is an exact copy of Image:Algeria coa.svg, which User:Escondites and I created together, I licensed the file under the GFDL which requires attribution, yet he denied us the attribution and claimed to have created the file himself. Also he nominated my original image for speedy deletion, he was reverted by User:Rocket000, but he just added the speedy delete tag back in again. As the original was a creation by 2 users, and licensed under the GFDL, he is required to preserve the edit summary. Jackaranga 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that there was conflicting claims regarding authorship. I was going to look into it more but then got side tracked - so that's for reminding me about this. :) Obviously yours was uploaded first so is there any reason you know of why FXXX insists he's the author? - Rocket000 07:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

FXXX doesn't seem to understand what author means. (Maybe he thinks it means uploader?) See his other uploads like Image:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg and Image:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg. - Rocket000 08:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, his upload is now deleted. Let us know if you encounter anymore problems with this user. Thanks. - Rocket000 10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Rocket. Jackaranga 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex537 (talk · contribs)

Was scanning recently uploaded images and I noticed Image:O13PosterB.jpg. The user has been uploading images for some time, and apparently has no idea what copyright is - or doesn't care - see Image:Cristiana frioxione.jpg. Can a spanish speaking admin have a word with the user and go through the rest of the users contributions, which include various maps in a variety of formats and various trademarked logos Image:Bellagio logo.png Megapixie 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deripasko (talk · contribs) had uploaded copyrighted IDF images

Those images have been uploaded in December 14, 2007 - while most of them have been uploaded in November 7-8, 2007 by Viewseneemy (talk · contribs). I suspect it was another sockpuppet from that user.

I've deleted all the images, should I also block Deripasko for good? Yuval Y § Chat § 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Deripasko (indef, same as I blocked Viewseneemy). giggy _(:O) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Moira English Editor (talk · contribs)/Grand Mosque

Hello. Please excuse my limited knowledge of your systems and kindly assist me to assure the administrators that I have up-loaded images which are for the Public Domain and I am permitted to do so by my boss in order to encourage more visitors to the Grand Mosque in Kuwait, where i work permanently, full-time, as English Editor.

WikiAdmin <noc@wikipedia.org> to me show details 12:23 (1 hour ago)

Dear Moira English Editor,

The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Moira English Editor has been changed on 09:10, 9 March 2008 by LX, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moira_English_Editor for the current version.

See

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moira_English_Editor&diff=0&oldid=10382058

- Hide quoted text - for all changes since your last visit.

Editor's summary: Warning: image missing source or licensing information.

Contact the editor: mail: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/LX wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LX

There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.

Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system

-- To change your watchlist settings, visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit

Feedback and further assistance: —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Moira English Editor (talk • contribs)

Looks like the problem is that you did not place a licence tag on your uploads. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:05, 09 March 2008 (GMT)

Hello. I apologise that I do not know how to easily communicate with your Admin - - no simple email address available ?

Please mention that images I upload are part of my work responsibility to encourage more visitors to the Grand Mosque. We made and own the photographs. If you wish to verify that we are at the Grand Mosque, please call Kuwait [+965] 2450465 Moonirah@gmail.com With appreciation, Moira ----

WikiAdmin <noc@wikipedia.org> to me Email: Moonirah@gmail.com

show details  9 Mar (2 days ago)  

Dear Moira English Editor,

The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Moira English Editor has been changed on 15:22, 9 March 2008 by Gnangarra, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moira_English_Editor for the current version.

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moira_English_Editor&diff=0&oldid=10382063 for all changes since your last visit.

Editor's summary: /* Copyright */ new section

Contact the editor: mail: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Gnangarra wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra

There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.

           Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system

Tawahid (talk · contribs)

I wanted to draw attention to this user's contributions . I would appreciate if another admin handles the situation. Thanks. - Rocket000 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, yucky. Not looking pretty there...though I may be missing something. To me it looks like a block & delete case. giggy _(:O) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocket000 has made the following assertions at my talk page:

1. Non-notable user-created art doesn't really belong on Commons.
2. It's also not a soapbox.
3. I suggest uploading images that are actually useful for Wikimedia projects.
4. Also, user pages are not for attack images.

Following (4) I have removed my contributions off my talk page, and I'm sorry if it offended you. As for (3), I think Image:Freedom Fighter by Latuff.JPG could be useful at articles discussing Carlos Latuff's works. Image:Alan Latuff by Tawahid.JPG could be useful wherever Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg could be useful, though I'm not sure where that might be (may his kind soul not sue us all). Image:Denial.PNG is a meme hack of Image:Denial.gif and Image:LatuffAnti-Christ.GIF may be somewhat more factual than Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif. In my humble opinion, these are all offensive, provocative works of foul taste and poor technical quality. But according to Rocket000's reflections in Talk:Ariel Sharon#The Hebrew Wikipedia community, this is no reason to delete them, let alone blocking me.

I agree with (2), which is another reason why I don't run around Wikipedia articles like en:Culture jamming and en:Collage shoving my works to make a point. I rather let other users judge their relevance and contribution to the articles at hand.

As for (1), most of our featured illustrations are user-created works of art, and their notability outside of Wikimedia is not one of the parameters for judging their quality. I don't expect my works to be nominated as featured illustrations, but that's just because they're awful.

Then again, if my contributions violate existing policies in some way different than the Caricatures of Ariel Sharon, I will promptly remove them. Best, توحيد 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Attackimage. If, after that, you still don't see the difference between these images and works by an encyclopædically relevant cartoonist, and you still believe that user-created images pushing a point of view are automatically "relevant" to the article whose subject they're attacking, I'm afraid I can't help you any further, and my only advice is not to create any further uploads until you do see that difference.

