Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 9

Upload of Copyrighted files and ignoring warnings

Hello, I hope I am at the right place. Blaze Heatnix X6 has uploaded yesterday File:Mmx6blazeheatnix.jpg, I tagged as Copyvio and warned him, and the file was deleted. He uploaded one hour ago the very same picture under the name File:Blazeheatnix.jpg, which I tagged as copyvio, and he removed the template. I am not sure about what to do, could someone deal with this ? Thanks, Jean-Frédéric (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mhm, he tagged it as OTRS-pending, so we should give it some time (or contact an OTRS-worker if any permission has arrived). But without a licence the image can't stay no matter what. So I tagged it again and will watch it. -- Cecil (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  File deleted. I've got access to all permissions queues and couldn't find any OTRS ticket regarding that file, the user, or the website mentioned in the information tag. So, the most probable thing is that the {{OTRS pending}} is phony. KveD (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have my doubts, that this is an official account. File:FVRamos.jpg was uploaded in 2008 already and marked by me with nsd because the painter of this recent piece of art was not named. The user reuploaded the image mentioning Non-free 2D art. The image was deleted and the user informed. Now it was reuploaded under a username claiming to be an official representative of the philipine government. I did not contact the account yet because I dont know what to do. --Martin H. (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AT least some images were taken from this website that claims at least some copyright (being incompatible with Commons).--Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This user has taken the work of other people here, made minor changes and uploaded them again with him as author, without attribution of the real author and a different licence. See for example this svg, which originally was File:KidneyStructures PioM.svg, an image by Piom under GFDL. Madhero88 just took away the numbering and then uploaded it with him as author under public domain. And this is not the only case. The reason I noticed this was that a user on de.WP has informed me that he did the same with one of her images (File:User Discussion page Barnstar trans.png). His talk page shows that in the last few month he already attacted attention for uploading copyvios. What to do with him? -- Cecil (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could see there was no response to your warnings, despite that this seem to be an experienced editor from Wikipedia in English. Hopefully this is only due to the user not having been active at Commons after your first warning. I suggest we wait a bit, but if this kind of uploads are repeated I think blocking is unavoidable, at least until the user starts communicating and explains the rationale (or lack thereof, like not understanding the difference between GFDL and PD). I'm leaving a note at the users wikipedia talk page about this discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My first warning was only a few hours ago so I would not expect a reaction yet. Martin H. und Multichill were the previous contacts. Polarlys and I now checked through the uploads and tried to figure out from where they came from. Most of them where featured images of medical stuff and we changed their data to those of the original authors and their licences (none of the changes had enough own creativity) and deleted a few. With the barnstars I'm not sure. The user probably is the real author of those. The one where he definitely was not the author was deleted since the real author had provided the same version (svg-barnstar with transparent background) too. But it would be good if some more people would look through those images where Madhero88 is still the author. Maybe somebody recognizes some more work by others which was just slightly adapted. More than half of the uploads where minor modifications of the work of others. And there are also several images like File:JUSTuni14.jpeg and File:JUSTuni15.jpeg which obviously can't be own work since they were made by satelites. -- Cecil (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi thank you both for your concerns, I am truly so sorry, I don't deny any of the things you both said, but the thing is that i didn't know that things work like this here, I am truly sorry again, I didn't know that this file should look like this File:KidneyStructures.svg, I thank Cecil for modifying it, But my previous idea about the whole thing that the content is free, and I can use it, and If you check my modifications and uploads where all in the benefit of wikipedia English, for example the file File:KidneyStructures.svg was extensively used for wikiproject Medicine and Nephrology task force, I mean that I didn't do any of those upload to benefit my self as an editor, and I didn't claim any of them to my user page here or at en.wikipedia, about the satellite images, I zoomed and cropped them from wikimapia, isn't it free content??, actually I think you should recommend some articles about the different licensing information on wikicommons, I appreciate your work and your concerns, and If I may ask for help from both of you in modifying my already uploaded files so that they have correct licensing, and referrals to original authors, Thank you for your time, and please if I am late to answer here ping me at my en.wikipedia talk Madhero88 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, this does seem to be one "user problem" sorted out happily. Madhero88, the most important thing for you to keep in mind is being more detailed in the "source"-field of the image description. WikiMapia, for instance, is not free content, screenshots from that project are restricted by Google Maps terms of use [1]. As such I'm deleting those two satelite images now that we know the source is not free. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martin.musatov. Uploaded a diagram describing his original research on P=NP he's been so fervently pushing, which I deleted. Further action may be called for if he doesn't stop there. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this user is probably a sock of User:Martin.musatov, who was blocked on Commons for vandalism. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
blocked — Mike.lifeguard 04:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, this user seems to upload images he finds via Google, see his descriptions (source:Google... Author:unknown (inconnu)...), I did not look at all his contributions, but I think many of his uploads should be deleted, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User name is an impersonation of User:Toddst1, also the user has uploaded two images, both copyright violations with false licences, and is probably a sockpuppet of Treats for taking tests... (talk · contribs) and several other accounts (see simple:Category:Sockpuppets of KCA 2002). Snigbrook (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - certainly worth a look......! Might take a little while to wade through them. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs) is at it again. Ofcourse we have the flinging of allegations of antisemitism against anyone who disagrees with him[2][3]. A new one is refering to other editors as "it"[4] (with emphasis as well). Calling other editors "dishonest and deceptive"[5] As well as a blanket accusation on his user page.[6] // Liftarn (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This entry was first removed by me after a warning at user talk:Liftarn. I find Liftarns report of Mbz1 to the Administrators' noticeboard an attempt to bully another contributor in connection with the users own appearent interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The fact that this is the second bad faith report of Mbz1 here in few days (first removed by Adambro ([7]) makes this issue worse. As such, I'm blocking the complainer (and not the user accused here) for disturbance of Commons, the block is one week due to previous block record [8]. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that Finnrind (talk · contribs) excused User:Mbz1's insult against the user Liftarn (who Finn just blocked) [9] When it is brought to the attention to Finnrind that Mbz1 did indeed insult the user,[10] he brushed it off without giving Mbz1 a warning. Mbz1 is free to accuse people of being SPAs, antisemitic, and free to demean users since he is under the wing of Finnrind who is censoring reports on Mbz1 and then blocking a user because he dared return his report. This is admin abuse, and his turning a blind eye and excusing Mbz1's actions is troubling. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That is not bullying! Mbz1 has a disconcerting tendency to use dehumanizing language when describing opponents: calling Liftarn "it" (with emphasis), referring to "hounds". Finn Rinndahl's condoning of such language and now blocking Liftarn is wrong. Mbz1 is now using his talk page as a show case, and his user page for broadcasting accusations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Bullying is exactly what this is. A bunch of uploaders with a clear agenda claiming to be the victims and abusing COM:AN/U. Most of Mila's observations are just plain correct. Look at Falastine's contributions. How is this not a special purpose account? Look at Liftarns uploads of Latuff cartoons and Flickr pictures. They represent a single sided opinion, in line with the usual propaganda crap. The Latuff cartoons are clearly antisemitic, we don't have to discuss this. Do you think antisemitic is a swearword? Do you think a person who has an obvious bias towards antisemitic materials in their upload history, who thus is disseminating antisemitic material should not be called antisemitic? --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Which uploads are specifically anti-Semitic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So what now? People with interest in Palestinian issues are not welcomed here? Do I not upload pictures here at all? Do I have to become a photographer, take/upload pictures of random crap like your pictures to appear as a 'multi purpose account'? (Btw, I am a person, not an account and not an it) Seems to me if you had any influence, you would be working to get pro-Palestinian editors banned. Furthermore your personal attack on Liftarn is outrageously sick and your opinion of Latuff cartoons is stupid and distorted; Latuff already has an answer for people with twisted observations like you. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know, in order that I don't get blocked or dragged into drama again, should I stop posting any portrayal of Palestinian victims and Gaza devastation because they will be deemed as propaganda? I know this is the rule in American media but I wasn't sure that it is same for Wikipedia. Let me know as soon as possible and I will stop uploading anything related to the Palestinian plight. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left a comment at COM:AB/B, no reason to copypaste it here. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think people who uploads images that you disagree with should not be called antisemites when there is absolutley no basis for such accusations. I find it very offensive to be called an antisemite. // Liftarn (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you 100 percent, Liftarn. But don't even think about reporting the personal attack because I don't have any more energy to try to get you unblocked again. ;)--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. The first one is free. It's just with repeated personal attacks I start to react. // Liftarn (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Korrigan / {{npd}}

Korrigan (talk contribs) has twice removed an {{npd}} tag I added to File:Diptyque vieux livres.jpg (talk), arguing that her personal claim that the author granted permission is sufficient. It is my understanding that license information can be provided by the uploader as follows:

  1. Directly, if the work is in the public domain,
  2. Directly, if the uploader is the author,
  3. Via a web link that provides a Commons-compatible license for the specific work, or
  4. Via a reference to OTRS confirmation.

It is my understanding that license information cannot be provided by proxy (procuration)/hearsay. Is my understanding correct?

I attempted to convey this understanding to Korrigan (talk contribs), but she was unpersuaded. Although Korrigan (talk contribs) seems to be perfectly fluent in English and French, in her defense, I note that the French-language version of the notice box ({{No permission since/fr}}) does not include any translation of "explicit" from the English-language version of the box ({{No permission since/en}}). Also, the translation of "proof" (which has a very different meaning from "evidence") might not be as clear in the French version.

Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is OK, because the copyright holder is in Korrigan's family, we should assume good faith. That doesn't make a general policy through. Yann (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This issue isn't about good faith, it's about a failure to provide source reference information according to Commons policy, and Commons policy doesn't provide a "good faith" exception for source references. —Danorton (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is about good faith. It is dereasonable to ask you for an OTRS permission if a family member gives you an image. Yann (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Oh, look! The copyright holder of that file didn't gave her permission! ;) Diti the penguin 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Salmon09 and PD-Art

User:Salmon09 appears to be in a moral panic about our PD-Art policy. They added large, conspicuous, unnecessary warnings to both Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and my user page User:Dcoetzee, apparently to protest our inclusion of these images. They were indef blocked; subsequently they created a sock User:Cupoftea to add the same notice to my userpage again. I believe they're likely to return again and commit more related vandalism. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Liftarn, in what I believe is a gross assumption of bad faith, is tagging image talk pages with lines such as "no evidence". See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Liftarn

# 11:41, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:A rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards civilian areas in Southern Israel.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:41, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Tzipi Livni at kindergarten rocket site.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:40, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:40, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 2.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:40, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 1.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:40, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Elderly Israeli woman Injured after Rocket Attack from Gasa hit civilian area in Israel.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:39, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:A wounded Israeli Child is taken to hospital after Rocket Attack.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:39, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack from gaza.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:39, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack fired from Gaza toward civilian areas.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:38, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Bloody child's shoe after rocket fired from Gaza hit Israel.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:38, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) N File talk:Israeli Paramedics rush to help an injured Israeli after a rocket attack.jpg ‎ (←Created page with '== Facts == No evidence for any of the many dubious claims is given. // ~~~~') (top)
# 11:38, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) N File talk:Two qasam rockets fired from civilian areas in gaza toward civilian areas in sderot in Israel.jpg ‎ (←Created page with '== Facts == No evidence for any of the many dubious claims is given. // ~~~~') (top)
# 11:37, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) N File talk:Injured Israeli after rocket fired from Gaza hit the town.jpg ‎ (←Created page with '== Facts == No evidence for any of the many dubious claims is given. // ~~~~') (top)
# 11:37, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File talk:Insured by hamas rocket Israeli woman comforts her daughter.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:37, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:A rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards civilian areas in Southern Israel.jpg ‎
# 11:36, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:A Home in Ashkelon in ruins after a grad rocket fired from Gaza lands in the Southern Israeli city..jpg ‎
# 11:36, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Tzipi Livni at kindergarten rocket site.jpg ‎
# 11:36, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza.jpg ‎
# 11:36, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 2.jpg ‎
# 11:35, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 1.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:35, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Elderly Israeli woman Injured after Rocket Attack from Gasa hit civilian area in Israel.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:35, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:A wounded Israeli Child is taken to hospital after Rocket Attack.jpg ‎
# 11:35, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack from gaza.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:34, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack fired from Gaza toward civilian areas.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:34, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Bloody child's shoe after rocket fired from Gaza hit Israel.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:34, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Israeli Paramedics rush to help an injured Israeli after a rocket attack.jpg ‎ (top) [rollback]
# 11:34, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Two qasam rockets fired from civilian areas in gaza toward civilian areas in sderot in Israel.jpg ‎
# 11:33, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Injured Israeli after rocket fired from Gaza hit the town.jpg ‎
# 11:32, April 19, 2009 (hist) (diff) File:Insured by hamas rocket Israeli woman comforts her daughter.jpg ‎ 

We do not tag the Palestinian solidarity images or anything similar as such. I am afraid this is a "sour grapes" reaction to the inability for Liftarn to have these photos deleted, I am afraid This, together with Liftarn's past edits, potentially indicates an inability for Liftarn to work neutrally and impartially when it comes to Palestine/Israel related issues, and besides for an immediate reversal of this improper tagging, I believe the Commons needs to discuss the appropriateness of a topic-ban for Liftarn until such point as he can demonstrate the ability to work fairly and neutrally with these issues. -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take it to the respective talk page instead? // Liftarn (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, there were around 20 images. Secondly, this is not an isolated incident indicating a partiality with regards to Palestine/Israel topics. This is the proper place for the discussion. Liftarn, you are more than welcome to your opinions. The issue is that there is a history of edits that indicate a targeting of the I/P situation which also are causing a disruption. You make excellent contributions otherwise, but in this area you seem to have a bias that is causing you to make inappropriate edits. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate that the discussion takes places here given the number of images IMO. --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And Avi reverted these attempts at discussing the claims in the file names. One wonders why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Because part of my job as a sysop to prevent disruption of the project. That is why sysops are empowered to delete/block/etc. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So the featured-picture-people can discuss focus, exposure, etcetera ad infinitum, but questioning claims in file names is disruptive?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Tagging 20 images with a non-descriptive statement casting aspersions on the photgrapher's naming with no justification can be viewed as disruptive, Pieter. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For instance take File talk:A rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards civilian areas in Southern Israel.jpg . It has two bold claims "from a civilian area" and "towards civilian areas". The first claim is dubious since it says there are non-civilian areas. The second claim requires mind reading. For the record I would also like to point out that I have not tried to "have these photos deleted" as Avi claims. Possibly a case of mistaken identity. // Liftarn (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Liftarn, my mistake. I have struck out that sentence. However, my concern still stands. Why are these images more worthy of being tagged than any of the ISM images? There is an assumption of good faith that the images are named by the photographers, and they can be assumed to know whereof they speak, unless the name is SO blatantly disruptive. For example, a hypothetical picture of an anonymous soldier, that could be from ANY military, ANYWHERE in the world, called "Assassination of Israeli child" without any picture of dead children anywhere would need to be renamed. Otherwise, we would have to go through every ISM photo and do the same thing. Personally, if I saw someone tagging the ISM photos like that, I would assume that was bad faith as well. Unless there is evidence, not supposition, that the picture is renamed, OR the name of the picture is blatantly disruptive, the names are assumed accurate. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not want to go into a picture-by-picture argument, but regarding the one brought above, unless the military installation is a closet, the picture is of civilian Gaza. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know the only image in question has already been both renamed and had it's description changed[11], but I think it's bit of a difference between photos from a humanitarian organisation present at the place and propaganda photos. But as you already know the ISM photo has been "sanitised" so why not go on and fix the one I tagged as well? For instance File:Bloody child's shoe after rocket fired from Gaza hit Israel.jpg could be renamed to File:Dirty shoe.jpg or something if you fix one side and not the other your neutrality may come into question. // Liftarn (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have not touched the shoe one, for as of now it stands to be deleted since there is no release or evidence for it. Secondly, what do you mean by "propaganda photos"? Are you claiming that the ISM is a propaganda organization? Even if so, if I recall correctly, we have discussed here on the commons that propaganda photos in and of themselves are not out of scope. I'd rather not have to go and delete all those ISM photos. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, it has been long enough. I have deleted the four photos without proper sourcing/release. Should a proper release come into OTRS, they may be undeleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, but I think we concluded that "Edi Israel" indeed was a propaganda organisation. Ok, let's take another example. File:Insured by hamas rocket Israeli woman comforts her daughter.jpg makes several bold claims. "by hamas rocket" is the obvious one as there is no evidence for who fired the rocket (if there was a rocket at all). The description also speaks about "toward w:civilian in w:Sderot, w:Israel" and that requires some inside knowledge about what the ones firing the rocket was thinking. The file name also says she's "Insured", but I think that's a typo. // Liftarn (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles. Founded by a small group of activists in August, 2001, ISM aims to support and strengthen the Palestinian popular resistance by providing the Palestinian people with two resources, international protection and a voice with which to nonviolently resist an overwhelming military occupation force.…The Palestinian struggle is not accurately reported by the mainstream corporate media. The mainstream media portrays Israelis and Palestinians as two equal sides who can’t live together fighting over a piece of land, instead of an Israeli military occupation and a Palestinian struggle for freedom, self-determination and human rights. People from all over the world that join us can reach out to their respective media and help dispel this notion.

