Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Kalon macau

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files by User:Kalon macau

[edit]

User obviously confused about what Free licences entail, and doesn't seem too comfortable with English. Asked that the files be deleted, under such not uncertain terms that the request got him blocked (no objection to that). Images of no crucial importance and easily replaced. Rama (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep They can't be easily replaced. There's a lot of leg work involved. And all the images I looked at were in use on zh.wiki, added by w:zh:User:Kalon. If we're going to delete these images because he doesn't understand free licensing, he's needs to be blocked on zh.WP, too. The English is not probative; his home wiki links w:zh:Wikipedia:CC-by-sa-3.0协议文本 on every page. I don't think you should tie yourself into Wikimedia as far as he has and then just get to rip your images out of the Wikipedia you put them in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Commons is not there to annoy people. The images are trivial, anybody can re-create them with a pocket camera; surely we have other contributors on that spot who can do that for the images that are in use. Rama (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I want him banned from all Wikimedia projects before we start deleting his images here. These are not idle photos; they were taken as part of Wikipedia articles that Kalon did a huge part in writing. If he can not understand that the images are free, how can he understand that the Wikipedia articles he's working on are free? And if he understands that the Wikipedia articles are free, how he can he not understand that the images that are an essential part of them are not free.
    In any case, I think any claim that a set of images are trivial should be demonstrated by replacing them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your plan to exterminate Kalon from Wikipedias is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Similarly, the treatment we give the photographs here has no impact on what happens to the articles on Wikipedia. It's entirely orthogonal.
    I will happily demonstrate that it is easy to take photographs of buses and coaches. Would you prefer I take those of my town of residence, or do you want to arrange my travel and stay in Macau? Rama (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not orthogonal; if we give him the presumption that he knows what he's doing when he's editing on Wikipedia, we must give him the same presumption when he's uploading photos. Replace these pictures, and I'll be happy to agree to deleting them; if you can't replace these pictures, then it's not trivial to do so. Travel being a hindrance is a good reason why making these photos aren't trivial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is orthogonal, because Commons and the various Wikipedias are entirely different projects.
    People do not necessarly have to travel to Macau. There are Wikipedians and Commonists living there. For them, it is trivial to replace these images. Rama (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer to use a definition of trivial that means "done". It seems so often that things that should be trivial nonetheless never get done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I disagree with the point of views of Prosfilaes with following points:
    1) Most (total rather than most) all the photographs are being watermarked and some even very clear and damage the outlooking of the related photographs.
    2) The watermarked photographs may cause personal promotion and user:simon skyway also mentioned that he is not friendly to communicate with othes and need to edit with his own editing policy. Continously, I checked his comments between users and he, his word are really not friendly and no gap to communicate with others. (As we also can see in his talk page using cap words which meaning shouting to others).
    3) He was used the copyrighted photographs from 'Forum autocarros de Macau (Macau Bus Forum)' and are being deleted. By the meantime, he was declearing that those photographs are captured by himself. In addition, some photographs were being marked as 'Only for MacauBus.org and zh.wikipedia.org', which meaning those are not being used in Wikimedia Commons. I am surly he is really confusing with the copyright photographs to public
    4) The photographs are being marked as 'photo by kalon' which against to the policy of Wikimedia Commons which are the same as stated as copyrighted documents.
    5) All of the photographs can be replaced and there are some Wikimedians in Macau, such as user:sdee, who is 'the Father of Wikimedia Macau' that he suggested to establish that and he is volunteering in affair of public relationship, and user:9old9, who is the president of Wikimedia Macau and he is one of the administrator in Chinese Wikipedia. Both of them are living in Macau.
Finally, I hope administrator of Wikimedia Commons announce this issue to the administrator in Chinese Wikipedia and block the another account which is hosted by Kalon. For all of above is commented by a resident of Macau. --182.93.50.224 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some background might be in order. Kalon macau (talk, contribs, log) began uploading files in August 2009, starting with Pacific coffee.jpg under the {{Cc-by-3.0}} license. Other uploads have been multi-licensed with {{GFDL}}. Three have been multi-licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL}}. As of their third upload, Carreira N2.jpg on 2009-08-14, they began watermarking their uploads with "photo by Kalon". On 2009-08-19, they were told that this was a bad idea. However, they continued to upload files. Their uploads have been marked with {{Watermark}} since at least February 2010. Still, they chose to continue uploading.