The main point here is that Commons is not a soapbox. I don't particularly care what you haven't done over at Wikipedia. The simple fact is that you uploaded those images purely to make a point. Thanks for playing, but please don't do it again. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention to bring a swift constructive end to this discussion. You have not clarified, however, how Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg could have any encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Same goes for many other works of Latuff whose sole usage is in his gallery at Commons. Commons is not a repository of useless works of notable artists, nor a gallery hall for such. Unless you clarify the usability of these images, they should be deleted in compliance with your interpretation of Template:Attackimage. توحيد 09:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Works of notable artists are per definition not useless. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since these attack-only images have no Wikimedia related use, there is no justification to publish them at Commons galleries. Please remove these images. توحيد 11:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I suggest you start contributing in a more constructive manner than attempting to get images deleted by uploading images that you knew would get deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tawahid, you are by far not the only one here, who finds the "cartoons" by Mr Latuff extremely disgusting and some of theme even racist and antisemitic and who is very unhappy that they are hosted here. (One that was a copyvio in itself has been deleted.) But uploading even worse images doesn't really help in that controversy. -- Túrelio 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Túrelio for your instructive and friendly remark. Yesterday I was not aware to the fact that attack images can only be uploaded if their encyclopedic use is apparent. Now that I'm aware of it, I will publish my spoof works elsewhere under a free license, waiting for other users to decide when they're notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

I infer from your answer that you believe we are obligated to publish every free work of every notable person. The project scope seems to repudiate this obligation. Once Wikipedia finds an image of a lawyer masturbating in front of dead bodies to be of use, it could be uploaded to Commons. As long as such an image is of no apparent use in Wikimedia, it can and should be deleted. Regards, توحيد 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons is not a repository of images for Wikipedia. It is a project in itself. Furthermore, images of Commons are used in other Wikimedia projects than Wikipedia, such as Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc.

For the rest, I'll back Túrelio and I'll refer you to WP:POINT, which also applies here. Rama 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository targeted at other Wikimedia projects. It was established to allow using the same file on pages of all Wikimedia projects, without the need to upload them separately. It is not a web host for the private image collections of Carlos Latuff fans or any other hate group. If no one can name a single page at any Wikimedia project that can make use of Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg, as is, then this image appears to have no encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Failing to address this point does not make you more correct. توحيد 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article on an artist should usually not contain a gallery of all the artist's works. It should only contain an appropriate sample to illustrate the article. It may, however, link to such a gallery here on Commons. Thus, an image need not be directly used in an article to be of use. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, LX. I figured I better sit this one out. I had enough of these damned cartoons for awhile :) - Rocket000 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If a Krumme 13 artist releases paintings in which he blends photos of himself raping small children, these free images will never be included in any Wikimedia related project. They will not be used in Krumme 13, Pedophilia or Rape, in any language, with any disclaimer. Not because there is no space for them, but because of their offensive nature that serves no further use.

Similarly, many of Carlos Latuff's works will not be included in any Wikimedia page, and not because of lack of space. The notability of a certain criminal artist does not qualify his entire cohort of work for display at Commons. It certainly does not qualify blending his works in non-artist-related categories. When one is looking for an image of an American lawyer, he's not looking for Latuff's propaganda.

Latuff's works are freely available online and any Wikimedia editor can modify them to a less offensive form, then use them at some Wikimedia page with the assistance of Commons. It is not a question of freedom of speech, this is what other repositories are for. It is a question of usability and abusability - Commons is being abused by Carlos Latuff fans as a diginified stage for attack images. Sticking to existing policies, with which Commons was established, will bring an end to this abuse, before it is practiced by other hate groups. توحيد 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please find a more appropriate forum for your concerns. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the most appropriate forum for these concerns? توحيد 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your approach, an appropriate forum might be image talk pages, deletion requests (except for images that have already gone through such discussions), or the village pump. This page is for any user to report a problem with a user, as the first sentence on it states. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will bring it to the village pump. May I remind you that I did not bring this matter here in the first place. It was Rocket000 who opened this thread and Giggy who kindly notified me about it. As I clarified above, I did not know my contributions violate an existing policy and had no intention to do so. This policy is not mentioned here and could not be inferred from visiting Carlos Latuff's gallery of attack images. Instead of directing me to WP:POINT, you should have assumed good faith and reply a bit less laconically. But that's spilt milk now. I believe it's time to end the discussion here. Thank you for your patience. Best, توحيد 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought it here because the issue involved a user (you) not Latuff's cartoons, but yes, everything's wrapped up here. I was just asking for another admin to handle the situation, not to start a discussion. There was nothing to really discuss. Anyway, you may be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons. Cheers, - Rocket000 10:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Mangwanani

This user recently uploaded Image:Kosovo ethnic 2005.svg and released it under PD-Self. However this is a copyright infringement, he did not create the image himself, he simply recoloured Image:Kosovo municipalities.svg which I created, and licensed under GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike which specifically says Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license. You can tell he adapted it from the one I created: same size in pixels (267 × 292), same layer names when opened in Inkscape (municipalities, labels_munic, districts), also all the vertices are in exactly the same position down to the fifth decimal point. His account on en.wikipedia (w:User:Mangwanani) has previously been involved in copyright violations, (taking copyrighted images from internet sites and releasing them as PD-Self). Please help, I did not release the image as Public Domain on purpose, he has no right to release my work into the Public Domain. Jackaranga 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Felipe cesar a.s

User:Felipe cesar a.s continues to upload copyrighted content and give it a false license after a final warning. Please delete his content and block him. Patstuart (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Grozozo

I fear we will see no constructive contributions from this user. Both of his two edits in the name space have been clear vandalism and the only image (Image:Cheridor.jpg) he/she has uploaded so far has no description and no category but probably violates COM:SCOPE as well as Personality rights. -- Túrelio 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. If anything new comes up, I'll block (or leave me a note). giggy _(:O) 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shihab20

Will somebody please block this user? They continually upload new images of indeterminate copyright status on top of GFDL photos. --DavidShankbone 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I now given a final warning & do think the user should be blocked if they do this again. There is no real history of warnings on the talk page (& language may be an issue?). Thanks for the heads up --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Herby. I had warned them on February 19--more, asked for their reasoning, thinking it might have been a mistake, but they have done it to other people--but hopefully this will stop the behavior. Thanks for your help :-) Dave --DavidShankbone 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• This User is still overwriting images they did not upload and with no explanation. --DavidShankbone 02:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Saki27