http://palsolidarity.org/about, About ISM

Liftarn, perhaps you were unaware, be we have an e-mail release from Mr. Edi Israel, freelance photographer, on file in OTRS, so I believe you are mistaken. http://palsolidarity.org, aka ISM, however, refers to themselves as quoted at right.That is almost unquestionably a self-admission of intent to influence public opinion, aka propaganda. However, that is irrelevant, as, if I recall correctly, we allow propaganda images on the Commons IF the are in scope and properly licensed. So unless you want to go and tag all the ISM images as "factually questionable", I think this particular issue is moot. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the image you bring, please see the flickr source page https://www.flickr.com/photos/36806173@N07/3389737289/. Not being an expert, if there are other Palestinian militants in Gaza (Fatah, perhaps?) then I agree the picture should be renamed to match the flickr description (remove "Hamas" and replace with "Palestinian militants"). Also, the missile apparently landed in Sderot. Unless these militants are so incompetent that they cannot even AIM a simple rocket, it is safe to say the missile was aimed at Sderot. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all free images within scope can and should be included in Commons, but we still need to have accurate descriptions. I'm aware thet the image come from Flickr, but how reliable is that? According to en:Category:Palestinian militant groups there are quite some groups. Yes, it is quite possible that is where the rocket (not missile since it's unguided) landed and they probably pointed it in that general direction, but I have seen some images of the rockets and with the short ramp used and the poor quality of the fins it is quite clear it's not a precision weapon. // Liftarn (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this particular image is misnamed by every definition due to the "s" instead of "j", I took the liberty of renaming it to its flickr name File:Mother consoles daughter after rocket attack.jpg and made the description match the flickr description, which is what we do unless there are blatant issues with the name. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! // Liftarn (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This user keeps deleting all the images on the Bullmastiff page and placing up 2 to very large versions of their own photo. Plus they keep putting up a full article on the page..It is like they are trying to make the whole page about their dogs.. The first time i reverted i mentioned that it was only a gallery page and not an article about the breed.. I then put up all the other photos and added their 2 photos to the gallery in thumbnail size of course.. They then blanked the page of photos again and place only their 2 photos back up... i did leave a message on their talk page with no response.. Could someone look into this because i am getting sick of having to re-put the photos back up over and over again... --Ltshears (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes - maybe need some with better language skills. I've deleted a couple of images that are copyvios (& I think the others may be too). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
They are also blanking information on other peoples Bullmastiff photos as seen on this edit [[12]] Plus one of the images on the gallery page is now completely missing.. --Ltshears (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I left a new warning (in Norwegian, as this seem to be a user from my country), should be blocked if any of this is repeated. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Finn, at first i thought maybe they just didn't know what they were doing and had mistakenly deleted the images, however i know longer believe that to be so.. --Ltshears (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On March 30th, I closed this DR and deleted all uploads by Marcolazzara. Yesterday and today, Marcolazzara started with re-uploads of the deleted images. I deleted them again and posted an explanation on his talk page. (He seems to have some knowledge of English as he apparently contributed to en-wp as Marcolazzara2.) I wasn't successful, however, as Marcolazzara right now uploaded this image again.

Please note that I have no idea whether Marcolazzara as contributor is identical to Marco Lazzara. At en-wp, fr-wp, and it-wp he has created and edited the articles about Marco Lazzara only. He has nowhere reacted to any of the messages posted on his talk page. His images were deleted per COM:PRP as it seemed unlikely that he created all the uploaded images himself. If he is indeed the Italian countertenor he is interested in, it would be perhaps possible to help him through the necessary OTRS processes etc. but I do not see how this should work if he doesn't react on any message posted on his talk page. Perhaps it would be helpful to add an Italian message on his talk page or to send him an email, preferably in Italian. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Marcolazzara uploaded today a couple of already deleted images. Yann warned him but even after this warning Marcolazzara continued to upload more images, some of them for the first time and one already deleted image under a new name. So far he has still not responded to any of our messages or addressed any of our concerns. I saw no other option but to block him for three days. Please feel free to unblock him as soon as it is possible to work with him towards a solution. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Marcolazzara contacted me during the first block by email (he writes English quite well) but he didn't reply to my response that described the policies and procedures for this case. Today, one day after his block passed, he re-uploaded three of his already deleted images. This time, however, he no longer claimed to be the photographer. Instead he attributed these pictures to professional photographers but failed to provide a permission. (I have no OTRS access myself but there was nowhere an indication that he indeed obtained a permission in this short time period.) I deleted his new uploads, sent him an email, and posted a comment on this talk page. I haven't blocked him yet for a second time and still hope that this can be avoided. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some problems with this uploads. I thing, starting with File:Cullen-monzón.jpg, that he gives his sources fantasy names. The image is a movie screenshot and not a (first) print publication. The sourcing of the uploads (source and author) is realy bad. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Caracas-related images uploaded by this new user look highly suspicious of copyvios to me, as most are without a date, those few with EXIF data show very different camera models including professional ones (like Nikon D300 in File:Giselle1.jpg). --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the policy page here for talk pages does not state that removing other people's comments from user talk pages (other than your own) is inappropriate, this seems to be standard etiquette on most MW projects and common courtesy. User:CarolSpears removed comments from my talk page without permission. I have had previous harassment problems with this user and have asked her to stay away from me before. She has not stayed away and has deleted comments from others on my user talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

She does seem to pick out certain individuals and go out of her way to make life difficult for them. Positive interactions with some members of the community do not generate a license to engage in unprovoked rudeness toward others. Recusing from action because I'm another one of the people she's targeted. Durova (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
How does this comment relate to the issue? You are making a general assertion here which you could just as well have worded I don't like Carol, please ban her already!. There was no unprovoked rudeness in removing an obsolete bot notice. Sorry, but these types of comments are just plain unconstructive. --Dschwen (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've put a note on CarolSpears' talk page and - as I could see no reason for removing the comment - I have restored it. Samulili (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how big a deal this is. The image was vandalized and the categories removed in the process. BotMultichillT then tagged it as missing categories and warned you. When CarolSpears reverted the vandalism, she also removed the (now irrelevant) bot's message from your talk page. I would rather consider this a nice touch. –Tryphon 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
With Tryphon here, Carol simply cleaned up after the bot after having reverted vandalism. What's the problem? Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The word "my". Rocket000 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
In my close to five years on Wikimedia projects, I have never seen anyone removing comments from someone else's talk page except for removing vandalism or removing a mistake one has made onself. When a user must know that they are not in the best of terms with another user, there is really no reason to go poking talk pages without a good reason and without explaining the good reason. The two users are beyond assuming good faith, they should now make effort to prove good faith. Samulili (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that she removed content from my talk page after previously harassing me and being told then to stay away from my talk page. The incident had to resolved by administrative reprimands. She has now started again, and I want to be sure the incident stops now, does not start again, and that she does not remove comments from my talk page. She should stay away, as she was asked to do last time. If she wants to handle a problem with categorization or vandalism, that's fine. But she has no cause to remove comments left for me unless they are vandalism, personal attacks, or the like. I just want her to stay off my talk page like she was asked to do last time I had to report a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Subtle harassment looks fine but is actually really irritating. If that's the case, well that's up to be discussed. Most likely no action will be done, but I take harassment seriously, and I will most definitely block for it if warned previously. We should take harassment accusations seriously; not just dismiss them. This one case has big roots, lets take a look. Shall we? --Kanonkas(talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem I've encountered: she has a knack for targeting an individual and following that person around to make posts that appear obscure or inoffensive unless one understands the context, so most observers miss the context and misread the targeted editor's response as overreaction. It's a serious problem and I'm glad to see it taken seriously. Durova (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Petey, I saw her edit to your talk page. Knowing that you have repeatedly asked her not to post on your talk page, I examined it with a view to reverting it. I didn't revert it because it seemed to be the good faith removal of a notification that she had rendered redundant. She even refrained from an edit summary.. So really I couldn't see any problem with that edit. Rest assured that I will revert any content that she posts to your talk page, because I agree with the general thrust of Durova's comment above. Hesperian 01:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tryphon and Hesperian. EncycloPetey, If you can show us anything that can prove that Carol has stalked/harassed you we (Administrators) can't really do much since she was acting in good faith by reverting the vandalism as well as the bot message which she may have felt that was no longer needed since the issue was addressed. I feel that it would have been different if Carol added a comment on you talk page or removed a comment of yours.
Yes Carol and I have a past history (Similar to EncycloPetey) however that history stays in the past but I do know how she can be on Commons with other editors and I do take that in account, I also understand what Durova means about Carol however on this occasion I don't think nor should any action be placed on Carol unless it can be shown that she has or is stalking/harassing you. Bidgee (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Demonstrating that she has stalked me is not hard. Simply examine her edit history around the time she made the change to my user page. Despite the fact that the bot made numerous posts about categorization issues to many people, the issue posted to my Talk Page was the only one she attended to, and only after the notice was posted to my Talk Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Did it occur to you that she might just have your talk page on her watchlist? --Dschwen (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
After being warned to stay away from it following a previous discussion like this? Why? I have had only one notice posted to my Talk Page since last July, then this bot message which was promptly deleted by Carol Spears only 20 minutes after being posted. Since there is almost no activity on my Talk Page, and since she was warned to stay away from it, then why would she have my Talk Page on her Watchlist except for purposes of stalking? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen, Thats what my thoughts were. EncycloPetey, Nothing stops her from having your talk page in her watchlist. Assuming good faith it's possible that Carol added your talk page during the last dispute you two had sometime ago. If Carol were to revert a bot's message on my talk page I wouldn't have a problem but if it's any other comment then there would be a problem. Bidgee (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It was probably added automatically to her watchlist when she wrote on the user talk page a long time ago. I do not quite understand what EncycloPetey is still so upset about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Mh, yeah, I realize that assuming good faith can be quite difficult, especially after you had bad run-ins with a user, but these are the times that AGF is most crucial. I don't know your history, and frankly I do not really care, I'm only looking at the matters presented here, that layed out as the reason to come to AN/U. And the bot-notice removal taken by itself is not only no big deal, it is not even just harmless, it is a valid edit. Carol was actually being helpful by reverting vandalism to one of your files. It just boggles my mind that you are going after her for doing constructive edits. --Dschwen (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I never said that reverting the vandalism was a problem. Deleting comments from my talk page is the problem. Let me summarize the events and discussion so far (as I see it):
  1. I posted [13] (see "Unwanted contact") a year ago asking Carol to please leave me alone. The result of the discussion was a short block and this admin comment "Only thing to be done in a case like this is to ignore if possible, and bring it to this board for assistance if not. She's been on the boards a lot lately though, so eventually we're going to need to be a bit more forceful in moderation." Carol never actually agreed to leave me alone.
  2. Carol again edits my talk page, this time to delete a comment left there by a bot.
  3. The community is divided about whether Carol is leaving me alone.
Frankly, I don't see that she's leaving me alone as I had originally requested, and the only proposed solution (below) is to ask her again to leave me alone. She hasn't done this when she was asked to do so before, and that's the problem. I don't want her editing my talk page ever; that's what I assumed would be implicit in "staying away". Apparently, a significant fraction of the community feels that, when a user is asked to stay away from someone, some continued contact is OK. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you not wanting her to edit your talk page ever is a wish that she may choose to respect, or not. I fail to see why we should punish one user for not conforming to arbitrary wishes of other users. This feels very much like a constructed issue. The main point here is that her edit was 100% legitimate and good faith. Whether it hapened on your talk page or not is absolutely irrelevant in my opinion. --Dschwen (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, then, asking someone to "stay away" never actually happens because it's never going to be enforced. If a court issues a restraining order, then the designated person must stay away. They cannot show up in my yard to pick up trash. If Carol cannot stay away, I will have to leave. She creates too much stress for me, and if the community cannot do anything to relieve that stress, then I cannot continue here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your yard does not compare to your talk page. It's a wiki, not your private property. Threatening to leave just because you are not getting your will is bad style. --Dschwen (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Call it what you will. Leaving because of stress is a perfectly valid reason to leave any situation. I am sorry the community here could not help, but I cannot be around Carol Spears. Goodbye. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If that edit stressed you out to the point where you feel you have to leave the project (a year after your last run-in with carol) then the problem lies far deeper than carol. I sugest you take a breath, or a short wikibreak and reevaluate the situation in a couple of days. --Dschwen (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple compromise?

I urge both parties to simply stay away from each others talk page and vice versa. This will ensure any future problems are amicably and further drama avoided. I'm sure both parties want some rest, no? Lets strive and give some peace to stop this ongoing dispute with an easy measurement. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How many people is CarolSpears now supposed to keep away from? The list is getting longer and damaging the community - I don't think this is an acceptable resolution.  — Mike.lifeguard 03:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
What else do you suggest, if I may ask? A block for that one edit will likely not get consensus, and from this thread there is no consensus for a block either. I think maybe ignoring each other might actually work.... Just have the patience, despite it being hard. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why should Carol refrain from doing perfectly valid edits on anyones talk page? What is wrong with reverting vandalism on anybodies files? How is the removal of an obsolete bot notice the least bit controversial? Why should we crack down on Carol if a user overreacts? This whole section is a non-issue. You are regurgitating old stories. How about we talk about consequences for Carol if there actually is a new incident. --Dschwen (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Kanonkas and Dschwen and think that it is time to close this. Carol reverted this vandalism on one of EncycloPetey's uploads and removed the bot message which was generated as follow-up to that vandalism. Yes, we shall be cautios, as Kanonkas already remarked, if there is a form of subtle harassment but I fail to see that in this particular case. Hence, I do not see any ground to block Carol because of these edits. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur. I have been several times in "focus" of Carol's particular communication, so I understand that one can become suspicious, but I consider this case as some sort of apology of Carol where she corrects a mistake. Personally, I would have ignored or even thanked her. --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
She was asked to stay away from me, and she has not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter rule

I'm getting pretty tired of my bot's catching vandalism (see previous topic). Could someone make some nice abusefilter rules to stop imagepage blanking or partial blanking? Total blanking should be easy, partial somewhat harder. You could check if before the edit it contains "category" and after the edit it still contains "category". This would probably catch a lot without false positives. Multichill (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also be nice if it can catch license removals. Rocket000 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how Special:Tags works? Rocket000 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Multichill. I believe that, if the description and/or categories are blanked completely epically by IP user like it was done with one of my uploads today, it is safe to restore them instead of marking an image as uncategorized. Should be easy to change the program I think. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I created Special:AbuseFilter/27 which completely forbids saving file description pages with less than 30 characters. (I guess there's no valid reason to save a page with less than 30 characters, or does anybody disagree?)
Should at least catch some obvious vandalism. Of course some more elaborate filtering is still necessary. In my opinion 80 characters is the absolute minimum possible for a valid description. "{{Information|Description=|Source=own|Author=User:X|Permission={{PD}}}}" is the shortest meaningful file description page I can come up with. It has 71 characters. Plus 9 characters for a meaningful short description is my base for the number of 80 characters. (Of course not using {{Information}} could save some more characters, but not using any of the structuring templates should be strongly discouraged.) Above 80 characters the user should still be warned. At least til the limit of 175 characters. That's the number I get for a short but complete image description like

{{Information
|Description={{en|foobar foobar foobar}}
|Source={{own}}
|date=YYYY-MM-DD
|Author=[[User:X]]
|Permission={{PD-user}}
|other_versions=
}}

[[Category:X]]

And perhaps a warning if more than 50% of the text is removed. --Slomox (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
@Rocket000's question Does anyone know how Special:Tags works?: Special:AbuseFilter is the main interface. --Slomox (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure going by # of characters would work. What about image redirects? What about when someone changes a category or something on a page that doesn't use any templates. Would that mean they would be forced into converting to {{Information}} (or similar) in order to save? What about tagging blank pages with {{Speedy}}? Rocket000 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirects are now exempt from the rule. About pages that are already empty: those shouldn't exist. If it still occurs it will at least tell the user that something is wrong with the page. --Slomox (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some templates that include {{Information}} with everything filled out with licenses and categories. Sometimes all you need {{templatename}} on the page. Yes, that's not a preferred way of doing things but it shouldn't be blocked technically. Rocket000 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you put the filters live on a wiki like this, please test it before you actually save it. Filters may cause collateral damages, in just minutes. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I had no idea, that the filters were applied to any actions on the wiki. I will care for the deletions that were prohibited by my premature filter activation. --Slomox (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Luckily no collateral damages happened. I'm glad you've learned. Thanks, and we all make mistakes, so no worries :) Learn from your mistakes as long as you live, is all I can say. --Kanonkas(talk) 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Going by # of characters only will not work for sure. I still believe that instead of abuse filter the current bot could be modified. The bot is already checking, if the license was removed or vandalized, and if all the categories were removed. The only thing thad could be added to the bot is that instead of marking an image and notifying the uploader the bot would simply restore the contest. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we block imagepages with less than 80 letters we could have some problems. If I upload a lot of images I will use {{subst:user:abigor/example|blablabla}} and that is now impossible? Huib talk 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. It only checks for the removal of all instances of "[[Category:" (currently allowing all replacements with "{{" for templates that add categories). There are already filters in place to prevent most blanking. This was catching false positives and I can see it catching many many more. Even if you didn't subst your template it should be allowed. Rocket000 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Example of false positive: [14] Rocket000 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer just tagging suspicious edits as requiring extra patrolling. Refusing edits based on somewhat arbitrary rules will invite the user to find work arounds (for example half-blanking, inserting other junk texts or copies from other images) to get his edit accepted, making it more difficult to find out what went wrong. --Foroa (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea behind forbidding complete blanking of pages is a simple "we saw that" message for casual vandals. These are the people who, if they can't mess it up on the first try, won't be bothered to try again. --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusefilter's tagging (& tor tagging for that matter) requires a schema change which will be a long time coming, in all probability.  — Mike.lifeguard 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm being harrassed