Now, starting in July/August 2010, they suddenly started kicking up a fuss about the {{Watermark}} tagging. They began claiming that modifications to the files were not allowed without their permission (despite having explicitly placed the works under licenses permitting just that). They began blanking the license tags in an attempt to revoke the licenses, despite their perpetual nature. They were eventually banned for edit warring and making legal threats in violation of Wikimedia's founding principles. Leading up to this, some of the uploads were also tagged as copyright violations by 182.93.49.243, 27.109.255.213 and 27.109.252.117 for having watermarks. Not sure if that was a random user who had misunderstood some basic principles or if it was the uploader again trying to revoke the licenses.

Since the license templates have been moved off-site, I don't know how long we had them translated, but {{Watermark}} has been available in Chinese since August 2006, and Commons:Licensing has been available in Chinese since 2005, so supposed lack of English skills is not a legitimate grievance. The uploader has been duly informed of the consequences of the licenses which we accept, and they have opted to release the files under such licenses out of their own free will on over 30 occasions over several months.

Several users have put time into categorizing the files, working on the file descriptions, and integrating them into Wikipedia articles. I personally put some time into getting started with Cropbot and instructing it to crop out watermarks where this could be done without reducing the usefulness of the photos.

We often delete files from users who regret publishing their works under a free license if they make a polite request shortly after the fact. But that's very different from allowing users to claim ownership of year-old content after it's been improved and integrated. The success of free content depends on being able to trust that one's work won't be undone simply because a previous contributor has a sudden change of hearts.