Please block for a day or so. User is not heeding warnings. Patstuart (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, blocked, copyvios deleted. However I am uncomfortable that no one thought to place a "welcome" template at any time. They may not be brilliant but they do at least offer new users the opportunity to find out more --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would do so now, but it's kind of rude, to say the least, to placed a welcome template right after a blocked template. :/. Patstuart (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can welcome him back. :) Rocket000 03:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the username

Because of privacy reasons, I've changed my username to wikipedia:en:User:Demoeconomist at German and English Wikipedia and German Wikibooks some weeks ago. Because of the same reason(the current name is my family name) and to make my username the same at all projects of Wikimedia, I request an administrator to change my username like I did in other projects to "Demoeconomist". Perhaps it isn't the right place to request this, but I couldn't find a specific page for changing usernames. If I should do that at an other place, please tell me about that. Thanks.--Washio 19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please post your request at COM:CHU. --Boricuæddie 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Adam.J.W.C.

The above user originally uploaded Image:Inside bbunker.jpg and Image:Bunker today.jpg from [31] and claimed them as his own work [32]. On the source page, they're credited to Victor Zdanowicz-Muchlado, who happened to complain about the stolen photos via OTRS. So I added the proper author credit and whatnot, and now Adam.J.W.G. insists on removing the name (I've had to revert twice today). For some reason, he is also calling Mr Zdanowicz-Muchlado a "spammer", but he won't tell me why. What's the proper course of action here? Is a block warranted? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, block is the right action here. giggy _(:O) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes block, I won't upload here. Who caresAdam.J.W.C. 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the spammers name anyware on the source page. This bloke was adding his name to a whole heap of images in the pastAdam.J.W.C. 09:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Way at the bottom of the page, under the "REFERENCE" header: "I'd like to thank Victor Zdanowicz-Muchlado for the provision of some of the above photographs." howcheng {chat} 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lokal Profil

This is a user putting {speedydelete} templates on some coat of arms images. These Belgian coat of arms are simply in the public domain as public signs, moreover, those things would be PD-old anyway if they were not.

Putting false speedy delete notices is very unappropriate. --LimoWreck 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This user wants to use speedy delete for which reasons??? Belgian coats are PD as explained above. Sonuwe 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing this for a while now, and to a lot of media. I think it'd be worth reviewing some of the Commons:Deletion requests debates involving his nominees — I think some of them have been left unresolved for quite some time; I'm assuming because they are at least somewhat controversial nominations. He reminds me of Juiced lemon, only Lokal is civil, and while Juiced lemon has merely been an annoying anglophile, Lokal is outright requesting deletion of media. :p ¦ Reisio 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the care of controversial nominations. And that actually goes for anyone of us by the way. Requesting deletion isn't necessarily bad, even if you're wrong. Everyone has the right to be wrong, or making mistakes, or being right. But when things are not straightforward, it should at least be possible to have an open discussion on deletion request, or give people the chance to do some more research on the subject. Speedy delete templates are not helping in that case, valuable contributions just get lost without anyone noticing...

Being careless with speedy deletes might cause two problems, depending on the admin's handling of those:

1. when admin's do comply with every speedy delete request, lots of valid images might get lost, without anyone noticing or anyone having the chance to do something about it, do some research, look for alternatives, etc...
2. or admin's might rightly doubt speedy delete request. With the risk however the entire speedy delete procedures get quite useless. Indeed, what's the use of speedydelete templates, when admin's ca't trust the deletion criteria, or don't dare deleting, and have to wait until some other users can give their input.

That's why we should all try to be reserved with throwing around speedy delete templates--LimoWreck 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any wrongdoing by LokalProfi at all after checking through his last 100 edits, more the opposite. He marks images with deprecated licences and cleans up problematic issues. Instead of wasting time here with a tit-for-tat response you could actually be productive and repair problematic images. But probably it is much more fun stating user problems instead of being productive? -- Cecil 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the date of your post, only the third edit (going backwards in time) I found was clearly questionable: consider Image:Muenchenstein.gif, which has always had all the information Commons requires, but has been marked as missing essential source information over and over again by Lokal, even in opposition to your own edits, Cecil.

Requiring in triplicate notarized witnessing of "permission" given to redistribute something "licensed" as in the public domain is insanity. We'll lose a ton of utterly, completely, truly public domain media for no good reason, and it will never be replaced.

¦ Reisio 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: réfléchir d'abord, dire ensuite. You could indeed be more productive instead of stating things without checking your facts. When looking at the contributions of users involvd here and especially their uploads, I get a fairly clear idea who's the most productive... (hint: it's not some whose name starts with Lokal). And by the way, after spending some time here unregistered, and though I'm now registered, I don't feel like being productive actually. When I see how easily hard work by people just vanishes from wikimedia commons because people are so careless deleting them without understanding what they're doing, it's not much use trying to be "productive" here. It's not because I see so much rubbish, unsourced or strange material, I should blindly tag and remove all work I hardly know anything about. But when I see how others do that, this is not worth the effort, and I'll try to stick with Wikipedia then. --Vexill 22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen coats removed from wikipedia as well. And there was nothing wrong with those, as far as I remember. But it's hard to find things. I don't find my way very well on commons, and when things are gone it's even harder. --Vexill 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jorgenix

Just came across Image:Hanibal lecter.jpg‎ which was tagged as "self-made". A lot of the users other uploads seem questionable: Image:Orray.jpg, Image:Embalse de finisterre1.gif, Image:Lon-Chaney-Jorobado.jpg. Requesting admin action to delete all the uploaders images (none of them can be trusted to be self made), and either block, or issue a final warning to the user. Megapixie 09:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LimoWreck and User:Sonuwe