By some user named Mike.lifeguard. Whoever he is, I'd appreciate it if people in general would simply avoid coming to my talk page all accusatory unless they've actually got something to accuse me of. I'm a placid editor just plodding along and then the dude shows up out of nowhere and all rude and huffy -- I ask him to explain what he's talking about and he says he doesn't even have to explain it to me. I don't know what position he has but whatever it is I'd prefer it if I didn't have to deal with this, quote, gentleman, unquote, anymore. Could someone else look over what he thinks he's talking about and see if he's imagining something or what? (Eg He claims I try to avoid scrutiny. I've never done any thing on Commons I'd want to avoid scrutiny for so I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Thanks for your time.Justmeherenow (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is either a case of mistaken identity on Mike's part, or a case of User:Justmeherenow playing innocent - I can't tell which. In any case it can't hurt to have someone explain the situation in case we're wrong. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Playing innocent (though it's not even that serious, a simple "fine, I'll stop" would close the issue)  — Mike.lifeguard 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes a bonefide offer from Mike to stop harrassing me would indeed close the issue from my end.Justmeherenow (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm... if I see this correctly, this story has apparently started with this image which was uploaded on 21 April 2009, then tagged as copyvio by 99.142.1.224 on 23 April 2009. Subsequently the tag was constantly thrown out and restored during an edit war that went on multiple times until finally this image was speedily deleted by Kameraad Pjotr on the same day as copyvio. At some point during the edit war, 68.196.153.114 attempted to convert the speedy deletion into a regular deletion process by inserting a {{Delete}} construct and creating this DR. Interestingly this DR was created by 68.196.153.114 but signed with the name of Justmeherenow. 68.196.153.114, however, forgot to include the DR at the daily DR page such that is was visible at the image page only but nowhere else. In summary, I second the deletion by Kameraad Pjotr as this was an apparent copyvio of a fictious COA taken from this site, and I see the behaviour as described at this case confirmed in the history of this image page (i.e. 68.196.153.114 signed accidently as Justmeherenow) and participated in the edit war. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per AFBorchert I see that Justmeherenow has behaved in a way that might be seen as somewhat disruptive. The CU requests was probably unnecessary, the warning to behave was not. I see no harassment - possibly rather more embarrassment on behalf of Justmeherenow. --Herby talk thyme 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
So according to youz theories, licensures by former street artist Shepard Fairey of his own works (see eg en:File:Fairey poster photo source?, by stevesimula.jpg) should be viewed as invalid and uploads based in part thereon should not only be deleted after thoughtful review, but summarily speedied?Justmeherenow (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about the image, it's about your behaviour.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again wrt puppetry Q

No one has answered a question I made above so I'll repeat it. How is it that a pestering complaint from a user who hi/rself is an unregistered sock-hopping IP should be accepted against a contributor who edits as a registered user, with the nature of said complaint is that the registered user didn't sign in when making an edit? (I'm referring to complainant who made such a complaint against me, but did so from Net address 99.142.1.224...yet said user also edits eg from (2)99.151.162.53 (3) 99.135.172.101 (4) 99.141.245.151 (5) 99.142.5.80 (6) 99.142.6.186 (7) 12.47.23.218, etc.! See here.)Justmeherenow (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. What do you mean "accepted"? Mike declined that CU request, remember, and as far as I know it hasn't resulted in any other action either, aside from Mike leaving an (admittedly rather impolite) message on your talk page.
  2. Yes, it does seem like a case of pot calling the kettle black. Then again, everyone does have the right to file a CU request (as if we could stop it). The CheckUsers reserve the right to decline any requests they consider unnecessary, and/or to carry out additional checks (including possibly on the user filing the request) if such would appear to be warranted.
Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please block Grey Glinn

Grey Glinn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log is a sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzales. Cleanup in aisle five, please. LX (talk, contribs) 12:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done — Mike.lifeguard 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

sock-puppets?

Artemisfowl 27 (talk · contribs) and Artemis 27 (talk · contribs) might be identical, at least they are uploading the same images. The only difference seems to be that the first one wrote "flirt" (probably meant: flirt.com) as source, while the second one writes "own work" as source. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been dealt with. Wknight94 talk 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Aelske released her images under the GFDL at liwp. I transfered most of here images to Commons, but now she tries to replace these images with thumbnails of inferior quality. I already told her she shouldn't be doing that and reverted her, but now she accuses me of all sorts of things (see here}} (dutch)). Problematic images:

Could someone have a look at this user? Multichill (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by User:CarolSpears

I've been harassed by Carol in the past. The post I just got at User talk:Multichill#your real name is meant to intimidate me and I think she really crossed the line of what's allowed here. Could one of the other admins please have a look at it? Multichill (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I have two comments:
  1. I agree that User talk:Multichill#your real name also crosses a line for me, for what should be allowed.
  2. Would it not be more natural to first express your opinion about the message on User talk:CarolSpears first before bringing it here? Bringing it here at once is an immediate escalation. I do not understand why most users do that instead of trying to communicate with the perceived offending user first. If that communication fails, then bring it here. I have felt offended by Carols remarks from time to time as well, but often it has been a multi-lingual thing, where I have misread subtle nuances in Carols hard-to-read comments. In those cases it has definately been of good help to contact Carol on her user page. --Slaunger (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Because this is way past the usual offensive language of Carol, this is clear intimidation. Multichill (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree, this is totally unacceptable. The whole post sounds like "If I knew your name, your life would be ruined, so beware!" which definitely is harassment. Given the severity of the intimidation attempt (it's targeted at a user in real life, not even on-wiki), I have blocked CarolSpears for a week. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was going to advocate a long-term block for that post alone, without even reading anything above, or otherwise knowing any of the background. That type of post is 100% unacceptable. Wknight94 talk 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wknight94. Carol needs to take the warnings ("feedback") she gets seriously. This kind of behaviour has to stop. Good block for what it's worth, IMO. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisiPK (talk · contribs), Wknight94 (talk · contribs), and Kanonkas (talk · contribs). This is blatantly highly inappropriate behavior and a longer term block is appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This thread has been severely truncated. In making such an edit it would really be far better to archive. Otherwise it takes on the appearance of an attempt to conceal a problematic user history. Durova (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This section has been moved, not truncated. Lupo 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Durova (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It goes both ways, allowing section titles like User:Carol Spears (again) to remain on the page despite the consensus being that no wrongdoing occurred artificially inflates the problematic user history. This does not seem fair to me. --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisiPK and others that this comment crossed a line as it is intimidating. Having said this, I do not think that Carol meant it as it sounds. Considering the context, this seems to be one of those enigmatic remarks by Carol that apparently attempts to express that she does not see much merit in the bot programming activities by Multichill. This fits at least to the past case referenced by Multichill. Given this, the comment sounds to me like "if people in your real life would know how poor your programming skills are, you would be embarrassed". However, even if we follow such a AGF-based interpretation, it still remains a quite unfriendly and unfounded harassing remark in a series of similar comments directed at MultiChill. Let me quote two comments from Carol's talk page in October 2008. Firstly by Patrícia:

Letting it go. Seriously. Anything that you think is silly and technically badly done today will have a toll on the future. What I mean is, if you are forced to work within a system that you don't like because you think is flawed but cannot convince others of the existence of such flaws, you just have to wait and let time prove you right. This happens both with technicalities and with people. It requires enormous amounts of patience and ability to tolerate stuff you dislike, but if you are right, time will tell.

And secondly from Lar:

People work hard to work with you. But you seem to make things difficult for them. Although you have positive contributions, perhaps it's not worth the effort. You seem to be holding a grudge against one or more users. Don't do that. You seem to sometimes speak in riddles. Don't do that either. Try to speak more plainly.

Unfortunately, these appeals by Patrícia and Lar were apparently not taken to heart. In summary, I think that ChrisiPK's block is justified and of an appropriate time period given the previous warnings and advises. On the other hand, I do not see any ground right now for blocks of longer periods or even infinite. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Put simply, that's the first alternate explanation I've heard that makes any sense. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really hope that it was just a ridiculously-phrased personal attack, as you're suggesting. If so, than I agree with you 100% that the block is still warranted and that the length now seems more appropriate. Hopefully she will take the lesson that her unnecessary - uh, "enigmatic" (the word I've heard more in the last 24 hours than the entire rest of my life) - manner of speaking could prove to be disastrous for her in a setting like this. Wknight94 talk 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This user surely needs some attention over the next days. He blanked twice the page of the only file File:Shekib samimi.jpg (probably copyrighted as both versions were taken with professional camera models) he uploaded, twice his talkpage and once Template:No permission since/lang.‎ --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cases like that just confuse me. I mean look at the history of File:Shekib samimi.jpg. Just what exactly was he trying to do? That chain of edits makes no sense. Even for someone that has never used a computer before. Also, how do people upload with {{No license}} already on it? If the upload form is smart enough to tag it as missing a license, why even allow it in the first place? Rocket000 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because otherwise people would just tag it as own work, which makes copyvios even harder to detect. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems as sockpuppets, but what for...?

Goge (talk · contribs) had uploaded some images, which had been deleted as copyright violations, or out of project scope. one of the images was re-uploaded by Goge2 (talk · contribs) and a duplication of File:Sdffsdf 11 12.jpg had been uploaded by Goge2english (talk · contribs). Neither of them is blocked, so what's the idea here..? Yuval Y § Chat § 10:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed as puppet accounts. However I have no idea why - it may be misunderstanding rather than anything else. Looks es to me (?) so it maybe worth someone explaining? Blockable if anyone feels so inclined. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple copyright violations from user previously warned

I am an administrator on en.wiki, where I have been following a user with a long history of copyright violations. It seems as though that same user has been working on Commons. I request a review of Special:Contributions/MRDU08, which consist of an occasional photograph of beauty pageant contestants (undoubtedly not the user's original work), and a large number of flag images pulled directly from the "Flags of the World" website. The user has already been warned several times on his/her talkpage, but has not heeded any of these warnings. Speedy deletion of the copyright violations and a block of the user appear to be in order. Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible that this user created a new account Joel Butler (talk · contribs) for the sole purpose of uploading a copyrighted photo File:Paola Torres.jpg. I may be wrong here, but the image summary looks very suspicious, and an image at that resolution, without metadata, is unlikely to be submitted to Commons from a professional photographer. Andrwsc (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum - thanks for the info. I have blocked MRDU08 & MRDU09 as abusing multiple accounts. I can confirm that it would appear that both accounts are connected with Joel Butler (talk · contribs) who I have not blocked at present. Short on time this am so others are welcome to look at this.
Equally I have done nothing with the uploads at present though obviously they are likely to be questionable & should be reviewed. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a followup to this case. Marcolazzara uploaded again a series of four images that were already deleted despite multiple warnings and an earlier block. One of these images has now been deleted for the sixth time. While he writes English quite well (according to the email he sent to me in response to the first block and his contributions at en-wp), it was so far impossible to have a real communication with him.

All the deleted images depict him and, in some cases, other opera singers. They were all shot by professional photographers. He named the photographers or the agencies they belong to in the recent uploads. But so far we have seen no permissions and he has never indicated that he has indeed a permission or sent anything to our OTRS team.

I have blocked him now for a week (after a previous block of three days on 16 April 2009) to avoid further disrupting delete/re-upload cycles. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I may say that I support an indef block. Here is a major problem. We can't keep having him violating OTRS, a very critical piece of Commons, that if targeted, could fall totally apart. I don't see grief here, I think we need to show what is necessary for a violation of that.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. If you've tried real hard to communicate with them and inform them that they can't upload any work they don't own then I fail to see that they will stop it. Bidgee (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Category "Trentino" was simply moved by User:Foroa to "Category:Province of Trento" with the comment "Stop challenging me." although the vote by users has clearly shown it to be in favour of keep. I ask a neutral administrator or 'crat to take a look into this, because this is not acceptable. Gryffindor (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Such decisions do not require a consensus or a majority vote. Instead policies, as far as applicable, have to be taken into consideration. Our proposed policy regarding such category names suggests to use either the en-wp name or, in exceptional cases, the use of exonyms. The corresponding article at en-wp is titled Province of Trento and at it-wp we find Provincia autonoma di Trento which is also the official name of this province (see here). Hence, I fail to see a problem with this move and I do not see a user problem in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
An additional remark: The comment Stop challenging me by Foroa was addressed to Gun Powder Ma regarding this linked edit. This is apparently not directly related to Trentino vs Province of Trento case even if Foroa noted this en passant during this discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this complaint. I would like to suggest to continue these discussions at COM:CFD instead of spreading them over multiple talk and administrative pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be more of a user issue than a category issue, although I agree with you about the name. Foroa is the usually the best at following the naming conventions (even if some actions may go against the consensus on one particular talk page). When in doubt, go by the en.wp title and let them fight about it. Rocket000 (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The question is, if standard practice is as you Borchert say to "use the en-wp name", then why has user Foroa declined repeatedly my requests to move Roman bridges such as the Category talk:Tiberius bridge in Rimini (this is only one of several cases) to their correct article names? I don't have the feeling that the said user is following a consistent naming policy. Since I even saw him making chauvinistic remarks, and since Foroa declines to talk about the subject, I am going to fill a complaint below, where I will provide all necessary links as soon as the right platform for a discussion has been established. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I consider that as a contested move as the local name in Italy is different with the en:wiki, so as I told you several times, those moves should not be pushed via the delinker but use a formal move or cfd request. --Foroa (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese assistance would help

Could a portuguese speaking person try to close this discussion on User_talk:Paulo_Cesar-1#Category:Art_made_by_non-artists ? Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with my uploaded files

Problem with my uploaded files:

File:Push_Dagger_Pocket_Knife_G1.jpg
File:Belt_cutter_2009_G1.jpg

Files not found, but used. Files not visible in my gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Chernilevsky (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13. Mai 2009 (UTC)

Files are perfectly visible. The fact that they are not shown in your gallery may be related to the toolserver currently being down. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mike.lifeguard

User:Mike.lifeguard is making trouble. I started a deletion vote for Template:Wtf because I think it has no purpose or place in a project like this one. User:Mike.lifeguard keeps on removing the deletion notice on template and keeps closing the discussion on deletion on his own will without any discussion by other users taking place (basically he shut it down citing his opinion about the deletion as the reason to shut down the discussion). With these interruptions no other users could post their opinion. Additionally I don't think he even has the right to do that as a regular user. Please take some action, I can't fix this myself.--Avala (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, I am an admin. The template isn't going to be deleted, even if you canvass the DR.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  WTF?, you want to delete {{Wtf}}? Multichill (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  WTF? is right. See how useful this template is? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Mike.lifeguard, if you are really an admin: 1) you should note that somewhere on your userpage instead of a useless .gif of an explosion 2) you should know that you can't close a discussion, promote an image to a FP status, delete content that is debatable etc. without consensus and debate, you should be someone who administrates ie. manages the content and users not imposes his own will as first and final. When something is proposed for deletion, you don't come and say that it's not going to be deleted citing your personal thoughts. Your personal thoughts can be put into a vote, they can't be a decision. Admin decision is purely technical in nature.--Avala (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Admins can speedily close a deletion request when it is obvious (in either way, keep or delete), like in this case where the deletion proposal is ungrounded. --Eusebius (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It is ungrounded to request the removal of a template that is an acronym for "WHAT THE FUCK?". Says who? Certainly not the two users that complained about it on the talk page before. Please do not confuse your personal view with your technical management duty.--Avala (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It is ungrounded in the sense that it is not based on any guideline or policy but only on your perception of the template (but I'm repeating myself). --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  WTF? There's no reason to waste others' time and energy on a useless deletion request like that. "Admin decision is purely technical in nature." That is completely not true. Admins are entrusted to make decisions like this all the time (otherwise nothing would get done and they wouldn't really be "administrating" anything). The point is not that they made a decision, but if they made it correctly. And this case they did. Rocket000 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin too and I don't think, that it's obvious, that this template should be kept. I'd support deletion. --Slomox (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You would. ;P Rocket000 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm an admin as well and would like to see the deletion discussion carried out - although I'm sure it would be a cascade of Keep votes. The point of this is so we can point people to it when they complain about it in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 and the color of Republic of China flag and its national emblem

The discussion between me and user:Zscout370 began here:User talk:Zscout370/Archive3#ROC flag is Sky blue

the recent discussion here:User talk:Zscout370#ROC flag

and on user:Zscout370 wikipedia talk page:en:User talk:Zscout370#Image:Republic of China Army Flag.svg

As is clear from the discussion, the dispute between me and user:Zscout370(started on November 2008) is about light blue, dark blue, or navy blue of the national flag of the Republic of China. User:Zscout370 comment that he wants me to get consensus first then talk to him, the reason he put forward is:Quote:There has been people telling me this shade is right, then this person yells at me for being too dark and stuff. People hated the old shades. Unquoted. Well, looks like user:Zscout370 is unable to help me anymore, this is the reason I post this comment here, because I do not know how and where to get consensus for this particular issue. Thaks. Arilang talk 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234, such disputes are not resolved on Commons. Whenever an image is considered incorrect and there is wide consensus (usually including the uploader) to update the image, this may be done. However, in case of disputes it is best to upload an alternative image and to move the dispute and its associated discussions into the individual projects. It is, however, possible to tag disputed diagrams using the {{Disputed diagram}} template and to add a summary regarding the dispute to the corresponding talk page of the image such that editors in the various projects can decide which diagram is to be preferred. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

@user AFBorchert, thanks for your comment. Arilang talk 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Impostor or real?