Apologies for the length of that. Executive summary:  Keep. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I mentioned Kalon's apparent difficulties with English out of concern that he'd have difficulties explaining what he wants. His request have indeed been rather clumsy.
I disagree with the suggestion that Kalon understood what the licences entailed. Evidently, should he have understood, he would realise the futility of his request on watermarks. The mere request is a proof that his understanding was deficient. The question is not there, but whether we should force him to bear the full force of his mistakes.
As for the work, all work of this nature on Commons is voluntary and liable to waste. And I'd frankly take offence if "work" was invoked as a reason to keep these files, after all the time I've devoted to filing this DR instead of speedy-deleting everything. At the very least, it cancels out. Rama (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The request is not proof that they didn't understand what they were doing when they granted the licenses. It could just as well be that they simply changed their mind. Only the uploader knows the true answer. As for your work on this request, I don't think it's wasted regardless of the outcome, as it's a useful discussion to have on record, and unlike the work done on the files in question, it's not up for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he had understood the licence, he'd know that he can't change his mind -- neither to prevent the removal of the watermarks, nor to remove the files from Commons. Rama (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's amazing how far an invalid legal threat can take you sometimes, and his demands to remove the file are having an effect in this deletion review. They're attempts to manipulate us, whether or not he understands the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, well, a request is an attempt to manipulate somebody, pretty much by definition, is it not? The point is that we are in a position of strength, so we can afford to be generous. Rama (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course entirely possible for a person to have a change of heart and regret issuing a perpetual license – even if they understood full well at the time that they would have no legal ability to revoke the license. And a lot of people in that situation would still try to get their way – through legal threats and every other trick in the book – even knowing that they don't have a leg to stand on. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*What a injustice.Sux17alvin (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment from sockpuppet - see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kalon macau. Fæ (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. All files that are published under a copyright license such as {{Cc-by}}, {{Cc-by-sa}} and {{GFDL}} are – by definition – protected by copyright (i.e. "copyrighted"). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'photo by kalon' may meaning that the photo is copyrighted by kalon, if 'photoed by kalon' that meaning as the photo is taken by kalon himself. This is the defination in grammar. If the license are matching to the words of 'photo by kalon', I would like to say  Keep the files since they are not really easy to replace all of them in a short period of time.--T1NH0 (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard English does not make that distinction. "Photo by kalon" means "[This] photo [was created] by Kalon". "Photoed by kalon" (normally "photographed by Kalon") means "[This photo was] photographed by Kalon"). The two mean the same thing. Powers (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say  Keep but with two concerns: first, most of the them are related to the category of buses in Macau. I afraid that he may think that watermarked on the photo is legaled if the final result as keep; another concern would be his attitude to other users and cannot be a good user to communicate with such as to me in Chinese Wikipedia these days (he disagree with the offical editing suggestion by SMG with the signs of typhhon in zh:template:SMG and zh:template:MOTY, and now he voted oppose in the nomination of DYK articles which are edited by me.) and he is hard to communicate from users in Wikimedia Commons (please visit here).--T1NH0 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment! I think it would be good if you could post a link in somewhere in wp:zh to this discussion so that more people from zh:wp can vote about this. Amada44  talk to me 07:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me that replying late, may I know that is that I should post all of them?--T1NH0 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. No, just the link to this discussion. It would be good to have imput from the people who use those bus images. Amada44  talk to me 12:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just about the usage and template of the bus of Macau.--T1NH0 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak Keep The OTRS thing makes this a full-out keep. Rocket000 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I came here to vote delete after seeing his talk page since it made seem like he really really didn't know what he was doing with these licenses, but after looking into it more, I don't know. He had it explained to him many times and he had many opportunities to stop uploading here. Did he? No, he wanted it both ways. He's a Wikipedia editor, not someone unfamiliar with the project and it's values. It seems to me the yelling and screaming legal threats was more an attempt to get his way than a demonstration of his incapacity to understand what he was doing. Furthermore, he continues to use his images in the articles he works on instead trying to remove them (not the common behavior for someone that simply wants his uploads deleted). Still, maybe I'm wrong. They're not that important anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem seems to be, that this user thinks (s)he can release images for wp:zh only and all other usage is prohibited. Now; The images are not to bad and watermarks (in some cases) easy to remove. The question is imho: Does this user understand that everybody is allowed to reuse those images commercially? Amada44  talk to me 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep By now this user must know that the images can be used commercially outside zh:wp. It has been explained to this user often enough and the user now even adds OTRS to deleted images. I think (s)he understood.  Delete speedy I also think that the OTRS is a fake but I totaly agree with Rocket000 and Prosfilaes. - Amada44  talk to me 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Macaubus.org just send us OTRS tickets[1][2], said the uploader User:kalon_macau is not the admin "kalon" of that site. And they request us to delete these images to prevent copyright violation. --PhiLiP (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I buy that. He would say something like that to get them removed... I think this is when he came up with the idea. After that he stopped trying. I can't imagine he would argue so aggressively for us to keep the watermarks or make such legal threats if they weren't even his images. Anyway, at least this is a clear sign he doesn't want them here. So  Delete. Rocket000 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I have no doubt that the claim that User:Kalon macau is not admin kalon is false. But I am convinced that he will make it untenable for us to keep them, and they're just not worth fighting over. I stand by my statement that a user who pretends to release work under free licenses but objects to use under such licenses is a hidden danger on any Wikimedia project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the principle is worth fighting for, and I don't think we should be sending the message that if you're aggressive and litigious enough, we'll give into any demands, no matter how baseless or unreasonable they may be. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. We should not go down that road. –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Either the original release was legitimate or it was not. It should not be withdrawn without firm evidence from a copyright holder that the release was false. Without access to the complaint ticket, I can only agree that it is highly likely the same person is changing their mind and attempting to withdraw their (supposedly) irrevocable release. The source of the original email release was verified, and at this point, due to possible email misuse from this organization, only a signed statement from a verifiable copyright holder should be able to overturn the existing verified release statements on the basis that they were false claims. I propose that any future email from the associated registered domain is automatically blocked or junked as spam in order to avoid any more time-wasting permission requests. Fæ (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Deletespeedy Macaubus sends other OTRS ticket[3] that ask us to delete the copyvio files before Sept. 11th 9p.m.(utc+8) -Mys 721tx (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questions - This deletion discussion seems based on partial information and guesswork. Are we permitted to know exactly which files "Macaubus" claims copyright for and what evidence that they have supplied to demonstrate these are a copyright violation (beyond an email from exactly the same domain that "Macaubus" claims is compromised and is highly likely to be managed by 'Kalon macau')?
    • Do these include images uploaded today from a confirmed sockpuppet of Kalon macau that according to the EXIF data were taken on January 2010 and August 2010?
    • Do these include all images ever uploaded by Kalon macau over several years, some of which appear to have EXIF data making it apparent that these were taken shortly before the same person uploaded to Commons and with no evidence that they were hosted on the Macaubus.org website before being uploaded to Commons? Fæ (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks your hints, I change my idea now,  Keep them utill someone could really show they are the copyright holder.－Mys 721tx (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't have time to read the fulll thing, but he just dropped as another email stating:"[all image] are copyrights of kalon of MacauBus Forum." ticket:2010091310006863--DieBuche (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete, the uploader are not the photograher. kenny 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment It should be noted that in terms of any legal copyright holder for macaubus.org the situation is not clear:

  1. A whois check on the website shows it is registered anonymously and presumably counts as a personal website as legally any company would have to declare its details in the domain registration.
  2. Photographs posted to the Macaubus forum cannot be considered copyright of Macaubus.org as there is no legal release of copyright when joining the forum.
  3. This forum declaration has been recently added stating that the only official email address is macaubus@macaubus.org but is in conflict with official email addresses still given on most of the rest of the website, at least one of which happens to have been used to release images using OTRS requests. It should be noted that the specific email address macaubus@macaubus.org seems to have been created in September 2010 onwards with no earlier appearance on the website. It seems highly likely that this email was created in order to make it appear more "official" that previously used email addresses which the same user wishes to discredit by claiming they were "unofficially" used to release images. Fæ (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - There seems to be significant doubt as to the legal provenance of the files. We have official contact from the Forum where they came from claiming that the account here has nothing to do with the Forum and was never authorized to upload these in the first place. We also have questions as to whether the Forum itself would even have permission to upload them in the first place. Additionally, the pictures all seems to be easy enough to replace. I very strongly disagree with the notion that once an account with dodgy provenance itself has uploaded something, there needs to be some kind of "proof" that they don't have permission to upload. In some cases of particularly interesting images, from known contributors, this might be worth having a fight about, but in this case, please just get rid of them. Finally, I am just curious as to how long a discussion like this will continue here, as it has already been more than a month with little progress and the person complaining is - quite understandably - frustrated by the slow progress.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought that "Macaubus.org" claimed to be the legal copyright holder? Consequently the legal copyright holder is clear. As for the Commons account, that is not an issue, the issue is whether the address sending copyright releases to OTRS over an extended period on behalf of Macaubus.org, which happens to be from an address of the type "xxxx@macaubus.org", should now be ignored because a recently created address from the same domain now claims to be the "official" representative. Considering the history of sockpuppeting, this appears to be the same person deciding to withdraw their images legally released over some years because we have removed their promotional watermarks from the images.
    • Lastly, your statement appears to be intended to speedily close down a deletion discussion, where the conclusion is not yet clear, based on your personal authority, perhaps that was not your intention? If the legal challenges are credible, then there is always the option to temporarily delete the images while the (invisible to the rest of us) legal correspondence continues but then apply the conclusion of this deletion discussion to keep or delete at a later stage. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. A license is not revokable so we have every right to keep them. I find it likely that uploader got second thoughts and wanted them deleted. When that did not work the whole discussion "these are not my files" started. So we could keep the files.

I closed this as delete with these reasons:

  1. We can not be sure that it really is own work. So there is a chance it is a copyvio. By keeping the files we risk to damage Commons.
  2. Also we have the right to delete files if uploader requests. If uploader had said "Would you please delete" then there is a pretty good chance the answer would have been yes. The uploader did not ask nicely and that could be one of the reasons the files was not deleted. We should respect uploaders whish unless files are important for Commons.
  3. The uploader has been blocked and is not wanted on Commons. I see no resaon why the user should have the honor of having files on Commons and get credit for files when it is possible to find better replacements.

I know that some users will have wasted some time when the files are deleted. I find that sad but to protect Commons I find this better than fighting for files that is not especially good. MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_User:Kalon_macau&oldid=44227869"