These two users are reverting copyvio notices [33] [34] [35] based on a false belief that all coat of arms are public domain by default. The three images are all photographs of official Walloon CoAs and Template:PD-BE-gemeentewapen makes it clear that only the Flemish CoAs are PD in Belgium. /Lokal_Profil 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, don't you ? Read the article in the template you're citing ? It's an article citing a circular ("omzendbrief"), sent a while ago by minister Paul Van Grembergen. The circular is not a law. It's simply an explication, a clarification of a law, practice, common usage, etc... The template merely provides the link to add another --redundant !!-- explication of the subject to avoid people making false assumptions on coat of arms being not PD. The link is obviously yet another way of making it clear to people like you who don't seem to grasp the concept of coat of arms, their history, their usage, and their usage in the public domain. If you read it, you'll see it's not about proving CoA would be PD (which is almost not mentioned and is seen as self-evident -- see original circular (not the one linked here), second item, second paragraph), it's rather about explaining when you may or may not use the CoA... which is a completely different issue than it being PD or not. The circular discusses issues which are similar to those discussed in {{Trademarked}}, a template which is not about the image license itself. To quote someone [36] Afficher un blason sur son site n'a rien de répréhensible. Par contre l'exploitation que l'on en fera, ça c'est autre chose.. --LimoWreck 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried explaining the differences between en:blazon and an artists interpretation of it and that the second of these is copyrighted unless free by law (e.g. {{PD-Coa-Germany}}). Anyhow I'll leave it to others to comment on this instead. /Lokal_Profil 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms in Belgium are PD. See explanation from LimoWreck. In 2002 when every municipality had his coat of arms approved all these coats of arms were collected in the book Gemeentewapens van België. Gemeenten in Vlaanderen en Brussel (Dutch-reading) and Armoiries communales en Belgique. Communes wallones, bruxelloises et germanophones. (French-reading). There is no difference in treatment of Flemish, Wallon and Brussels coats because it is Belgian law. Sonuwe 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one elese seems to have pointed it out. Could you please provide a link to the relevant Belgian legislation which proclaims that all Belgian coat of arms are Public Domain. A link to a blogg won't really serve as a basis for a new template and without a link to a law it's basically just hearsay that belgian CoAs are PD. /Lokal_Profil 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In [37] you have a clarification and interpretation of the Belgian law where it states that flags and coat of arms are in "het openbaar domain" = public domain. --Foroa 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this looks very much like the Flemish case aleready described in Template:PD-BE-gemeentewapen. It's signed by the Flemish minister of internal matters and the homepage is vlaanderen.be. What I was looking for was a similar law which covers the rest of the Belgian municipalities. /Lokal_Profil 11:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lawless Lucy

This is a self-admitted sock of User:XeniteBrazil and User:Lawless fan. Please delete all images accordingly. and block if you wish; however, I have encouraged this user to talk about his unblock (see User_talk:FlickreviewR#Xenite_Brazil). Patstuart (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Patstuart. Some fairly extensive discussion about this uploader going on on the CU list - this is a cross wiki issue too. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria Penalva (talk · contribs)

Keeps uploading copyrighted images. Images have no sources, descriptions etc. Some action is needed. feydey ^(talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all but one image (which is missing a source, but probably a copyvio too...) hasn't returned after the warning. Wait and see. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:G456789

Even after two blocks, G456789 continues to upload copyright violations. Please deal with appropriately. Patstuart (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done (1 week) I went easy on him since this time he at least filled out the information, including "It is believed that the image qualifies for fair use under intent of depicting the character in question" for permission. Rocket000 03:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbritation request

On March 9 User:Gryffindor asked User:SieBot to move all images that were in Category:House of Baden to Category:House of Zähringen. I first asked User:Siebrand why this change was initiated, but was referred by him to User:Gryffindor. The ensueing discussions are here and here.
In my opinion Gryffindor could not supply any argument, apart from a stubborn AFAIK, why his move should be sensible. On the other hand, I believe that I have made a point by providing the historic facts, which Gryffindor could not refute but only ended the discussion with "I am tired of the discussion; I have restored the Category:House of Baden", with the unspoken implication "so if you like you can revert my changes". I asked him today to organize the cleaning up himself, since User:Siebrand had not acted on my notice about Gryffindors end of discussion. Gryffindor refuses to clean up the mess he created leaving it to others to clean up behind him. I don't want to talk about vandalism, that is why i put this notice here under the heading of Arbritation request. I am sure less patient users would have taken out the vandalism-club weeks ago.--Wuselig 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One quick note. Leave Siebrand out of it. Any admin can control SieBot and Gryffindor is indeed the one that gave the command and he's the one that should undo it if he made a mistake. Rocket000 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a formal arbitration process. Since this request has been here a few days, has it perhaps all been sorted out amicably? ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It has not. User:Gryffindor had "restored" the category Category:House of Baden. Meaning he restored the name, but didn't refill it by undoing his bot change. His argument: "AFAIK" and you don' have me convinced, and this is as far as I will go" He hasn't made any effort to research proof for his view, or to contradict any of my arguments. Since nothing happend somebody put a redirect into the empty category of "House of Baden". This is when I decided to move all the certain members of the House of Baden back into this category and place it as a sub-category of "House of Zähringen".

I also put the question up for discussion here and User:Historiograf supported my position. While he may sometimes be a bit controversial to some people in Commons, he is a renowned historian in real life with and more than familiar with the subject matter, so I was very happy about this support.