New user Monikaneels (talk · contribs) has uploaded one b/w-image, allegedly showing herself, put it on her userpage User:Monikaneels and added a text, that IMHO doesn't really suit to someone claiming to be 30 years old. Therefore I fear this might be a fake by an impostor, intended to ridicule the real Monika Neels or the person shown in the image. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the user asked to have her userpage deleted and I did so. Not sure what's going on, she seems to have replaced one of the pictures with a blank image as well. -- Editor at Largetalk 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If the second picture stays unused during the next few days, it should be deleted too, per {{Userpageimage}}. –Tryphon 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this was not an imposter - just a speaker of English as a second language - but users can always request deletion of their own user pages. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to fill a complaint about misuse of delinker

Hello, I would like to fill a complaint about what I view the repeated misuse of the Commons delinker by a user. I tried to commnicate with the user to settle the matter amicably, but to no avail. Where can I fill that complaint? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
lol. Rocket000 (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept on spamming my e-mail using Wikimail about colors of File:Flag of Russia.svg. Now he makes personal attacks and "forgets" to sign his' posts. Also he makes edit warring over the flags constantly. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 07:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done best regards.--Kwj2772 (msg) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This user had uploaded several copyright violations in the past, some of them were deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Contributions of User:Crucifixion, where it was suggested even to block the user. Later the user had uploaded some more images, some of them appear to be legitimate pictures, some seem to be copyright violations, and all the images I've asked for authorship claim were eventually deleted. Seems as the final reply of the user was removing the warnings and apparently on March 2008, the user had simply left commons. The question now is what to do with the images, where some of them don't have metadata, and suspected as copyright violations... Check my talk page for more information... Yuval Y § Chat § 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  •   Comment Please look at the discussion on Yuval's talkpage. I suggest that images with no camera metadata which were uploaded by this contributor be deleted. This user likely took some images with an Olympus camera in Egypt. But most of the other photos are blatant copyvios or suspicious images with very small resolution and zero metadata. He doesn't even bother to give a date for these images. They should be deleted IMHO. Someone has to go through all his images, however, on Commons. I have had prior contact with Admin Lewis Collard concerning other images by this person too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the FinePix F700 camera is also User:Crucifixion's, considering the comparably low quality of those photos. I deleted a few suspicious ones that were missed. I'm concerned that File:Tutankhamunxray.gif may be a derivative work, but that's a bit of a complex case. The file File:Martyrdom of andrew.jpg is almost certainly PD-Art, but I'd really like to see author or date to be sure of that. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Dear Admin Coetzee,
Thanks for deleting the obvious copy vios. I think you are quite right considering the mediocre Fuji images. They were likely taken by the uploader himself. I, too, have 2 cameras (a low quality Fuji model and a great Canon camera) Concerning this image: File:Martyrdom of andrew.jpg, I think pd-art can certainly apply since it appears to be 2-D Art but one should know the source...so we can be 100% it is St. Andrew himself and not another saint. (I don't know where Crucifixion 'stole' the image sadly) As for that X-ray image of Tutankhamun, I thought it was very suspicious too. I used Tin Eye and could not locate where it came from...but the resolution is high enough to reveal some metadata...but no metadata appears! So, I really doubt it is his work. This image is quite insiduous if it is proven to be a copy vio because it is used in Tutankhamun's own English wiki article. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I got to be honest with you, I believe the photo of the x-ray is his own work. I don't know when it lost its EXIF data - perhaps it's a cellphone photo - but the claim "photo taken during the museum exhibit" on the page doesn't sound like a lie, and the quality is what I'm used to seeing with him. It may still be deleted if it is a derivative work. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Before I acquired a TUSC account, I did a manual transfer of this image File:Adam, Eve and Abel by Carl Johan Bonnesen (1868-1933).jpg I got the image from English wikipedia to Commons...but I lost the camera metadata. That is what prompted me to get a TUSC account and I haven't lost any legitimate metadata transferring images to Commons since then. So, it is indeed possible that Crucifixion did take this X-ray image I suppose. But I think I understand your DR claim that while "there's little originality in the x-ray's production,...it probably enjoys its own new copyright." I did not consider this. I won't vote in the DR because I've been deeply involved in sorting out this uploader's many copyvios in the past. So, I'm biased. If it is kept, I won't have any problems. Since Crucifixion actually gives a date for the image, it could be his work. But its nice to know all his other clear copyvios are gone. I just hope someone can give a source for the martrydom of St. Andrew. (if it is indeed this saint) because the artist should be noted if possible. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Tangential   Comment: I see what happened there — you accidentally uploaded the 800px thumbnail instead of the original image. I've fixed it for you. We really ought to have some better way of catching mistakes like that, though. Hmmm... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the source for File:Martyrdom of andrew.jpg. I don't think the X-ray image has any copyright attached. Yann (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

repeatedly uploaded attack image

There is an attempt to upload a personal attack image showing a sitting, naked, extremely hairy man whose head has been replaced - via bad photoshopping - by the recognizeable head/face of another person whom the uploader obviously wants to attack. The image has been used for vandalism at least in the article en:Hirsutism. First Keshave (talk · contribs) uploaded the image under the filename File:Kashrian.jpg and, after that was deleted as attack image, again as File:Kashrians.jpg. After he was temp-blocked, Keshav69 (talk · contribs) appeared and uploaded the same image under the name File:Kashrianss.jpg. I blocked the latter indef for sock-puppeting. Both accounts have also been blocked indef on :en now. But the person behind that may try again and be successful as the ongoing[15] server problems hinder any admin work. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As expected, the story goes on. Today Hairyman (talk · contribs) and, after he was blocked, Shawkz (talk · contribs) uploaded the same attack image and inserted it into article en:Hirsutism. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Something strange is going on with this relatively new user, whose images are of rather fine quality.

  • First he uploaded File:Mallard Drake.jpg and proposed it as featured picture on :en[16], but only 9 days later he requested its deletion[17].
  • Next he uploaded the fine image File:Bridge to Eden.jpg that is currently used in en:Brooklyn Botanic Garden, and again proposed it as a "suitable featured picture"[18], but only 9 days later he requested its deletion, first with rationale "I feel the Commons has no use for it"[19] and 5 days later with the rationale "I am now selling this photograph to someone who now owns the copyright."[20].
  • The same chain of events with File:Jamaica Bay Canada Goose.jpg: uploaded and proposed[21] as featured picture on April 26, requested speedy deletion for "I believe this picture is no longer of the quality of Wikipedia standards." on May 1, a few minutes after he withdraw his FP-nomination. This speedy was reverted 2 days later by Jcornelius, unchallenged so far.
  • Today he uploaded File:Dylan McDermott.jpg, proposed it as featured picture on :en[22] and only 2:11 hours after upload requested its speedy deletion[23] with "Copyrighted as of 1:44 AM EST" as rationale. The speedy was reverted by IP 81.84.16.12 only 1 hour later.
  • File:Pink Tulip.jpg is the only upload that got no rfd or speedy, despite it also wasn't promoted to FP[24].
    Any ideas? --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
My best theory, assuming good faith: this person is simply very indecisive about whether to donate or sell their good pictures. If it's a good image and they did upload it and are subsequently asking for deletion, the image should generally not be deleted, and they should be referred to Commons:Licensing, which reads "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." I suspect they will learn their lesson quickly enough. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could a Polish-speaking person have a talk with this user? I see many uploads from a Polish image site, where the images have been uploaded by several different users, and no indication of a free license anywhere (as far as I see). Also File:Antoni Janusz.jpg, cropped (probably by the user) from an external source and then claimed to be "own work". Other uploads by this user are also doubtful. Lupo 13:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stachel

Stachel (talk · contribs) uploaded several images that are clearly PD-old, but put them under creative-commons-licence. I changed that since he has no copyright. The reaction was an edit-war (e.g. [25]) and several unfriendly demands by him to delete the images because he does not agree to PD (even though he has no right to the images). I know Stachel already from German Wikipedia where he was finally blocked indef for being counter-productive and insulting ([26] ), so I deleted one of his upload in hope to finally be left alone by him. But I also told him before that I will upload a scan of this book again since the book is PD. When he still demanded deletion I did both - deleting and uploading a scan. Since then his edits get abusive: [27] is just one of several examples. AFBorchert told him on his talk page that this kind of talking is not accepted, but he still is doing it, e.g. [28], where he now also insults another admin who just protected my upload from edit-waring. A compromise proposal to either restore his old image or mark at the source of the new upload that the scan is by him was not accepted but included more harrasing. Discussions are in German, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I second this summary. The problem is at the end that Stachel rejected so far all constructive proposals to address his concerns and chose instead to submit another harassing comment. I warned him after the first harassing comment I noticed from him and perhaps I should have blocked him immediately after his last comment. My only excuse is that my reluctant blocking finger still hoped for a resolution and more interesting scans like this (see also this discussion). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to comments and instructions given to Stachel. Not only the "do not" was shown but also the possibilities. Cecil shows the option to write "Source= [...] <br/>Scan by [[User:Stachel|Stachel]]" which is the perfect solution here. A lot of scans are marked much more accentuated with "Author= [...], scan by User" - thats a very strong attribution to the uploaders work. I would point the uploader to Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag, thats the guidline on scans and copyright.
I think it would be better to solve the dispute in german language in discussion with Stachel. I would prefer, if AFBorchert continues the discussion, User talk:AFBorchert#Orangeriehaus is a starting point and much better than X people giving theire comments on the issue and talking at Stachel. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Martin H. Stachel has been inactive since then, hence no further action is required in the moment. Thanks also for the pointer to COM:SCAN — I had missed that page so far and I guess we will need a German translation for it. I look if I find time for it during the coming weekend. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of admin powers by User:Foroa

Hi. Sigh, for quite some time now User:Foroa misuses the powers of an admin entrusted to him by the community. I long tried to settle the matter amicably, I tried to ignore his bossy behaviour and solo attempts, and I even refrained from an planned official complaint just for the sake of harmony, but his recent action of today leave little choice. I don't know what is is, but the core problem seems to be that Foroa believes he can initiate discussions on talk pages and, if they don't go their way, he can decide unilaterally what is right and wrong, calling other effectively biased in the process. In all this, he seems to be actually devoid of any real competence in the areas he intervenes. I am trying to make it as short as posssible because you can read the whole stuff at the links I am going to provide. There are three main points of centention:

  • He is bossy: Category talk:Trentino: Although Foroa's proposal has been rejected by several editors, and on good grounds, too, he nonetheless moves the page from Trentino to Province of Trento unilaterally. His ‘comment’ on 11:48, 3 May 2009 was quite revealing. I should not “challenge” him and three comments by other users amount to “tendentious and endless discussions”. I mean, seriously, isn’t this a rude and counterproductive attitude? He simply moves the page by his power, not by persuasion.
  • He bears grudges, thereby affecting completely unrelated topics: Although Foroa has never been seen before doing any editoring on Roman bridges, while I happened to have written a third of all articles on Roman bridges at WP.EN, he refutes my proposals on hollow grounds. Actually, the standard procedure is to put the place name into brackest, but Foroa instead moves Puente Romano (Mérida) to Roman Bridge, Mérida , just to show us who the boss is. I mean, isn’t this a bit immature? Note that is is only an example, he has 4 times thrown out my requests at delinker.
  • He resorts to chauvinistic allegations at Category talk:South Tyrol, instead of engaging into discussions : Quote Foroa: “I am surprised to note that on the Italian speaking side, they are so tolerant and compromise oriented while from the German speaking side, tolerance is far from being impressive”. Let me make it clear here that such chauvinistic insinuations should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. Taken together with his other remarks, this shows that Foroa seriously seems to believe that he is the sole rock of unassailable objectivity with all the other users merely voting by taking a look into their passport…[
  • He acts unilaterally and completely by his own rules: After I removed today the tag which dates from 17 April 09, he simply does the move which he proposed!. This despite the fact that after 1.5 months, there was at minimum no consensus, and actually a majority with a heap of very good arguments against this move! What can better illustrate his bias and rudeness? Why setting up a discussion, when he has made up his mind in the first place?
  • Please note that in two years time at Commons, this is the very first time I am filling a complaint on someone or something, but now enough is enough. I am sad to say it, but if Foroa further declines to come from his high horse and undo his unilateral actions, I am filling a complaint for removing him from the delinker as well as the admin post. His rude and incompetent actions have taken enough time and patience from users who just want to do work here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Without examining everything closely, I'll note that South Tyrol/Trentino/etc. debates have been going on at en.wp for literally years. If someone doesn't step in and make decisions like Foroa did, they end up in perpetual stalemates. I was really hoping to get away from such useless nationalistic disputes by coming here, but I guess that's impossible. *sigh* Wknight94 talk 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Everyone can "make decisions", but they need to be justified, needn't they? The dispute has been going on for years, and exactly therefore it is hard to see why an admin who works by such an authoritian and black and white world view should be allowed to move pages in such a sensible field. And there is still the question why Foroa chose to draw the Roman bridges into it... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Misuse? He's one of the most (if not the most) active admins when it comes to categories. I wouldn't call that misuse. You seem to be on you're small little island, Foroa is looking at the bigger picture. Multichill (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
@ User:Wknight94, next time look closer and you will see that the debate was not about anything nationalistic, but about moving the Category South Tyrol to the Category Province of South Tyrol, which does not exist! The province is called Province of Bolzano-Bozen and the area it covers is South Tyrol (minus 3 villages that have been attached to the Province of Belluno). The debatte was in no way nationalistic - the debatte was if South Tyrol, as the commonly used and historic name for the area can be used or if it must be moved to "Province of" to be in line with the other Italian provinces. Now Foroa has unilaterally moved the category to Province of South Tyrol - and that entity does not exist! it is plainly a massive error to call the province that way: there is the Province of Bolzano-Bozen and South Tyrol; therefore Foroas move must be reversed! and as he has shown to be not interested in discussions and has no idea about the topic (as evidenced by his lack of knowledge about the correct names for the area) he should choose to refrain from unilaterally (and against a large number of opposing editors) moving categories on his whims! --Noclador (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I admit my mistake. I should not have tried to find a compromise solution but should have moved South Tyrol to "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" as this is the province name. After all, Italy is organised in provinces in the first place. --Foroa (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Foroa works by policy and common sense, that's what gives him authority. Lycaon (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
@Noclador - yes, those were the other names, Bolzano Bozen, Tyrol, blah blah... When I see all those mixed together, and a bunch of exclamation points that emphasize how obviously ridiculous the other party is, I pretty much want to slam the door and say, "You're all wrong - I'm doing it my way". My guess is Foroa does the same thing. Wknight94 talk 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We had this discussion just recently. As I pointed out in that discussion already, Foroa's decisions conform to our policies. And as I similarly pointed out before, challenged category decisions ought to be taken to COM:CFD, not here. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

After Foroa's above comment, I think we can consider this "conflict" to be

  Resolved

. --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, Borchert, I opened the discussion on the naming schemes of the Roman bridges there. Foroa is specifically invited to make his case there. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
@Multichill, what bigger picture? The bigger picture is actually that the provincial naming scheme of Italy itself is at odds with the naming scheme of the sub-central entities of other important Western democracies. See French departments, the US states, and the German Bundesländer. None of these actually go by any prefix along the line "province of xyz". That's the bigger picture at Commons which Foroa is missing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions by Leit

This admin doesn't follow our deletion policy and speedy deleted a lot of in scope images as superseded or "better image available". This is clearly against policy. Also see User talk:Leit#Map deletions and User talk:Multichill#Stop your actions. Opinions please. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Over a lot of years I used to delete images like this map image. As an example, this image was initially uploaded on March 20, 2005 to de.wikipedia and later transferred to commons. The author of the image is User:Rauenstein. Now, several years later he replaced this image with File:Grambow in NWM.png based on the same sources requests the old, now orphaned image to be deleted. There's no attribution path affected by the deletions. As already mentioned this case is only an example for houndreds of deletions of those locator maps. In the past there has never been an argument about my deletions of replaced map images. There has been a dispute on some other cases of map deletions but not about the deletion of replaced images.--Leit (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality? Do you understand it? Multichill (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm surely aware of the the Commons deletion guidelines. I suppose the "case by case" deletion was implemented to prevent the probable abuse of speedy deletions. This treatment is justified for normal images like photographs because each image has to be checked for itself. However, there are thome cases of mass deletions which come again and again – like the deletion of replaced locator maps. In practice those images have been speedy deleted for at least the last three years because a "case by case" deletion was unneccessary as each map had to be treaten the same way. There has been no dispute on the deletion of replaced locator maps since there's no loss of information or attribution path. It's a decision that has been made once and then executed over and over.--Leit (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have two or more similar maps of (for example) Rehna in NWM on commons. Because there will be some amalgamations in four days, new maps had to be drawn. If there are two or more maps in commons (e.g. at decision of "keeping" the old maps), it is possible that the wrong versions will be inserted in the articles of Wikipedia. There is no alternative for deletion of the old ones. So, why this bureaucracy? Perhaps it will be better for the future to load new versions over the old files, to prevent this indifferences. -- Niteshift (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a really good idea already practised on File:Biendorf in DBR.png. If there's no other solution we should ask Rauenstein and other map creators to simply overwrite the old maps. But the formerly deleted images still shouldn't be restored since there's actually no reason.--Leit (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen speedy deletions being abused in the past, e.g. with national flags that were "superseeded" by SVG files, which turned out to be wrong, artistically poor in quality, and have a copyright claim on them. Speedy deletion is not meant for this sort of replacements - Nerdie (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
@Niteshift & Leit: There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy! Perhaps you do not understand what kind of project this is. This is a project where people work together, and on this project the community makes the decisions. Administrators are only here to perform what the community has decided: a deletion policy. So you aren't allowed to set your own rules, but you are obligated to follow the decisions which the community takes: the deletion policy (is one of them). I hope that isn't too difficult to understand?
I fully support the reaction of Nerdie. There are too many administrators who do not understand what kind of consequences their actions have. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, even the speedy deletion itself is a kind of bureaucracy. I don't think such general statements help us on. Of course I respect the community decisions. Even more I respect the requests of the authors and uploaders of the 4.5 million files on the Commons project concerning their "own" (I know, it's free license) files.--Leit (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The deletion of PNG and GIF files replaced by SVG ones has been totally abused (not only the speedy deletion). But the maps are something different and this special case justifies a speedy deletion. It's the same author of both files and neither there's a questionning of the quality of the new image nor there's an attribution path affected. Neither it's about replacing a file format with a controversial new one.--Leit (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it seems clear to me that

  1. Leit sincerely believed these deletions to have been obvious and uncontroversial, and
  2. Multichill disagrees.

Thus, given that controversy has been demonstrated to exist, I would say the right way to proceed now would be to undo the deletions, for the time being, and file a mass deletion request at COM:DR where the matter can be discussed — with the possibility, should a clear consensus emerge, for a precedent to be codified at COM:DP. (I'm willing to do the undeletion and file the request, if there are no objections, and if Multichill would be so kind as to let me know which deletions he objects to; e.g. "all files deleted by Leit since date X".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it crazy to restore a huge number of old files deleted in 2007 or 2006 which nobody needs any more since they are replaced by identical but better ones? Are you really sure that makes sense? Furthermore, an accurate restoring would take weeks or even more because there are very different cases of deletions. Some deletions of map images were those of really duplicated images or of images deleted due to incorporations and name changes. Of course mass restoring isn't the way to go. Do you first want "case to case restoring" and then "case to case deletion" of houndreds of images?--Leit (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I was assuming all the contested deletions were recent. If it goes that far back it could be a problem. IMHO, once a file has been deleted for several weeks without complaints, however wrongheaded and out-of-process the deletion might have been, that should count as the status quo and any disagreements should be taken to COM:UNDEL. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think if a new image is of manifestly superior quality to another, and includes no elements that the other does not, there is no problem in deleting the old low-quality one. Such media should never be used, even if they are not technically exact duplicates. On the other hand, if the old image is merely similar, and not the same (a different crop, more detail in dark regions or light regions, etc.) then both should be kept. On the other hand, if someone objects to a deletion of a low quality version, chances are they have a reason and it should be restored anyway. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing can make people at the wikies more mad than mistakes on commons. Commons are more or less hated at many wikies because of "deletion-madness".
We have to be damn sure before we delete anything. When images are deleted they are either replaced or removed at the wikies by the delinker. So If we delete by mistake and restore then the damage is hard to revert. In my view we have to follow the rules and policies that are decided. We shall not make our own because we do not loike the rules/policies. I agree that admins should not be above the policies.
In my view we should not have maps that are wrong. If they were right at the time (or belived to be right) then they could be interessting to keep. If the uploader made a mistake then a correct version could be uploaded on top but if someone thinks he/she can do better then simply make a new file. Work to get all wikies to use the new file and then the old one can be deleted when it is unused and has been approved for deletion. People should have a chance to oppose a deletion so no speedy deletions in my view. --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The story is quite simple. Leit, Rauenstein and co., have certain opinions how maps should look like. The deletion of maps they don't like is basically a convenient way to enforce their opinion. Maps looking differently are unwanted, since somebody could use them. The above examples show this very nicely (File:Grambow in NWM.PNG, File:Grambow in NWM.png). One could argue that the new map looks better, but I prefer certain features of the "superseded" one. Since the hard drive space is already used up the only reason to hide one from normal users can be that the categories the maps are in are to crowded. But this clearly is not the case. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Full ACK MGA73. There is no good reason to restore old deleted pics that will confuse others. In addition only persons should judge about that maps who have some experience or knowledge about that specific topic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

@Cwbm: have certain opinions how maps should look, maps they don't like. Well, the maps I deleted are all from User:Rauenstein. And the new maps are from User:Rauenstein, too. So you think he wants to destroy his own images deliberately? It's not a fight about how maps should look like. It's very stupid to have two or more different maps for each municipality because these maps have often to be updated when there are incorporations and other changes which must be considered. Who does this hard work for houndreds of new additional old maps? Maybe you? Otherwise these old maps become orphaned and provide wrong information very fast.--Leit (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
These maps should contain a date as of which they are making updates superfluous.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The demands to all map drawers are getting higher and higher: a seperate map for each change. That sounds very well, but who does this work? As an example, in most of the states of Germany there had to be created at least twenty maps for each municipality because there were so many incorporations and other changes. And when there's a decision to make a relaunch of the map's design you had to change not just houndreds but thousands of maps. You should talk to all the map creators because your demands to them are unrealistic.--Leit (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image request..

See section below -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello- The following image link is that of my Jeep. It is being copied and used all over the world and eBay without my permission. Please help me to have it removed. Thank you. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1972_Jeep_C10

You know, you have licensed it (File:1972 Jeep C104 Commando.jpg) under a free license (Gnu FDL), so anyone may copy and use it for any purpose, as long as he fullfils its terms. I guess they violate one specific clause, but that is a different story. Sv1xv (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image removal help needed.

Hello- The following image link is that of my Jeep. It is being copied and used all over the world and eBay without my permission. Please help me to have it removed. Thank you. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1972_Jeep_C10 File:1972_Jeep_C10

Please note- I did not post this image. It was posted without my permission. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakdalegallery (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That file does not seem to exist nor does it appear in the deletion log.[29] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The correct filename is File:1972_Jeep_C104_Commando.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That one was uploaded by Sfoskett (talk · contribs),[30] an experienced editor, who I don't think is this user. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this user is User:Oakdalegallery and has already stated that he did not post this photo. Sv1xv (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that this is apparently your jeep, and that you did not take the photo, you apparently took it to a vintage car rally, where you can expect it to be photographed. People don't need your permission to photograph your car - if it's in a public place, they're free to take whatever photos they want, since the car itself cannot be copyrighted, and freedom of panorama restrictions do not apply. If the image were unused I'd be willing to delete, but as it's in use on 5 pages across four wikis I'd rather not. Maybe a compromise can be reached, with the numberplate being blurred out or something? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, maybe just blur out the number on the plate.. It was photographed in a public place so the person who took the photo would be the copyright holder and they released it under a free license.. --Ltshears (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have taken care of the plate. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was checking images of Madonna uploaded by Cachubis (talk · contribs), found out they were copyright violations, which he dared to mark as copyright holder and "grant permission for the use of this file". After warning him and deleting all the user's images, I found out that the user had uploaded the one of the pictures in various names, one of them was File:Bilde.jpg which was uploaded in June 1, 2009 by Deesaire (talk · contribs), who was then blocked for a week... Cachubis and Deesaire upload logs appears to be quite alike, so I do suspect of sock puppet... Yuval Y § Chat § 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I feel like a detective... Could I use this barnstar..? Yuval Y § Chat § 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You was right, came to the same result 4 days later. --Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen you've banned the user and the sock puppet. And once again I wonder - why does a person uses a sock puppet when he's blocked for a short time or no time at all..? But, I guess I'd never know for sure... =) Yuval Y § Chat § 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

inclusion of article within an article

I added knowledge to the Di George Syndrome article as a sufferer of the mis understood disability.

Why therefore was the edit deleted .

How can my information be incorporated into te knowledge in the article to aid understanding on what is a rare condition.

iansnowball Mr Snowball (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr Snowball,
you are here at Common, where we store images etc. You are probably complaining about an article in Wikipedia. If you are looking for the english Wikipedia, go to here. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Users Drork and Adambro

Spreading deletion notices without a reason

User:Pieter Kuiper is spreading deletion notices for pictures taken in Israel with false claims. He keeps raising doubts about the FOP principle in Israel, even though he was answered that his claims are irrelevant. He pretends to know a lot about the Israeli law, even though he has no access to the relevant material. His notices are disturbing and answering him is time consuming. Lack of answer could be interpreted as consent. I ask to instruct him not to put these notices anymore. As for legitimate doubt that have been raised recently, particularly about whether the new 2007 statute changes the status quo regarding FOP in Israel - I sent a question to an copyright-expert lawyer who works with the Israel Internet Society. If there is a change in the status quo he will inform me. Drork (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not clear that all the deletion requests are spurious, and the ones which may be are at least made in good faith.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In most of my nominations, there are even two reasons for questioning the applicability of COM:FOP#Israel. Some of them were clearly not permanently situated as well as 2D, like the banners Commons:Deletion requests/Banners of the Rishon LeZion museum and Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 979 events אירועים.JPG; also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2314 Free Gilad Shalit out of captivity למען שחרורו של גלעד שליט.jpg. File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg is 3D, but probably not permanently situated, and one may have doubts whether it is a public place. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusement of power by administrator: Adambro

Adambro is abusing his power by reinserting deletion notices, which I deleted with a proper explanation why they are irrelevant. Furthermore, he deletes my legitimate remarks on Categogy talk pages in violation of the "no censorship" principle. I ask one of the other administrators to instruct him to stop this abuse immediatly. Drork (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork repeatedly removes DR-tags before the deletion request is closed, see File:PikiWiki Israel 236 Immigration to Israel גלויה עם ציור של אוניה.jpg and File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Kuiper and Adambro are joining forces, and not for the first time, in order to silence other users opinions, and to waste other users time. I ask other administrators to instuct them to stop this behavior. Drork (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The category talk page to which Drork refers is Category talk:Alan Dershowitz. I've deleted it three times now since he isn't interested in using the page to discuss, he's using it as a soapbox and I've warned him about doing so. Apparently, "freedom of speech" means we have to allow him to say what he thinks anywhere on Commons and the Commons principle that our content is not censored for the benefit of any individual or groups also means we can't remove comments from talk pages. If someone else could review the appropriateness of his use of this talk page it would be appreciated. Additionally, is my reinstatement of a deletion notice where the deletion request to which it refers is still open an abuse of my "power"? I note with some amusement that Drork seems to suggest, or perhaps likes to believe, that there is some great conspiracy against him. Adambro (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Drork, it would be much better if you stop playing persecution paranoia, and address the real problems. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The image in question is highly offensive, if the administrators insist on keeping it in its current category, they must allow people to protest against it, otherwise we have no freedom of speech nor human dignity. My protest is very modest in comparison to the harshness of that drawing. I believe that people who wish to promote extreme political views want also to silence any protest against it. Please prove I am wrong. Drork (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Adambro, can you explain the way you defend Kuiper's abuse of the deletion notice template? Am I the only one who sees a problematic connection here? Drork (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Side note, the talk page stuff is out of scope, and I have now deleted it. It's not an argument for deletion, it's just IDONTLIKEIT. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Adambro has now locked the page where Drork removed the DR-tag three times. I think it would be better to block Drork for such actions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That certainky sounds reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Drork seems to frustrated by the Pikiwikisrael problems. I asked him nicely but looks like Drork just wants to stir up things by editwarring, soapboxing and accusing different users. Drork, please stop this counter productive editing.Multichill (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A block of a single user causing disruption would certainly be preferable to protection which effects everyone. I'm not inclined to block Drork though, not least because of the likely accusations that would result but also because I think Drork is purposely looking to be blocked and I don't want to be the one grant him his wish. Drork seems to want to martyr himself for his cause. As Multichill recognises, this latest disruption seems to be a response to things not going as he would like and it isn't the first time he's behaved like this. Adambro (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like his wish was granted. Multichill (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally consider the Dershowitz drawing antisemitic, slanderous, and extremely distasteful. It should in my opinion be deleted. However, Drork's comment on Category talk:Alan Dershowitz was out of project scope, and it was right to delete it. --Kjetil_r 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm extraordinarily unhappy with the way the Pikiwiki project and Drork have been treated, I'm equally unhappy to see this utter nonsense. Drork should and does know better, yet persists in purposeful disruption of the project, which is not acceptable. On the assumption that he will be focusing on something more productive than this, I've unblocked Drork. If he continues in this vein, I or any other admin should reinstate a 1 week block.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame to see Drork to now drag it into the Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests(Diff). I would reissue the block but I will hold off and see if Drork is willing to make it a undeletion request rather then just using it to unfairly attack Adambro (This is what this page[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems] is for). Really it's a shame to see the drama as it's affecting the project. I'm not saying that Adambro fairly/unfairly deleted the file or is using their Admin powers nor am I going to take sides but this needs to be sorted sooner rather then later. Bidgee (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have every interest to keep the reputation of the project, but this story will go to the press. There is corruption here, and sunlight is the best sterilizer. Drork (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes but it doesn't give you the right to take it to parts of the project which doesn't deal with possible abuse of Admin powers. It's disruptive and saying that there is corruption here is even more unhelpful. Also you shouldn't delete other editors (including Admins' comments)[31] but I've left a note on your talk page (Drork) and I hope it was a mistake. With the undeletion request itself I'll be having a neutral view. Bidgee (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork again, also off-commons

Drork has accused me of all kinds of things before, and now started again on his user talk. But I am now also getting inquiries about messages that Drork sent out on the wikimedia mailing list, where he mentions me by name: "I have to answer stupid questions from Pieter Kuiper who is known to have extreme anti-Israeli opinions." This is not a good description of me. Could someone who is on that mailing list put out a denial? All I did the past few days here was for maintaining commons standards also for pikiwiki imports. It seems that site takes infringements on the intellectual rights of Israeli artist too lightly. Even the rights of a captive IDF soldier are ignored, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2314 Free Gilad Shalit out of captivity למען שחרורו של גלעד שליט.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to respond? Drork (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Adambro abused his power again

Adambro is abusing his power as an administrator again and again. His last action was deleting a legitimate derivative work of Latuff's cartoon. Latuff released his images to the public domain. Derivative works are therefore legal. Latuff work are political and are here on the principle that the Commons are not censored. We therefore have to allow works expressing protest or different opinions based on the same principle. Adambro an Kuiper cannot be the sole judges of this issue because they promoted Latuff's images in the past, and they have clear interest in deleting every work that might hurt Latuff's feelings. I know Adambro will block me for posting this complaint. Drork (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't deny that the works are legal, we just deny that they are educational. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
So Latuff's caricatures are educational, and a work that tries to protest against it is not educational? And if I may, what's so educational about drawings of arrows and V signs that we have so much? Basically what you are saying is that certain opinions are welcomed here, even when expressed in the most harsh way, and some opinions are out of the question, even when they merely try to correspond with files already uploaded. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Drork (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Drork, you really need to have a pause. Please take a few days off and come back. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I ignore the corruption that goes on here, or are you suggesting that I take a break and you take care of the matter? Drork (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, have you noticed that every discussion I start is closed, now by Mattbucks, while Mr. Kuiper constant attacks against me are kept open? Do you know I've just heard on the IRC remarks about Israel that made me terrified? One of the administrators here accused me of calling him Nazi (!!) and said that Latuff's cartoons just describe the state of affair in Israel where a bus can always explode, and where people explode buses in order to express their opinion, hence Latuff's cartoons are descriptive.
I received some notices urging me to quit talking about a conspiracy, but there is something strange here. Any political caricature against Israel and Judaism is welcomed on the account that the Commons is not censored. Other caricatures are deleted on the account that they are out of scope. Antisemitic caricatures are categorized so everyone must see them even if they look for neutral material. A project managed by the Israeli chapter is blocked, claiming that we don't understand the Israeli law (!!) and that we made bureaucratic errors. Do you really expect me to think there is no conspiracy? I am not suggesting you are part of it, I just wonder if you are reluctant to acknowledge its existance. Drork (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Drork, you're seeing things that are not there. There is no conspiracy against you or against the Israelian chapter. Admins all come from different backgrounds and cultures; few of us know each other or even interact here, on Commons. We'd be a truly poor choice of conspirators. However open to criticism the functioning of Commons may be, there is no corruption either. Corruption by whom? to what end? Like Yann before me, I urge you AND the admins directly involved to have a pause. This dispute stems from copyright issues and doesn't need escalating further. Other admins could have closed your DR. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, please please take some time to consider whether what you're doing is helpful. Commons has problems, but you're not going to solve them today - it will be long-term work within Commons' guidelines that is going to change things. Right now, you're simply inflaming matters unnecessarily.

As well, there are several Commons admins who need to stop antagonizing Drork and pushing him into a corner. That's not a good position to put him in, and most certainly does not help the project.