I am just afraid, somebody will come along again and do a revision. If that is the case, I will not talk about arbitration anymore. Than it has to be dealt with as a case of vandalism.--Wuselig 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template ngw

See my problems with user GijsVdL on the noticeboard for blocks. Knorrepoes 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Lucy Lawless sock

User:Rodrigo Ferrari is another one (self admitted). We've had a problem with this user extensively: see

• User:Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (the sockmaster, a likely sock himself)
• User:Lawless Lucy
• User:Lucy Xena
• User:Lawless fan
• User:LucyLawlessXenaFan
• User:XeniteBrazil
• User:XeniteBrasil
• User:Sonya the photographer
• User:134.241.227.161
• User:189.10.128.177
• User:76.118.195.114
• User:Glitter1959
• User:ThePhantom28

(I'm quite sure I don't have them all) Please also delete all the uploads from User:Lawless Lucy (they are copyvios from flickr, as has been established) and User:Sonya the photographer, and indef block User:Ineversigninsodonotmessageme. There, enough feeding done? Patstuart (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - any admin wishing to nuke my block of Ineversigninsodonotmessageme may do so, but I don't think we want them coming back. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur - good call, thanks both --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the uploads from some of these users (stated above): XeniteBrazil is not a reliable flickr user. Patstuart (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And another: User:Rodrigo Lawless Ferrari (he's not very subtle). The image appears to be clean, however. Patstuart (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ASSMAN vandal

This user appears to be a vandalism only account. Attention to the matter would be muchly appreciated. -Ebyabe 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about what I did to your sandbox. I just thought the correlation between commonist and communist was funny.--ASSMAN 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am done. Goodbye.--ASSMAN 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would still like an administrator to please check the contributions of the user. They affected far more than me. -Ebyabe 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. This user is obviously here to disrupt. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He !voted on a deletion request I opened. See here. I'm uncertain enough that a deletion request was the right option, so I would appreciate it if someone struck ASSMAN's !vote and at the same time contributed something to the discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (Commons) 11:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Herby has struck his comment, Carcharoth. I'm not in the mood for investigation and would rather stay away from that. :) Good block Mike. giggy _(:O) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo, apparent serial copyright violations

This user has uploaded a large number of photographs from Moldavia, all found somewhere on the net, all under an apparently false claim of PD. Can someone go through them and speedy them? I tagged a couple of them for speedy but then got bored as they are a lot and their status seems all identical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User Migang2g

User Migang2g (talk|contribs) permanently attemps to expand the areas of the Spanish speaking world either in Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png or in Image:El español en el mundo.PNG (an image he created just to escape the discussions and consensus reached in the previous one). He does so without regard for proper sources (there have been long discussions about sources, and the one he presents have been discarted as non-fiable), erasing credible sources and info, and basically tries to paint a huge part of the world as speaking Spanish (ex.: almost all of the USA and Canada, big parts of southern Brazil, the Philippines, Morocco, Western Sahara, the Falklands, etc...!). There might be similar problems with Image:Estudio del español.PNG and Image:Español en EE.UU..PNG (I'm not sure about these, though). It is my belief he stems from a highly Spanish-centered expansionist POV. He does not try to discuss matters with other users. He created a duplicate file (but with a Spanish name), and tries to change it into his imperalistic world view. Can something be done about it, please?!? Thank youThe Ogre 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I protected Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png for a week, to force discussion on the talk page. Patrícia ^msg 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Patrícia, but the problem isn't really with that map, since a consensus has been reached (see the talk and archived talk pages), but with Image:El español en el mundo.PNG - the map Migang2g made to go around the consensus reached in the original map. The Ogre 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you to not mess with that second map. Commons is a media repository and does not follow NPOV policies as such; Commons can host both maps, it's up to the local communities to decide which version they should use. The consensus you are talking about is one (you) presenting some statements and another user agreeing on the talk page, while some did not agree and uploaded different versions without discussing the matter - not really a consensus, but I see your point. With the coexistence of both maps, the problem is resolved - at least on Commons. Patrícia ^msg 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. Confusion between wiki-policies!! By the way, the consensus it's not just me an some other user - I meant pratically the whole of the archived talk pages also. Até à próxima e obrigado! The Ogre 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Migang2g, has just made yet another map to evade discussion - it is also a modified (and biased...) version of Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png called Image:Map-Hispanophone World.PNG. I didn't mess with this map as per your counsel, but I did voice some of my objection in its talk page and placed a tag stating that "The factual accuracy of this description is disputed." Is that acceptable? Thanks again! The Ogre 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezter

Appears to have uploaded several music-related images over the past few months as "self-made". Trouble is, he was 9 years old and at primary school in a different country when a lot of them were taken, and I think it's likely he doesn't hold the rights to any of them. I'm not totally up on the procedures on Commons, hopefully someone can look into this. Cheers, 117.53.71.110 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) (Deiz)

Spammer

User:Mickie Mouse is a spam only account, or something. Please delete all images. Patstuart (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, deleted, blocked & thanks. In passing "special:nuke" does not appear to work with images? Just me, a bug or what - potentially highly destructive but would have been fine for this - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't nuke images. There's a script in my monobook that does it - adds "del" links to [38] and you can input a reason, then have it automatically inputted for every deletion. giggy _(:O) 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks giggy I'll take a look. Not something that I need all that often but just would have been a little easier with this one, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See also here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 8#Special:Nuke up up and away!... I use a similar mechanism to get [del] links on galleries. See the very bottom of my monobook.js. Lupo 08:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish admin help please

Romancop (talk · contribs) has marked all self uploaded files for deletion with reason "I withdraw the copyrights" (all deletion request are incomplete). I can't find a reason for this action, so please check it and please ask him for a statement/rationale. --GeorgHH • talk   20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems that this was the trigger, but I can't understand why. Maybe that someone who is able to talk polish, should also tell him, that it is not possible to withdraw copyright (not for pictures where he is the author and also not for the other ones). -- Cecil 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Veritas

I'd appreciate some input on what to do with Veritas (talk · contribs) uploads. Drini beat me to delete the latest one, which is an obvious copyvio; but the rest aren't so obvious (well, this one is also pretty obvious for me). The OTRS permissions on Image:Kyragracie2.jpg and Image:Kyragracie1.jpg are bogus, they're just from some webmail address stating the images are his. And I only got to know about this because a pt.wiki sysop alerted me to the possibility of Veritas being a locally banned editor (there is apparently circumstantial evidence suggesting this).

I think this smells trouble, but I didn't want to go on a deletion rampage without a second opinion. Patrícia ^msg 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nadjahaddad1.jpg.jpg comes from [39]. The Kyra images have a bad GFDL claim, or at least an improper one which can't be trusted (perhaps you can email the user back explaining why they were deleted anyway). And the only other image certainly appears suspicious. Additionly, you claim to have evidence this is a banned user (it would be nice to know who: especially if this user is known for cv's). I would say you're not at all out of line to delete the files and give an explanation on this user's talk page. Just sending an email to OTRS saying "I'm the author" should not exempt someone from cv responsibility. Patstuart (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:FXXX again

I previously had problems with this user who ripped off an image he did not create himself at all and licensed it as GFDL-Self (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 5#User:FXXX violating GFDL). Well he is at it again: Image:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg that he uploaded, is not from the source he specified at all but is instead a verbatim copy of w:Image:South Africa coa.svg, that I uploaded to en.wikipedia. I'm guessing he did this out of spite because the last time he ripped off an image another editor and I had created, it got deleted. Here are the md5 sums proving the files are identical:

a5175953eae17d05d38cf3925c46b252 Coat_of_arms_of_South_Africa.svg

a5175953eae17d05d38cf3925c46b252 South_Africa_coa.svg

There is no doubt he just copied my upload again, the XML for the SVG file is the same, including the internal filename I chose to give the image. I would just like him to be honest, I licensed this file as public domain, I don't require attribution, but why lie about this ? Also I specified on the image page not to move this image to the commons, as it violates commons policy on copyright, so this is not helpful at all as it could be deleted at any time. Jackaranga 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He keeps doing this often by looks of things, reuploading images made by other users and claiming them as his own. Jackaranga 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might ask FXXX (talk · contribs) about these problems on his/her talk page? It may be that these actions are due to ignorance or inexperience, rather than malice or deceit. The response to your query (or lack thereof) would help to us to understand how to proceed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish images

I am getting a little annoyed now with certain users uploading Turkish images and then claiming them to be their own. This is clearly not in order. Please view activities of User:Mkaraarslan, User:Makril and User:Ankaralı Turgut and run a check for sockpuppetry. User falsely claiming images to be their own when they are not should be blocked. Gryffindor 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Puppetry is unlikely in my view from a quick look. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Lawless sock

User:SeriesYFilmes. More whack-a-mole ;). Please duly delete as copyvio (uploads from this flickr account are in fact owned by the same person who is uploading to commons, and they are copyvios). Patstuart (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone. giggy _(:O) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of user:Edgar Allan Poe (been blocked before for copyvio)

For background of a problem, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 3#User:Edgar Allan Poe/User:Poirot.

user:Edgar Allan Poe, with a history of blocking, has a new sockpuppet here: User:Clockwork Orange. Two things prove this:

1. See hr:User:Clockwork Orange. It says "This is a sockpuppet of hr:User:Edgar Allan Poe".
2. Images that hr:User:Edgar Allan Poe included in articles on hr wiki were uplouded to commons by User:Clockwork Orange.

I'm an admin and a CU from croatian wikipedia. Our "Edgar" is a 13 or 14-year-old pupil with underdeveloped sense for the law, specialy for things related to copyright. We (great part of admins on hr wiki) tried to make this kid understand that what he does with the pictures is bad, but we failed. We failed every time, and I must say that we tried many many times.

The problem is that our "Edgar" doesn'r really wants to comply to the rules. He will do everything to make you believe that he feels sorry for the mistakes he made, and that he did it because he didn't know, or didn't understand the rules.

Let me give you the brief story of our problems with him. I'l skip everything unrelated to images (he has a long history of making various problems and ignoring the rules and advices).

About a 2 or 3 years ago, he started to upload the images on croatian wikipedia. He wanted every article that he wrote to have at least one image, no matter what. Since we knew he was 12 at the time, we were very patient at first. Despite his relatively young age, he is quite capable of understanding the concept of copyright, but, I feel that he wanted us to believe that he isn't, in order to proceed to upload images at his will. We made a great effort to explain him the rules. After some time, we began to realise that he can understand the rules, but he just doesn't want to comply.

After some time, we decided to impose to him a ban on uploading any images on hr wiki. This ban is still valid today. After some time, he made a few sockpuppet account, hr:User:Clockwork Orange being just one of many. Soon, we found out what is he doing, and blocked him for 6 months. The block expired few weeks ago. Since he still had a ban on images, he started to ask other people to upload images instead of him. This loked alright, and we were even willing to tolerate it, to some extent, until we discovered the real story behind this.

Edgar opened sockpuppet accounts on en wiki and commons, uploaded images there under false licences, and asked other users to import those images from en to hr wiki, or just aded images he uploaded to commons to "his" articles.

I would kindly ask You to stop this kid making fools af every user who sticks to the rules. I suggest to delete all of his images ([40], [41]), or at least those TV-screenshots that are almost 800 px wide and described as low-resolution. also, I propose a permanent ban (not just block!) for this user on commons and some steps against him on global wikimedia level (long block on all projects or maybe even a ban).

If You have some questions, You can contact me at my page at hr wiki (hr:User talk:Ante Perkovic) or even send me an email.

Regards,

Ante Perkovic 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange blocked. Will now go ahead and delete his uploads. giggy _(:O) 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked Edgar Allen Poe for another 6 months, for the same reasons as before. giggy _(:O) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy moly...1st 100 are gone. Really need a break. Anyone want to take it from where I left it? giggy _(:O) 01:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting... – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more of Edgar's images that need to be cheched. Please, check (or just delete!) those too. --Ante Perkovic 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please, someone, take care of his images on en wiki. Is there any CU here? We should make some more digging here. Who knows what will come up. --Ante Perkovic 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lar is a CU here and on EnWP. giggy _(:O) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "sockpuppet" on any admin board will always get my attention :) I've dug a bit & found nothing but will dig some more later on today. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kay Körner

That got some people's attention I think!

I removed a load of youtube links on Kay Körner's user page together with some material that I was not keen on. An IP replaced links & offensive material with "reverting racism" as a comment (here). I blocked the IP 141.30.133.84 who then made a further offensive edit so I have protected that page for now.