For everyone: Please take some time to consider beyond the closest DR - the health of the community is at risk.  — Mike.lifeguard 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Adambro (3)

User:Adambro has added controversial categories here and abused his power as an administrator by blocking this page for edits. This is in complete violation of the consensus reached in a long and detailed discussion about this file. Most users voted to keep this file, and yet most of them also expressed a strong discontent with the way it is categorized. Adambro wasn't neutral in that discussion. He advocated strongly and lengthly to keep this file and the current categorization. I urge a neutral administrator who wasn't part of the discussion, to remove the block and to remove all categories not agreed upon, namely all but "Category:Carlos Latuff". May I remind you that the educational value of this problematic image is to show the nature of Latuff's works (as described in that discussion) - nothing more than that. I also urge a neutral administrator to advise Adambro not to repeat such an action. Drork (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have clearly explained on the talk page and in the protection log, no one had actually decided to remove the protection, it was merely a consequence of the image being deleted and then subsequently restored. In light of this, and the ongoing edit warring, I consider it appropriate to reinstate the protection such that any changes to the categorisation are actually discussed on the talk page. This is particularly important where the changes to the categorisation would go against the established use of categories as set out at Commons:Categories. Drork's insistence that this image should only be Category:Carlos Latuff would seem to be strong indication that he isn't proposed an appropriate categorisation. Categorisation was discussed as part of the recent deletion request but it was primarily a repetition of the same old rather unconvincing arguments, no real consensus as to how to categorise this image emerged, rather it perhaps simply demonstrated that it remains an issue that needs to be discussed. The appropriate venue for that discussion to continue is this image's talk page and I encourage everyone involved to try to find a consensus there. The constant removal of what seem, according to the established standards of how categories are used, to be valid categories is not constructive. Adambro (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Adambro is not neutral here. He expressed a clear opinion in favor of promoting Latuff's cartoons in general and this cartoon in particular. He is now trying to force his point of view and use his admin privileges to override a legitimate discussion. There were numerous serious opinions against the current categorization, and the improper implications it delivers. I urge a neutral admin to remove all categories which are not in consensus, i.e. all but "Latuff", and to advise Adambro not to be involved in this issue anymore. Drork (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Grouped it with the other relevant topics. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Drork makes the point that I am "not neutral here", which is true to a certain extent. I would like to know though on what basis he suggests I have "expressed a clear opinion in favor of promoting Latuff's cartoons in general and this cartoon in particular". This is completely without any basis. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting Latuff's work, rather a strong desire prevent images being removed simply because certain individuals don't like them. Drork simply tries to accuse anyone who opposes the deletion of these images as being a fan of Latuff in what is presumably an attempt to discredit them. As much as I would like if there was always an uninvolved admin available to deal with issues, clearly that isn't realistic. To try to deal with these issues requires a good understanding of the background, something which someone who has never commented on related topics is unlikely to have. Drork is simply looking for any opportunity he can find to try to force me to not deal with these issues. I suspect any admin who hasn't supported the proposed deletions and is prepared to use their admin rights to prevent Drork from disrupting Commons would also find themselves similarly targeted. Adambro (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You two both need to stop bickering with one another. Just leave the image as-is and leave each other alone.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I still demand that the categorization issue be handled. Drork (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have really had it with you two. I propose banning you both from Latuff and middle-east-related issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
First correct Adambro's wrong-doing, namely remove the categories he added unlawfully. I believe you can forget about this issue afterwards. Drork (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff cartoons arbitration

Since this is about categorization, I suggest that discussion should move to the CFD page. I have made a proposal for dealing with this mess at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/Carlos Latuff. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Full resolution‎ cannot be accessed.

Can someone look at this? Wispanow (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem for me, with IE8 and Firefox 3.0.8. Maybe a technical problem with your browser? --Martin H. (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Loads fine for me in Firfox 3.0.10. Would have been best to post this on Commons:Village pump as this page is for reporting problem Users or Users having issues with another user. Bidgee (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has taken the name of an artist he says he "represents". Apparently it is just a clumsy move. I have suggested him to choose another user name. Is there anything intelligent to do about that? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion request where it began: Commons:Deletion requests/File:GreenPearYellow.jpg --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A single-purpose account whose only edit was to add a warning to my user page that the National Portrait Gallery, London uploads were conducted "without the Gallery's approval." No more disturbance so far, but this may be NPG or their supporters at work again. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian-speaker needed

I strongly doubt about all uploads of new Игорь Мираж (talk · contribs), but can't really check his claims because it's all in Russian. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Along similar lines, I was thinking it would be nice to have a template like {{Ru help needed}} for every language. It would simply put the image (or talk page or whatever page) into a category that speakers of that language could monitor. Does that already exist? I often run into this problem in deletion requests, etc. Wknight94 talk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User Misael431

Vandalism?

Misael431

--189.145.1.16 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of vandalism, but the Metrobus station icons, e.g., File:Tacubaya.jpg, may be copyvios. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  Done Tryphon (talk · contribs) warned Misael431 (talk · contribs) about overwriting existing files and I reminded him/her to request permission to publish copies of copyrighted works by means of Commons:Email_templates. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Le Behnam

User:Le Behnam is not banned on commons.wiki, but is (as per this edit) banned on en.wiki. Yes, being banned on one project does not mean you are necessarily banned on another project - unless, for example, the editor uses Commons as a platform to point POV at en.wiki.

Although File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg and File:Map of Languages in Afghanistan, by district.svg claim www.aims.org.af as a source, Pashto is noticeably underrepresented. Both the maps especially the linguistic one seem to contradict data from aims.org.af which is claimed as the source.

Please look into this matter more closely. Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm confused - in several ways. User:Le Behnam hasn't edited here since March and hasn't uploaded anything here since December. The two images you pointed out were uploaded by Lokal Profil (talk · contribs), an active administrator here. Uhhhhh.... Wknight94 talk 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
These images were not uploaded by Behnam, but were co-authored by Behnam. Read in the Information Description box. Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah ha, there is the connection I was missing. Okay, I let Lokal Profil now about this thread so he could give his input. Wknight94 talk 19:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery NPG (talk · contribs) has gotten more process savvy and is trying to nominate a bunch of images from Category:National Portrait Gallery, London for deletion. They also tagged File:William Kingdon Clifford by John Collier.jpg as a copyvio. I recommend dealing carefully with this user, as they may respond to a block with legal action. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User tries to revoke permission and caused quite a mess. Needs some admin with a mop attention. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  Handled — Mike.lifeguard 22:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Abdominoplasty

Forwarded from my talk page. Yann (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC): Hello Yann,

I'm a new Wikimedia contributor and I was hoping you could give me a little advice on a community matter. I noticed that you had made changes to the Abdominoplasty page on Wikipedia because of an image that did not meet Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Well, the owner/contributor of the image you removed has been removing images that are legitimately related and descriptive towards the article (of course, that's all relative ... but in my opinion ...), and even going to the extent of contacting me via telephone with the explanation that he was "there first" and that I should not be modifying/adding any content. This user has a history of warring with other users on the aforementioned page (and other pages), and is also using more than one account (Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230) to maintain his anonymity. Of course, it's not too difficult to conclude that his name is Dr. Otto Placik in Arlington Heights, IL, USA. But his antics are beginning to degrade the quality and reputability of the articles, and I am hoping to find counsel from someone who is definitely well-experienced in the function of this virtual community. Much thanks for any help/advice you might be willing to offer. Paravis (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed this user has uploaded several images which were deleted because they lack a permission. See Special:Contributions/Emilymiller123. Yann (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess the OTRS permission has been sent for the newer ones and are awaiting confirmation. The giant watermarked ones won't need to be undeleted though since it looks like they have be replaced by better versions. I'm not sure about things like this. Personality rights? Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and 75.63.221.230 are blocked on en.WP as socks, in case no one has checked. Both usernames have uploaded files here on Commons. The IP has also edited here on Commons here. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, 2 days later... anything? - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything what? If you want to check on the image permission, check at COM:OTRS/N. Feel free to mark the images with {{Npd}} so they aren't forgotten. Otherwise, there's not much to do here. Wknight94 talk 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Other than address the master and her 2 sockpuppets? - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 05:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not causing a problem here like it did there. The socks have barely edited and not in a month. If that changes, we'll deal with it then. Otherwise, the images, if tagged for permission properly, are pretty useful. Wknight94 talk 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to a further sockpuppet investigation on WP, came this query from w:User:Otto Placik. Peter closed the investigation there, apparently (though not explicitly) concluding that the users meant well but lacked understanding of what conduct was expected on WP. I'd suggest that a similar assumption of good faith would be appropriate here. Let's just make sure that it's made clear what constitutes good behaviour.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HamidGhanbari and User:Iraj Mirzaee

Hi! I'm Raamin from fa.wikipedia; I'm a sysop there. last week User:Leylaz uploaded several images without proper copyright information, which I deleted. Now I see 2 new users, User:Iraj Mirzaee and User:HamidGhanbari have uploaded exactly the same images with the same filename and with strange informations (Source: www.rover.com, Author: Gourdaafarid ?!). I believe these images are all copyvios and these 2 accounts belong to "Leylaz". Raamin (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All permablocked and deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, RBID (talk · contribs) new account created only for FP votes, probably sock. A checkuser seems needed. Yann (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a realistic request when no related users are mentioned? Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the behaviour seems suspicious enough to me. Yann (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's a little bit to go fishing (if this translate the French C'est un peu aller à la pêche. if not what I mean is to perform a checkuser in hope some results appear) and would prefer CU is restricted when an element of suspicion is provided. We could really well have an user only wanting to vote on FP. Maybe ask him first? --Dereckson (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yann... you're a checkuser  — Mike.lifeguard 16:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So? Can checkusers not ask the community when in doubt? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think User talk:69.181.3.156 says enough. Where is it written that it is forbidden to have negative criticism. Does one have to be insulted for that? Check my own contributions and try to find a single insult. There are none. Yet User:69.181.3.156 aka MBZ1 does not cease, supported by Adam Cuerden and some others. Can a not involved admin step in please? Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some rather harsh accusations against Lycaon. I stand behind each and every one of them, and I could prove them, if necessary. I tried to do my best to stay away from Commons (read Lycaon). He is a very good and a very knowledgeable contributor much better than I am, but I do not think that fact alone gives him the rights to behave the way he does. The thing is I need help, but I do not know who I could ask for this help. The best thing now will be some kind of fair and public dispute resolution with Lycaon. I believe it will do good for the health of the community because I am not the only one, who is having problems with Lycaon behavior. Thank you. user:Mbz1

Summarizing from my post to Lycaon's user talk: Since it is clear that the objectionable post concerned Lycaon in particular, and that Lycaon and Mbz1 were recently in some sort of conflict,[34] suggested Lycaon reverse the block procedurally and open the matter for independent review and action at an admin board. Mbz1 has been an excellent content contributor; here's hoping we can work this out without losing a volunteer. Durova (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Durova. I cannot wish for anything else but what you suggested. I have a problem to login as me. I forgot my password, and I've done this in purpose to stay away from Commons, but once again I proved I am way too weak to stay away from Commons more than few days. Sorry. I've heard there are some medecine to fight nicotine addiction. I wish there were some medicine to fight addiction to Commons :) I'd say that now the Community has two choices to react at that post by Lycaon . The easiest one would be to block me indefinitely including preventing me from editing my own user pages. I will not fight that block, and my husband will be very grateful to you for returning me back to my family :) On a more serious note I do realize that for the last few months the community was getting increasingly tired from me, and my emotions, so as I said earlier I will not fight the block, if the community decides I should be blocked. It does not mean that I am going to admit that Lycaon is right. Not at all. He is dead wrong in everything he has done to me for the last 3 months or so. The other choice is as Durova suggested - try to figure out what are my disagreements with Lycaon and come to the fair and public resolution. This resolution whatever it is going to be would a great help for me, and I hope for the comminity as well. Thank you. user:mbz1
    • You're welcome. Balancing volunteer work and other life concerns can be tough. To the extent that it's possible, will endeavor to make Commons a welcoming environment rather than a stressful one. We all share common goals. Am not fully up to date on the circumstances that brought things to this point. Perhaps it'd be possible to have a digital sit-down and discuss the issues with some party who's respected by both sides? Durova (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree. This digital sit-down and discussion will be time consuming I am afraid. I agree to be judged by anybody of Lycaon choice and by the Community in whole. Anyway that discussion will be oppened for everybody to see and make their own opinion, and it is the only thing I am asking for, except of course restoring my password somehow :) user:Mbz1
To be clear: Lycaon blocked Mbz1 over a single comment by her that he disliked, [35]. (The background to the rest of the comments on that page is Lycaon warning Sarcastic ShockwaveLover over supposed incivility in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set_Candidate_-_Henry_Holiday's_Illustrations_to_Lewis_Carroll's_"The_Hunting_of_the_Snark", which I don't think any rational person could find incivility by SSL in.) The comment was not addressed to him, but to the victim of his false incivility claim. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Mbz1 often has problems with civility. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt about it, Lycaon's civility often leaves something to be desired as well. Am less familiar with Mbz1's history and am not the best person to act as mediator. If Lycaon were willing to have a sit-down, would there be a good neutral party respected by both sides who could facilitate a dialog? Durova (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This log might explain why few administrators will volunteer to step in. --Foroa (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
@ Foroa. Thank you for your message. I am not sure I follow it. Yes, I am not an angel, but "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone. " John 8:7. Now what? This post is not about my prior blocks. This post is about my new block, that you forgot to mention btw. I repeat one more time that I am ready and more than willing to be discussed at this board or any other place, and to be judged for every one of my statements. The thing is, if Lycaon is ready and willing to say the same thing. I do not think so, and I am afraid that once again Lycaon will not admit any wrongdoing and will go on with enforcing his own rules, while blaming other users for his own behavior. user:mbz1

Would a mutually respected editor or admin step forward, please, for the purpose of mediation? Would offer to do so myself, but might not have the trust of both parties. Someone with a completely clean slate would be ideal. Durova (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much, Durova. I am still not sure, if Lycaon agrees to have that meditation at all. Of course you have my full trust. It is very kind of you to offer your time and your help. The only thing I wish for now it is to put that matter behind me as soon as possible. Once again I would agree with any mediator/mediators of Lycaon choice too. It looks to me that his first and the best choice might be Mr.Kuiper :) user:mbz1 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


It is not just a problem between these two parties. Mbz1 seems unapologetic as usual, and is still trying to blame Lycaon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Durovas suggestion about mediation is a good suggestion. I can suggest Richard Bartz, Alvesgaspar or Tony Wills as mediators (and sorry for those I am forgetting) as I perceive these users good relations with both editors and are farly balanced. Surely, it would also be nice to hear Hans' thoughts about the entire matter here after seeing the comments so far. Even if the two editors accept mediation, it may not be resolved in the near future though as Hans has just written on his user and talk page that he (presumably very soon) probably will be offline until the end of August. If the timing wasn't so unfortuate (I'm at work at sea on an intermittent connection), I would have offered to mediate as well, if the parties accepted... --Slaunger (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you post, Kim. I am sure you will have plenty of time to come back from your work at sea, go on vacation, go back to sea, and so on, and so on, and still be in time to take a part in the meditation. Why I am so sure? I am sure because I doubt very much that Lycaon would ever agree to have that mediation at all. He said he was going to be off line until the end of August. That's fine. Yet I believe he had plenty of time to accept or decline the offer of the meditation in general. So far he did not. Mr.Kuiper said:
" Mbz1 seems unapologetic as usual, and is still trying to blame Lycaon".
That statement is not exactly correct Here I did say to Lycaon that I was sorry. Did he accept my sorry? Nope, he did not. So, let me try one more time, please. Lycaon, may I please ask you to accept my apology for the comments I made yesterday? I do not think I deserved to be blocked, not by you anyway. I hope you see now that, if even you believed that the block was really so necessary, it might have been much better, if the block was posted by somebody other than you, who was not so involved as you were. After all here you did ask somebody else to block Carol. Still I realize that my comments from yesterday might have been a little bit too harsh even after the block that was posted by you. So, I do apologize for those. I hope this post of mine provides some resolution for Lycaon's concerns. I doubt very much that I will ever find resolution for my concerns. Oh well...user:Mbz1
  • @Slaunger. I have empathy with both sides (I can see the actions of both as being reasonable from their point of view :-), I also often disagree with the actions of both :-). I am happy to be involved in any mediation if both parties agree, but the parties involved may shudder at the thought considering the effect of my previous intervention. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    @Tony, I agree. Thanks. I would only like to add that, if you are to be a mediator , it might be not exactly proper to say now: "I also often disagree with the actions of both :-)" before you hear the case :) I mean I would not mind, if you have said "I also often disagree with the actions of Mbz1 :-)" because I've already admitted some wrong doing few times :) On the other hand so far Lycaon admitted nothing. So I believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and of course have the presumption of the whole and complete innocence before the case is heard.
    In a meantime I would like to explain, please, how I see the meditation, if of course there is ever to be one. I simply would like to be able to ask Lycaon some clear questions, and get some clear answers, and no Tony it is not the issue of simply being used to score points. Of course I am ready to answer questions that Lycaon or any other member of the community for that matter might have for me. Thanks. user:Mbz1
 
Radiate kindness and go back to work


  • Thanks, Richard. I love you too :)
    Lycaon, I'm calling you for a duel of course not with swords , but with words. You left me no other choice. I have the right to prove my innocence and to prove that you are dead wrong, Lycaon. I am throwing down this gauntlet   before you. Accept the challenge, Lycaon, or be dishonored.
    My challenge stands for any time and any meditator of your choice. Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

  1. Lycaon started that post himself.
  2. Lycaon had plenty of time to respond my challenge, but he never did.
  3. Lycaon cannot claim that he did not see it, because he was notified about it at his own talk page by user:Slaunger.
  4. Of course Lycaon is very busy man doing useful work on Commons, but somewhere on his way he stepped over me few times, and even did not bother to turn around and to see, if I was still alive.