I would make a wild guess at that IP being related in some way to Kay Körner who does seem a troubled user. At the very least I would ask that we keep an eye on that & related pages but I think any blocks may need reviewing too. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mate Balota indiscriminately marks images as PD or PD-self

Hi, all

I believe User:Mate Balota takes images from the internet and marks them indiscriminately as {{PD}} or {{PD-self}}. On the right, You can see the ilustration of future looks of Zagreb Airport. How can a person draw a plan for airport redesign itself? This is just one example. There is also unusually high persentage number of aerial photograps in his works.

Can someone please check this user's contributions and talk to him?

--Veliki Kategorizator 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This user has marked every single upload with PD-self, regardless of being the author or not, and has claimed permission to use many of them, often dubiously. S/he has also not responded well to comments about this on his/her talk page, where the uploader claimed the photos were from "friends", when it fact they were from a wiring service. I suggest a very stern warning from an administrator, if not outright blockage. Patstuart (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Laur2007 laur13 (talk · contribs)

Can someone take a look at this user(AKA: delete everything and block). Copyvio uploads also at english wikipedia as w:en:User:Laurentiu131313. His uploads was deleted at en per OTRS Ticket#: 2008032310008081. Rettetast 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; will delete. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 21:14, 30 April 2008 (GMT)

User:Setdominguez

Removes parts of description pages and licenses of his photos. --Jodo 22:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's already a note about this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Setdominguez. Let's keep any discussion on the matter there, to keep it in one place. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't know the structure of the noticeboard. --Jodo 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, there isn't one, and even when there is, there's a lot of overlap between the sections, so I can't blame you. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Themarsvoltafan2

Themarsvoltafan2 continues to upload copyrighted content after a last warning. Patstuart (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of 1 month. Perhaps an indef block might be appropriate, I wasn't sure. Adambro 19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest an indef if it happens again after the block. giggy _(:O) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlosbenitez26

Continuing to upload questionable images, images without sources, and improperly marked images (e.g., Image:Raul Cubas.jpg) after final warning. Patstuart (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, one month. Some of his images appear legit at a glance, so I would suggest that you tag (yes, I know you'll be an admin soon, but tag! :) the bad ones for copyvio/deletion request/no source/whatever and let them filter out via the usual methods. giggy _(:O) 01:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have already done so. I only feel bad tagging so many images as no source, when he will be blocked for a month without being able to give the source where he found all these paintings. Patstuart (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

People set on uploading copyright violations and unsourced images and who do not respond to messages on their user talk pages very, very, very rarely turn their behavior around to provide the information needed. If they do, they can always use their user talk page to provide the information, and if they show that kind of cooperation, they can be unblocked early. Don't feel bad for "not giving them a chance" though. They had plenty of chances and all the information they needed. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Chimpandolfo123

Continues to upload Britney Spears' albums, after warnings. Patstuart (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Funky Forever

A heads-up for other admins to keep an eye out for television screenshots and other copyright violations with the name "Kam" at the beginning of the file name. (See Special:DeletedContributions/Funky Forever and Special:DeletedContributions/Niceandcoolman for examples.)

Could any of our checkusers see if Nicoleandcoolman/Funky Forever is using any open proxies that need to be blocked? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dramatique

This user is involved with stalking and/or attacking a user Gwib with uploaded pictures. This stems from Simple English wikipedia where Gwib and myself are administrators. I am unfamiliar with how things work here but this situation needs to be monitored closely. The Gwibble.jpg picture needs to be deleted as an attack page or attack image or whatever they are called around here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EchoBravo 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked for one week; thanks 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 21:42, 07 May 2008 (GMT)

Thank you. EchoBravo 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eduardodesantacruz (talk · contribs)

This user should probably be blocked as all of his 5 contributions[42] so far have been clear copyvios and he is obviously not willing to learn as he re-uploaded Image:3solteras.jpg again after it was deleted twice previously. --Túrelio 08:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one week, deleting. giggy _(:O) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey21300 (talk · contribs)

As I already explained here, new user Jeffrey21300 obviously wants to (ab)use Commons as a webspace provider for the commerce of Mr. Jafar Ershadi Fard. --Túrelio 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 blocked, deleted and made del-req  made spamming of him nearly impossible abf /talk to me/ 20:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gozerik (talk · contribs)

This user might need a warning in Turkish as all the images he has uploaded so far are without any description. And after getting 2 notes on his talk page (I even invited him on his talk page on :tr) he uploaded some more images again without any description. --Túrelio 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard when we are not sure we are really communicating. To me two pictures could be deleted as "out of scope" (family photos in the absence of an explanation?) and the other two are frankly poor photos. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gorthaur -- repeated false claims of creation of images

This user has claimed creation of several images that he did not create, resulting in deletions for copyright violations. (See his Talk page). One image for which he claimed authorship, still in place, is actually a sketch by da Vinci (compare Melian with daVinci). It is not a copyright problem as such but reflects a certain indifference to accuracy. Another image, also still in place, bears indications of manipulation to conceal its origin (see lower right corner, initial upload and second upload). This is of course more troublesome. (I would propose its deletion but I am not sure how to demonstrate an actual violation without being able to point to an original.)

These repeated and indiscriminate claims of authorship of course call into question his claims concerning *all* the images he has uploaded, not just the ones where originals can be identified or which were plainly manipulated. What is the appropriate course of action here? JohnInDC 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(I should add, since it can no longer be easily ascertained, that earlier today I obtained speedy deletion of another image that had been uploaded first in an original, and then in 'sterilized' form; in that case the original upload bore information that made it possible to locate the copyrighted original, and that was the basis for the deletion.) JohnInDC 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just spent a while looking & cannot find where they have come from. However given the different styles it is extremely' unlikely that the one user created all of them in my mind. Other views? Thanks for the info --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also for what it is worth, this user (under the name Gorthaur03) has inserted these images onto several Tolkien-related pages on Wikipedia. A couple of the additions have been challenged as non-notable (that is what drew my original attention in fact) and in discussions the user has demonstrated a bit of irritation that his art is not being appropriately appreciated. Egs here and here. JohnInDC 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - info appreciated. I've now deleted the two you drew attention to above. A manipulated image cleaned on the second upload & the derivative of the daVinci one. I think the other should go but we could do with finding where they are from (I tried the site which he appears to have used on his deleted ones before. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I wonder why any of Gorthaur’s images remain at all. Consider the circumstances:

March 6 – Gorthaur uploads 10 images, claiming to have created them all.

March 7 – one is summarily deleted as infringing, see here. On that same day Gorthaur is notified of another infringement on his Talk page. He acknowledges that this second item is infringing and identifies a third as infringing as well. He explains the problem as a new user’s mistake, and represents the balance of his uploads to be “good”.

March 8-9 – On the heels of these three deletions, Gorthaur uploads four more files, for a total of 14. He again claims to have created them all. One of the images is in fact a sketch by Leonardo daVinci.

March 18 & 23 – Gorthaur uploads new versions of three of the March 6 images. Two revisions are specifically to conceal origin information showing on the first versions. The third image revision appears to be to a crop, to conform the image (of a mermaid) more closely to the character the user claims it represents (not a mermaid). See Talk.

May 8-9 – The original of one of the March 18 “sterilized” images is identified and the file speedily deleted. The daVinci and the other “sterilized” image are deleted as well. The original of a fourth image is identified and Gorthaur’s version is deleted. This brings the total deletions to seven.

To sum up – three of Gorthaur’s first images were removed within about 48 hours as infringing. No longer ignorant of Wikimedia’s requirements, Gorthaur not only represented that the remainder were “okay” but proceeded to 1) upload a sketch by daVinci and claim it as his own; and 2) upload new versions of two previously uploaded files specifically to conceal copyright / origin information on the images.

Seven of his 14 images have been removed as infringing or not improperly attributed. A quick review of the remaining seven shows very different styles; they were surely executed on different media originally to boot. It is inconceivable that the same individual created them all. Gorthaur claims he created them but we now know that he has claimed authorship of several images he knows he did not create, and that after becoming aware that copyrighted material would be removed, actively sought to conceal the origins of images he had previously uploaded. Given this history every one of the remaining images is legitimately suspect. It's hard to believe that it's really necessary to leave them in place until editors or administrators happen eventually to stumble upon the originals from which they were (almost surely) taken. I don't claim to know much about deletion requirements but it would not strike me as unjust to remove all the remaining images as potential infringements, subject to being uploaded again if accompanied by credible and convincing facts that Gorthaur is in fact the creator.

Thoughts? JohnInDC 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My thought is to delete them all. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed their deletion. JohnInDC 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. JohnInDC 22:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tachfine (talk · contribs)

There seems to be a problem with this rather new user as he rarely provides a useful description for his images, but more importantly some of the images he has uploaded seem to be copyvios (Image:783483255 933d0ef175 b.jpg, Image:Sidi boumediene.jpg). --Túrelio 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Today more uploads without description plus a few clear copyvios and some highly suspicious. --Túrelio 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep such images as this & this seem to me to be clearly not self made. I've blocked the user for a week but I would prefer someone with more licensing knowledge to look over the images. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to explicitly prove the copyvio in some of the user's uploads, but I am not prone to waste more time over the issue. All of them were blatant copyvios, s/he did not even provide descriptions of the so-called self-made images... User is informed. --Spiritia 11:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tests (talk · contribs)

In addition to this attack image, that violates the personality rights of the chancellor of Germany, this user seems to be a pupil with too much time. All his/her other uploads are useless pdf files with probably self-written text about France and Germany (of rather low level), plus a photocopy of a holiday application (Image:Urlaubsantrag .jpg). I recommend to delete all his uploads (maybe, except Image:Germany.png). --Túrelio 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Corrupted pdf-s, out-of-scope images... Image:Germany.png was copyvio (no self-made, the image watermark appointed 4 authors.) →Spiritia 09:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Marysunderhur (talk · contribs)

This user seems to be more interested in Commons as a webspace provider than in its scope. --Túrelio 14:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. none of the images uploaded appear to have good {{Information}} boxes. I see Filbot has added several auto warnings. If nothing is done shortly I'd say warn the user again with a more direct warning, and if that doesn't work, speedy delete the lot of the images and warn the user yet again. The delete should get their attention as the images won't be there, whererever it is they are being used... Once sorted, if this user actually IS a good faith user, it's easy enough to undelete them one at a time to allow the user to add info. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two hours to prevent them uploading any further problem images and asked them to resolve the issues once the block expires otherwise the images will be deleted. I'd go for speedily if the simply upload more images and make no efforts to deal with the current problems. Adambro 15:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, actually, I see Siebrand has just deleted them all as they're apparently copyright violations. Adambro 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Now he/she is uploading the same pictures, though in a lower resolution, but again al without source and author and mostly without any description. --Túrelio 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I don't have time to go through the uploads at the moment, so if another admin could do that, I'd appreciate it. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I checked the usage of the images: pt:The Black and the Nymphs. Author of the articles is pt:User:Marysunderhur who is evidently one of the participants in the band, Mariana Sunderhur. Unfortunately, I am not able to evaluate the encyclopedic quality of the article and the notability of the subject. However, the article seems to be self-promotion and from the quality of the images I' judge that the band is some very amateurish enterprise... So, I suggest to wait for an eventual AfD procedure in the Portuguese WP and decide about the images correspondingly. --Spiritia 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No notability whatsoever, that article is for sure going to be deleted. It's a "group of friends who will eventually be a band someday" type of article. I guess noone came across it yet there. Patrícia ^msg 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletable but happy to wait pt outcome - cannot really be called "good" material --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the article to a local admin and he'll put it through AfD. I usually delete such images after AfDs are concluded as "out of scope". As Herby said, I guess we can wait, but the images are clearly out of Commons project scope, and I won't be shocked to see them go before that. Patrícia ^msg 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Marysunderhur's images are already deleted. →Spiritia 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)