I hope that post and my sleepless nights will not go in vain. I hope that next time Lycaon will think twice before enforcing his own unethical rules, before harassing users with absolutely unwarranted warnings, before insulting users by removing their messages from his talk page, or ignoring their questions on his nominations and his talk page, and before lying. I hope Lycaon will think twice before blaming users in harassing him without any proves of that imaginary harassement whatsoever. Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Narratio argentea, Silentium vero aureum est. IMO on the part of Hans everything is said. After reading your comments everything is said by you, too. Sometimes there are really good movies without an happy end :-) I know you both a bit and can't believe that discussions, comments and actions was done with pure hate. It was a clash which can happen sometimes but shouldn't be overrated. Let's see the good things - I can remember that Hans often supported and has stand by you when you was new at FPC and bold as brass (because of your temperament, which I like) :-) Remember when he was retouching your sweet squirrel and helped to get it featured ? He is a good person - same like you. C'mon let's pipe down for a moment and in a few weeks (when there is winter again) everything is forgiven and forgotten. Baci   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah my dear, kind Richard. Are you mistaken me with somebody else, or maybe you are mistaken Lyacon with somebody else :)? Lycaon FPXed more of my FP nominations (new and old ones) than all other users combined :) I've never nominated an image of any squirrel. I assume you are talking about that image of mine File:Kissing Prairie dog edit 3.jpg? It was edited by Vassil, and it was opposed by Lycaon as usual :) He also opposed my green flash image that you posted at my user page to welcome me back. Yet, I'd like to make that very clear please. My dispute with Lycaon has avsolutely nothing to do with him opposing, and FPXing mine FP nominations. It either has absolutely nothing to do with the block he issued on me few days ago. You say he is a good person. Richard, if only for a moment I thought that somebody left the project because of something I've done or said, I would have done everything, and I mean everything, to bring that person back, even, if I was sure that I was 100% right in what I've done and said, and the person, who's left the project, was 100% wrong. And what Lycaon does? He removes my message (together with message by Tony Wills BTW) from his talk page with the edit summary "obsolete". Obsolete. Only one word, the word that said it all. Of course I will forgive and forget as usual. I already have. :) Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! But Squirrels and kissing Prairie dogs are the same - cute.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of your recollections are sort of right File:Kissing dogs edit Lycaon.jpg originally got promoted, but then there was a recount and the other edit got promoted as it got one more support vote. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There you are! Mila you old naysayer :-)   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Right to the point, Richard! Even such an "old naysayer" as I am cannot deny that fact. I probably should add that new characteristic of mine to my brand new user page :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I created a naysayer babel for you {{Babel|align=left|NS2|PH-3}} place that code to your page   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a very right message about Lycaon behavior. It will be good for the record to have it here too.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 is writing accusations in edit summaries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear mr. kuiper, usually I am avoiding responding to ones, who is known for making antisemitic remarks as you are, but today I'd like to make an exception please, and to thank you for your post, my very dear and very personal watchdog. It made my mood so much better, I really mean it  . To admins, yes, I really said that Mr. kuiper is known for making some antisemitic remarks. Isn't this is a good reason to block me indefinitely? Please do. Let us stop all the disruption once and for all for the best of Commons. As I've said many times in the past I am way too addicted to Commons and cannot leave by myself. I need some help please. I promise that I will leave my user pages intact for everybody to enjoy.  . Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? This seems like a long section that is not leading to a resolution. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Lar. The post is too long because I am writing/talking too much and thinking too less ( should it be "little"? Ah, what is the difference? )  I do need some resolution, but so far Lycaon has refuesed to have one. Somewhere on June 23 or around that time Lycaon indicated at his talk page that soon he was going to be offline until August 22.How soon is the "soon"? I assume it was done to avoid taking part in a dispute resolution because today is July 8 and Lycaon is still very much around, and I see this edit no more. Maybe I am missing something, maybe not. Once again, everybody, I am sorry I am always present at AN/U, I am sorry I am taking so much of everybody time. What else I am sorry for? Maybe user Maedin was right, when she told me: "You are doing nothing at the moment but causing distress and discomfort for other users". So once again I am asking you to block me and block me indefinetely. I mean it. It will be better for Commons and probably much healthier for me.  . Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Leit again

Today I noticed that Leit deleted a whole category tree of maps without any form of deletion request. He deleted similar images without a deletion request, see here. This admin clearly doesn't respect deletion policy. What to do with him? Multichill (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really stunned. Could you please inform me that you started a section on COM:AN? This procedure can make s.o. very angry. By the way: You should open a request on Commons:Undeletion requests and not restore the maps I've deleted. That's against policy. Well, there was no final decision "how to do" with me at your last complaint. There were some users who disagreed with me and there were some users who agreed with me. The discussion simply petered out. I can only repeat what I said four weeks ago: What you are demanding of the map creators on Commons is simply impractical. If the Commons community says "There have to maps for each time and each municipality ever existed and these maps have to be maintained" – then you will push them out of this project and then there will be no more maps showing German municipalities. Have you ever speaked to map creators like User:Rauenstein, User:Niteshift and others? They could tell you what's the problem.--Leit (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Here at Commons we have all sorts of projects like maps, tree of life, flags, etc etc. All these projects have to work according to our global Commons policies. We have this policies for a reason: To protect Commons and it's users. How can users ever trust us if our policies aren't even respected by the administrators of Commons who are here to enforce these policies? Commons already has a very bad name among local communities when it comes to deletions and actions like this only fuel this fear. This is a far bigger problem than deletions requests being somewhat impractical, this eats away at the foundation of Commons: The local communities. You knew you where wrong and tried to hide your actions by deleting the images as "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission", which is plain nonsense because all the information is there. If you think our guidelines are impractical, try to change them, but until you manage to do so you have to file a normal deletion request so users have a chance to respond. Multichill (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You talk about the local communities. Well, the problem is that Commons has a very bad name at the German community in this special case because there are some users preventing us from deleting maps which would outherwise be wrongly used on de.wikipedia and other language versions. There are so many incorporations of German municipalities which would require – and I want to emphasize that – houndreds of thousands or even millions of new maps being created by only one or two users who engage in creating maps. That's because there are 12,000 municipalities in Germany. You have to multiply this number by the number of area changes in each district (Landkreis) of Germany. That's when you consider all those area changes and upload a single map for each area change. So there were instead of File:Heideblick in LDS.png 1) File:Heideblick in LDS 2007-05-30.png 2) File:Heideblick in LDS.png 2008-04-11 3) File:Heideblick in LDS.png 2009-01-16. And if you consider all design changes for each time and if you consider all area changes there were at least 30 maps for every municipality. That's when you say "deletion of superseded images has been stopped".
Look at File:Kletzin in DM.PNG, the file you restored yesterday. The description of this file was wrong. It didn't show the location of Kletzin in the Landkreis (district) Demmin, it showed the location before June 7, 2009. But people who click this image don't know that. And in addition, this map is only an orientation sketch so that users see where the municipality lies in connection with the surrounding ones. But once the time goes on, most people don't know any more the outlines of the former municipalities, rivers etc. so that the map is completely useless. The procedure you are demanding therefore is against the logic behind it. Orientation maps only make sense if they show the present situation. Would there be any city maps being shown in the street which cover the situation three years ago? Neither there would be a historical use of this map nor there is a use for the present. I know historical maps are included in the Commons project scope. But that's not what we are talking about. And in addition, if not deleted, those maps would all be orphaned and wrong, because the updating of their description and their design would simply take too much time. There is a map project on German wikipedia which decides how those maps have to look like and once there is no bot making a total relaunch of 12,000 maps automatically that takes the time of de.wikipedia users. All in all, handling the "Commons Policy" so inflexibly is the wrong way to go.--Leit (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's important to find that balance between deleting images simply because they're superseded (which is no longer a valid reason by itself) and making Commons unusable by letting tons of useless files pile up. I don't want Commons to be known as a collection of useless, redundent, poor quality, incorrect, outdated files. We should never ever decide what files the local communities decide to use, but as long as no one wants the file any longer I don't quite see the issue. DRs are pointless when admins always close them with "superseded images aren't deleted" regardless of what the community wants (and I don't mean just consensus, but unanimous support for deletion). Sometimes they close them before even allowing others' input. Of course if the image is used, then that doesn't matter and the "superseded" reason is invalid. Another thing, I'm not sure why people are uploading under new names if the newer versions are really non-controversial updates. That would be better solution. Rocket000 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rocket000... what about marking the image description page with a note that it's superceded and should not be used, but not deleting it, would that be an acceptable compromise? Because unilateral deletion seems like not a very good approach. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rastrojo

Hello,

In March 7, 2009, I uploaded a map named File:Localització del País Valencià respecte Espanya.svg, who was a retouched version of File:Mapa territorios España2.svg made by HansenBCN. A few days ago, the user RoxVal uploaded the same version of the map with a different name, and I started a deletion request for the new file, that can be seen here. Now, the user Rastrojo uploads the same map that I made, with the name that a few days ago had been deleted, and erased my first map. In addition, he tells that is the only author. In a few words, I think that rastrojo wants to steal my map, hiding all my autorship. That can be seen in another similar case, the file File:Localización_de_Cataluña.svg. March 7, 2009, I upload the map first time (weights 560K, the same weight as the other maps, because is the same file of my autorship). In 6 July, 2009, Rastrojo uploads a new version, who is exactly the same as before, and erases my name of the file description autorship, as can be seen in the history log. This is not fair game. --Mutxamel (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But you are credited as the author in both cases (File:Localización de la Comunidad Valenciana.svg and File:Localización_de_Cataluña.svg), so I don't see the problem. –Tryphon 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been editing all the copied maps from rastrojo and adding my name, I hope he doesn't revert them. --Mutxamel (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'm not sure what you're expecting from admins in this case. If you don't get reverted, then this is a non-issue. I'd leave it at this for now. –Tryphon 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with an old user account:

To Whom it May Concern:

My name is Andrew Turner and I am an IT/Administrator at the Remy Corporation in Denver Colorado. A former employee of ours submitted an article to Wiki relating to our company, but this article is out of date and needs to be changed.

Unfortunately, we are unable to even access this article as we do not have any of the user credentials or login info related to the user. All that we know is that the user is "Samenus\Remy Corporation" or something along those lines.

Originally I thought that I could just put in the username and have your system send an email to the registered email address "dan@remycorp.com" and because this email address is now forwarded to a different person (Dan nolonger works here) we could fix our account credentials in this manner.

But it would appear that this is not the case and we do not know any of the login credentials for this account. It seems that Dan used a personal email address when registering on Wiki.

I need a couple of things:

1. We need to be able to access the article relating to the Remy Corporation. It would even be acceptible if we could have you guys delete this article and then we could recreate it.

2. We need to change/update our login credentials to your website so that we are using login information that is documented on our side and will remain static and not change for the remaining duration of The Remy Corporation's existence.

Please send an email to tech@remycorp.com with whatever options you can provide to us so that we can resolve this matter and preserve the informational integrity that makes wikipedia so great.

Thanks!

Andrew Turner Software Engineer/IT Guru The Remy Corporation 1637 Wazee Street, Suite 201 Denver, CO 80202 aturner@remycorp.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.203.165 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2009 July 8 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for stopping by. Unfortunately you've reached Wikimedia Commons. We do pictures, not articles. You're probably looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Good luck. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please update "Swine Flu figure"

Hello, I would like to take over the responsibility to update the "swine flu 2009" diagrams, with permission of the previous contributor. I re-created the first graph but was not able (because new user to commons) to replace the file.

Could you please replace the following file: Image:Influenza-2009-cases.png

With this file: Image:Influenza-2009-cases_01.png


Could you also update the following file: Image:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic.png

With this file: Image:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic-01.png

and maybe give me the permission to overwrite the newer versions in future?

Appreciated, --Kettner2 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC it's 4 days until you can overwrite. Otherwise there is no way to speed up the process nor any special permissions needed. As a note, the text on your images is a bit fuzzy (I realize it is a smoother font, but even still, it's not as crisp) --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Notorious copyvio

Dear Admins, I am an administrator at the Hungarian Wikipedia, and would like to draw you attention to Jojoka2, who is a notorious copyright violator. He is currently being reviewed at huwiki for mass-uploading copyvio pictures and writing articles referring to sources that are either false or simply not existing. Now he started doing the same at Commons as well. I strongly advise to review all his submissions. He usually uploads copyvio photos/pictures stating they are own work. Thank you, --Teemeah (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see several copyvio warnings from yesterday for Jojoka2 (talk · contribs). The first three photos look ok, but the balance (signs/logos/plans) look like copyvios.[36] Language is not the problem since it occurred on huwiki also, according to Teemeah.[37] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

deletionist admin

this user/admin User:Abigor

is using their powers to close discussions & delete material inappropriately.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Abigor&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

they csded the only anatomy photo we have on wmc of preadolescent human male genitalia (non-identifying close-up) without any discussion as being "out of scope";

they deleted this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Briefs-20080618.jpg

(nominated by a sockpuppet account; which is how i got involved in the matter) after a very short debate time & with no consensus having been reached , with the reason given:

"Deleted. We don't need nude or semi nude kids! Huib talk 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"

not exactly objective analysis (the pic was a non-nude underwear close-up, non identifying)

they also deleted a series of images i'm not familliar with as "probable copyvio"; apparently all as csd without duscussion; i can find no log of deletion discussions for any of the files, so i can;'t judge the actions on those, but i'm not filled with confidence at this person's judgement right now.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just skimming over the log. A) "preadolescent male genitalia" sounds a lot like "Child porn" to me, so I agree with the deletion. B) Deletions are not a vote, closing admins take what people say - but democracy doesn't rule. C) I checked a few of the "probable copyvios" and I'd agree with that assessment. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
the problem with your statement is that you fail to distinguish between human anatomy & pornography. wmc is supposed to be an education resource. how exactly should we cover the topics of human anatomy & development? with figleaves, or maybe pencil sketches? i'm sorry, but you are expressing a personal opinion; commons scope includes educational material on the subject of human development, & this user has erased the only file we had for this specific topic. perhaps the cat should be renamed: Category:Naughty, bad things that are not allowed on wikimedia commons! ? :P Lx 121 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Abigor's action. Also, 'deletionist' is a fairly useless term, as all the admins on Commons delete images regularly. --Bastique demandez 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
deletionist as someone who deletes material excessively and/or without regard for policy/rules/scope; which this person has done Lx 121 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ok so wikimedia commons IS censored?

wmc can't have any photos showing stages of human development, "scope" & "eductaional" be damned?

we need to change the policy then; "commonas:not censored" is A JOKE

it should read more like: "COMMONS:wmc is censored: anything any admin doesn't like, for any reason, goes away, no discussion, no debate, no concensus, & to hell with the rules & policy & scope."

this is why nobody outside wikimedia takes wmc seriously as a resource.

it's more like a sloppy, unprofessional, clique-ish private club's photo album than a professional media archive.

a professional archive would have photos, properly sorted & categorized, of all topics they claimed to cover.

wmc fails on both parts of that qualification

we're kidding ourselves here.

if this is the objective standard this place runs by; wmc is never going to be anything more than an afterthought to wikipedia.

the organization of the material on here is a sloppy unprofessional mess; i've spent a fair amount of time trying to categorize things in a way that can be taken seriously by people used to a professional standard of competence in organization, using the miserably inadquate tools in mediawiki. at this point i'm left feeling that it's waste of my time.

if you guys can't do any better than this, my suggestion to the wikimedia foundation is that we pull the plug. the only useful purpose wmc serves is as a dumping ground for materials to be used wikipedia, & we don't need to pretend that it's a real, standalone "project" to accomplish that. doing so is a waste of wmf resources.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also; the user's signature hides their real name, another policy violation

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When you see someone complaining about an admin's signature, you know they're just fishing for an excuse to be outraged. Nothing to see here, move along.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks mike, that's a very professional attitude, & completely fails to address anything (& who cares about "rules" anyway?) Lx 121 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. +1 to mike. I mean seriously, use the link Luke.... I am curious where we have that policy on record, I remember as it being accepted practice, but written policy? Then again, meh, never was a big fan of policy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just about the most sympathetic admin around when it comes to keeping sexual images, but it's a terribly unfortunate matter of fact that the United States child pornography law does not allow any depiction of the genitalia of minors for any purpose whatsoever. Even medical journals can't publish them! Unless we move the servers to an offshore oil rig, we're compelled by the overzealous law to omit these images, or face dire consequences. People have even been convicted for distributing clothed images of minors that were "suggestive". There's a fine line to walk here, and we should be aggressive, but not include anything that is a clear legal violation.
I would however admonish administrators who include emotionally charged messages like "We don't need nude or semi nude kids". Really, we do (for example, for the depiction of intersex conditions at birth), and those images could be obtained without exploitation of minors (one simple way to do this would be to have the minor later give permission to use the image when they are an adult). A better reason is "Legal restrictions do not permit us to include this content." Dcoetzee (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dcoetzee here. I would like to keep non-sexual images of naked children, as I understand there is a difference between nudity and pornography. However, Commons must abide by US law, and if it's illegal, we can't host it. However, Abigor should have closed it with a remark about the legality, rather than us "not needing" naked children. I see nothing wrong with speedily deleting them as legal violations, but I disagree with speedying for personal issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
US law only forbids child pornography, not naked pictures of children, so medical journals can (and often do) include depictions of genitals of minors. The problem is that a combination of overzealous prosecutors and "think-of-the-children" juries result in convictions whenever the pictures being considered are even remotely questionable. --Carnildo (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Upshot? My take: we should counsel Abigor about making sure the right reasons are given when doing otherwise legitimate deletions, and we should counsel Lx about being more mellow. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Abigor Huib Sterkebak seems too much in a hurry to close DR's. Amd I do not believe his is the admin most knowledgeable about US legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In this case, prompt attention was warranted. I endorse Lar's summary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
A guy in underwear? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Briefs-20080618.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"User's signature hides their real name, another policy violation"?!?!! Since when it is policy that admins must declare their name? I mean, the last I looked I was editing WikiCommons, not Citizendium. And besides, not everyone of us is 100% willing to fully public. (Though there are enough people who know who Tabercil is besides myself...) I mean, we have the need on EN for the category of Admins willing to make difficult blocks.
Now, having said that, let's back to the original subject: the deletion of the image. Looking at the image, I'm kind of torn... I honestly do not feel the image is overtly sexual, but I do agree with what Dcoetzee says in that there has been a general "think of the children" push into trying to create a clear split between kids and sexuality. Case in point: the Miley Cyrus photo shoots, first with Vanity Fair and now the new one with Elle. Do I personally feel that the image should have been deleted? No. Do I feel as an administrator that the image should have been deleted? Yes, as a case of erring on the side of caution.
I also heartily agree with what Lar said about Lx needing to be more mellow, and possibly also needing to take a closer read of COM:SCOPE as well as Commons:What Commons is not. Tabercil (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
signature hides the admin/editor's real USERNAME; User:Abigor signature = "Huib"
see as example: "Deleted. We don't need nude or semi nude kids! Huib talk 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"
apparently, both are part of the user's real name, if pieter's comment is factually accurate, but if the editor abigor wants to use huib, that should be the his username. signing one name & having a different username is confusing & misleading; the first time i clicked thru, i thought i was on the wrong page. one of the basic principles of wiki-community is being able to clearly identify community members & contact them, as needed; moreso when the user is an admin. hiding your username in your signature violates that principle, & is not allowed @ wikip. i'm unindenting for my other comments re: tabercil; too much trouble to format Lx 121 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


  • I can see Lx's point in scope of such images, especially in w:Puberty and related articles on any Wiki. However, we must abide by the notion that Wikipedia and Commons are "not censored within the law" and wherever there's a policy that speaks to any of the projects being not censored, they should be re-written to reflect this important aspect of "within the law where the servers are based". Indeed, Lx seems a bit high-strung over the issue but we shouldn't dismiss his opinion as it is valid. So that's my suggestions.. Lx should chill out and be calm.. and any "we are not censored" policies be written to reflect "within the law". - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Burial mounds royal graves or not

I am having trouble convincing two Swedish editors to stop reverting edits over and over in the above subject. We need neutral opinions as to

  • whether or not a category containing images of ancient grave mounds, generally considered by most experts to be the graves of (often unidentified) ancient royalty, can be a subcategory to a category for images of royal graves in the country where the mounds are located;
  • whether or not a rune stone naming a person who experts believe was a king can be considered a cenotaph.

Anyone able to look at this on these talk pages, which are getting too overheated, partly because of my own (I concede) temperamental impatience?

Any assistance would be much appreciated. EmilEikS (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, since not all mounds are believed to be royal graves, it'd be best to categorise the mounds which are widely believed to be royal burials into both categories. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! We just recently reached a compromise which I hope will hold up, by putting in an "Also see:" link that everyone seems to be happy with. Almost every mound in Sweden has its own argument that has been going on for 1500 tears or so, especially in the last 2 centuries when ideologies began to play a part in interpreting history, more than before. I really think this is the only feasible solution in this case. The rune stone (third link above) is still being debated (now in English), but that discussion is getting very tired. EmilEikS (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
See this amazing explanation by EmilEiks. And 1500 years of historicl debate? In Sweden?? EmilEiks must be exaggerating a bit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The comprise did NOT hold up. Pieter Kuiper has been stalking me for months to pick fights. I need him to stop it or I will have to quit Commons and Swedish WP. Just can't take it anymore. Can anyone help me? Please! EmilEikS (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I try here to get him to leave me alone? EmilEikS (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation & copyright infringement

It looks like someone has setup a user account with the intent of impersonating me: User:Janksmata has a name very similar to mine (User:Jaksmata). Their only contribution has been to upload a copy of a file I nominated for deletion. I'm not too familiar with policies on commons, but I think the user should be banned or forced to change their name. Both the original file I nominated and the copy need to be deleted because they contain derivatives of copyrighted work.Jaksmata (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also reported this user on w:en. Jaksmata (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This user has been indef blocked on English Wikipedia and their contributions deleted ([38]).Jaksmata (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  Blocked, thanks for bringing this to our attention. →Nagy 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I greatly appreciate it. Jaksmata (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkmenistan questionable uploads

User has uploaded many images of varying quality, style, and topic, all marked as public domain and 'Own work', which is frankly unbelievable. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This new user got my attention when first an IP and then he himself replaced the no-license-tag of several of his uploads to GFDL. While many of his uploads don't have camera EXIF cata, those who have show an amazing number of cameras: Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n, NIKON D2X, NIKON D100, Canon PowerShot A590 IS, Canon PowerShot S3 IS and Panasonic DMC-FZ50, thereby strongly suggesting copyvios. Eventually somebody with knowledge of Czech language should contact him. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IP claiming copyvios by other user - spanish-speaker needed

This new 87.223.67.241 (talk · contribs) has created the userpage User:Miguelo282 (without account) and seems to claim that many images uploaded by Jmfd (talk · contribs) are actually his photos. Accordingly he removed Jmfd as author from many images and partly added his username.[39] Could sombody with good knowledge of spanish take care of? --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the userpage as userpage of a non-existant user, someone who speaks spanish can sort out the fracas. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Random catch: File:Vista moguer2.jpg - 500px first upload - https://www.flickr.com/photos/miguelo282/393452772/ which is Miguelo282s photostream according to the website he promotes on his deleted user page. The file was uploaded to Flickr on February 18, 2007, here in June 2008. If Jmfd is not Miguelo, which seems to be very unlikely, the case is clear. --Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
P.s.: Maybe some spanish user should ask him directly on Flickr if he wants to release his images under a free license, we otherwise delete them to remove the violation of his copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The story goes on: this night the IP/person (193.148.246.4 (talk · contribs)), who identifies himself as Miguel Angel, has labeled an additional image (File talk:Monum.Colon2.jpg), originally uploaded by Jmfd (talk · contribs), as his own, and has left further explainations an the talkpages of 3 images. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is ecemaml from the Spanish Wikipedia (admin both in there and here). The key point here is this user is not new in the copyright violation business. If you take a look at his deleted contributions, you'll see the size of the problem. I deleted dozens of pictures claimed by him. Some of them were screenshots of a local council promotional video. Another group were from google maps (he even claimed that he worked from a satellite imaging firm). If you can read Spanish, you can see here that he was strongly adviced about copyvios, but it seems that he simply refuses to understand. As this issue is being discussed, I'll wait for your decission. Jmfd has been permanently blocked in the Spanish wikipedia. My personal recommendation would be a similar measure along with a delection of all his claimed pictures, as it seems impossible to assert that none of them have been taken by him. My two cents. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) PD: BTW, Jmfd is not Miguelo
There is an email on OTRS (ticket#2009071510050282 for users with access) claiming copyright violations of this user. I recommend to delete all images credited as miguelo282 File:CarabelaNiña esqueleto.jpg, File:Fuentepiña2.jpg, File:Ptoribera3.jpg, as it has been done with other ones with the original localized at Flickr (User talk:Jmfd#File:ConvSclaraEspadña.jpg), block the user and review all his uploads. --V.Riullop (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The first image you linked is again clearly from Flickr, see the size of the first upload. I just checked his log or parts of it, and found several cameras with the exif. I will later delete everything he uploaded, except retouched uploads of other users uploads or clearly pd-old images. --Martin H. (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have marked those tree images as copyvio from Flickr, and also File:Monum.Colon2.jpg, File:ConvSFcoClaustroBajo.jpg, and File:ConvSFcoClaustroAlto.jpg. He has even uploaded as own work File:ConvSClaraExterior2.jpg a free image from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jose_l_filpo/1139628689/. --V.Riullop (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked all uploads, as said above: I will delete All uploads except pd-old. I can believe some images the uploaders own work after I checked all images, this will not be deleted for the reason, that the exif and upload date are extremly close together and that the user tended to replace his copyvios with own work photos. I saved my investigation in User:Martin_H./Jmfd, It is c&p from Excel separated by tab spaces. Also all unsourced maps of unknown origin will be deleted. My investigation covers only the files that are not yet deleted - and thats almost ~100. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've blocked yet another Jmfd's sockpuppet: Pinodelacorona --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Block me please

During this post I will mention Lycaon name, but this post is about me. As you all know I tried very hard to somehow resolve my issues with Lycaon. It was done first on his own talk page, later on this very board and few other places in between. It lead no where. Some offline efforts left nowhere either so far. In a mean time Lycaon continues to insult me by completely ignoring my questions [40]. Maybe he has the right to do it because he feels insulted by me. I do not know, and this does not matter.IMO it is always better to talk over such disagreements, but if this cannot be done, I have to go. I tried to do it myself by editing my monobook [41], then forgetting my password in purpose. In both situations I failed. I cannot continue like this and I cannot leave on my own. I know it is selfish of me to ask you to do my job for me, but I still do. Please block me indefinitely without ability to edit my own talk page. I am asking for this not to punish Commons, and not to punish Lycaon, but rather for my own well-being. Thank you for your understanding. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
This feels like a bad thing to do, and I only do it because you are my friend. I have blocked you on your request indeff. Please email me when you need it removed. Huib talk 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Would that not be called the end of a Tantalus punishment ? Sorry Mbz1. --Foroa (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn /AnonMoos

Hi, I'm not awfully familiar with Commons noticeboards and such (I'm happy to learn), so sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I am familiar with Wikimedia licensing practises due to my work on Wikipedia. File:Flag of the Kingdom of Humanity.svg lacked any evidence that the flag design was released under a Creative Commons license, and so I tagged it as lacking permission. AnonMoos (talk · contribs) proceeded to remove the tag and left me a series of patronising and vaguely abusive comments, and simply refused to provide any evidence of the PD/CC status of the design of the flag, instead choosing to edit war with myself and another editor. I am unsure of how to proceed, as there is still no evidence of PD/CC licensing, yet AnonMoos is continuing to revert and leave me messages (including accusing me of vandalism), despite my repeated efforts to explain the issues with the file. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, requesting input, or somewhere more visible for my comments. PeterSymonds has protected the image, but this has achieved nothing- it has locked it in the state without the deletion notice (as I was the one who stopped reverting, instead hoping for some input here) and it is still sitting there without any evidence of Creative Commons licensing or public domain status. AnonMoos has not edited in over a day, and so has still not provided any details or furthered the conversation. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I crossed the line of civility, but I found it very frustrating that J. Milburn knows very little about how things have been done at Commons and also very little about relevant copyright law, and yet he doesn't let any of that hold him back from freely pontificating and dogmatizing in an almost fact-free void. The simple fact is that there are tens of thousands of existing flag and coat-of-arms images on Wikimedia Commons, where the author of such an image file (which is based on an out-of-copyright vexillogical/heraldic abstract design or textual blazon) has released the file under a license other than PD. J. Milburn seems to think that there's some kind of conflict between the abstract design being out of copyright and the recently-created image file being copyrighted, but in the actual real world no such conflict exists... J. Milburn might also prefer that on the image description page the copyright status of the abstract design would be indicated separately from the copyright of the particular image file which embodies the abstract design. This dual system might theoretically be a good idea (or on due consideration, perhaps not), but it's NOT the system which is currently used at Wikimedia Commons, and to demand that an image be deleted because of lack of such formal dual copyright indication is simply absurd.

Furthermore, since my very first contact with J. Milburn, I have repeatedly mentioned that I would not have the slightest objection to the opening up of a formal deletion nomination (where such matters could be properly discussed), but J. Milburn seems to have certain unfortunate drama-loving tendencies, since he prefers to waste everybody's time tagging the image description page (even after I have repeatedly explained in detail why this is not very useful) instead of just opening a formal deletion nomination... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I really resent this. I deal almost exclusively with image issues on the English Wikipedia, so I've got a good grasp of how these things work. There is "some kind of conflict between the abstract design being out of copyright and the recently-created image file being copyrighted" in the eyes of the Wikimedia Foundation, and that's exactly why there is the current dispute with the NPG. If an image is out of copyright, then any recreation of it is also out of copyright. It's fine that you don't get that; I'd be quite happy to just tag the image as PD and move on, and hope you grasp it later. However, you still have no provided any evidence that this image is public domain. Again (I don't know how many times I have to say this) we have an image that is claimed to be Creative Commons and/or public domain, yet we have no release from the copyright holder (probably the original designer of the flag or their descendents) or any evidence that this is in the public domain. All we have is you shouting abuse at me about how I'm not following the procedure you'd like me to (when this one is clearly appropriate) or that I do not understand copyright law. As for my "drama-loving tendencies", again, I really, really resent that. I have no drama loving tendencies; I completely avoid the noticeboards at my own project, but I am thankfully spared having to deal with editor warriors such as yourself for the most part. Instead of discussing this civilly, you have chosen to edit war and attack me. Why should I believe you will magically start having some respect if I was to open a "formal deletion debate", and leave this image staying up here without any permission even longer? I am not a drama lover, at all. I hate this stuff. However, I can see no other possible route when you are behaving as you are. Finally, I will ask the question, again. Please, if you answer nothing else, answer this. Do you have any evidence that the flag has been released into the public domain or under a Creative Commons license? If not, why have you continued to edit war over the image? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you really seem to enjoy doing things in the way that you know is guaranteed to create the maximum controversy and kerfuffle -- even though there are other perfectly good methods of accomplishing the same professed and stated goals which would not create the same antagonism -- I really don't know what to attribute to this to, other than love of drama... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Love of efficiency and process? Commons has a deletion tag for images lacking evidence of permission... So I used it to tag an image, lacking evidence of permission. I'm more than happy to discuss my actions- I have discussed this with you from the beginning. Why would dragging this through the deletion discussion process have been beneficial? J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat silly... if this image was actually in the PD, it could not be released as a CC-BY-SA image because it would mean that there would be no difference from the 1914 version. However, it clearly says that the image is based on work done by someone, so it is a derivative and there is nothing that we have to verify that this image, taken from an external site, is in fact licensed as CC-BY-SA. Based on this, I have deleted the image. Maxim(talk) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your first assertion is not correct -- there are already tens of thousands of copyrighted image files aready on Wikimedia Commons based on out-of-copyright abstract flag designs or abstract coat-of-arms designs or textual blazons. And the SVG file File:Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Humanity.svg was based on research done by David Martucci in writing the FOTW page https://www.fotw.info/flags/xp-s.html , but I don't know that that makes it a "derivative image". If a deletion nomination had been started (which was my very modest request), then all of these matters could have been properly discussed, instead of somewhat arbitrary decisions being made on the basis of partial information... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for some time, yet you have failed to point this kind of information out to me. Once again, do you have any evidence that the flag is in the public domain? J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on, people. You're all active enough on Wikimedia projects to know that edit-warring never makes anything better. Either of you could have opened a Deletion Request or asked for outside opinions long before the name-calling started. I don't know what the status of the file is, but I don't think the answer is obvious. I'll undelete the file and open a deletion request so that the proper process can be followed. Please make an effort to discuss only the licence of the file and not who did what wrong. Pruneautalk19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The image lacked evidence of permission, it seemed to me like the proper process was to tag it as... having no evidence of permission. I will add my thoughts at the deletion nomination, but unless someone provides some evidence of PD/CC status pretty soon- which is what I have been asking for all along- I think it is clear which way it will go. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide an image of Albert Henry Krehbiel (Http://www.krehbielart.com/images/KrehbielPaintingMural.jpg) for the artist's page at Wikipedia and have been unable to do so. THIS HAS BECOME VERY, VERY FRUSTRATING!

Please note that I/we at the Krehbiel Corporation (website: http://www.KrehbielArt.com) own the copyrights to all of Albert Krehbiel's images and photographs.

As much as I respect and admire all that Wikipedia is and represents, I must state that once you hit a "speed bump" (have a problem), there is much, much left to be desired in being "user friendly" and in "ease of obtaining help and assistance".

Thank you very much for your consideration and assistance in this matter.

"Krehbielart 7/22/09"

Don Ryan (Email: ryan_properties@hotmail.com) The Krehbiel Corporation http://www.KrehbielArt.com -- 17:01, 22 July 2009 User:Krehbielart

Dear Don, you so far not tried to upload anything here. Linking an image in an Wikipedia is not working and is nothing that needs administrative attention of Wikimedia Commons administrators ;) Please don’t demand that a upload and a accurate release will be done in 2 minutes. You should follow Special:Upload. Fill in all fields e.g.:
  • Original source: Krehbiel Corporation, http://www.KrehbielArt.com
  • Author: Albert Henry Krehbiel (for paintings); Krehbiel Corporation/Photographers name (for photographs that are not simple 2D reproductions of paintings)
  • Licensing: Select a license from the drop-down menu. All licenses on Commons allow free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial use. Collecting files under free licenses is the scope of Commons and the Wikimedia projects goal. You can review the wording of the licenses in Commons:Copyright tags.
All other fields should be self-explanatory. As you declare to act on behalf of an organization that claims to own all copyrights on the paintings, maybe by heir from Krehbiel, you are asked to forward a written document to our OTRS to confirm the copyright status. Please use Commons:Email templates or a similar wording for a written release. In case of related questions you should ask here, in case of other questions you should use Commons:Help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The uploads of this user do need some observation. In addition to uploading poorly sourced images and NC/ND-licensed Flickr images from others under CC-BY, the few of his claimed "own works" that carry EXIF data, are coming from 5 different camera models. --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Géode is a Omnimax theater in Paris by French architect fr:Adrien Fainsilber. There is no FOP in France; the Cité des Sciences, which holds the rights of the building, has been known to sue (postcards editors, see Cour d'appel de Paris, 23 octobre 1990, Sté Fotogram-Stone et autres c./ la Cité des sciences et de l'industrie). So there was a {{NoUploads}} warning on this category and most pictures of it have been deleted.

Алексей Скрипник (talk · contribs) removed the {{NoUploads}} template twice and has uploaded a new picture of the Géode, File:Le Geode.jpg. I think he just doesn't understand the issue about FOP and DW. I need someone speaking, er, probably Russian, to explain him all this. Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Miya, admin both here and on ja:WP, tells me that this account is used to impersonate a personality with the same name and to perform personal attacks (using pictures of her from Commons). I suggest that this account be permanently blocked for spoofing, and that its uploads are nuked. The personal page of this account on ja:WP, where the images are displayed, is apparently considered an attack page and has been proposed for deletion. Other suggestions? --Eusebius (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)