Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~10
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~4
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-05: ~46

Other:

• Duplicates: ~1
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~8
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~57
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~35
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Mvart4u

User is allegedly German artist de:Mischa Vetere, and has filled a category with works of dubious artistic value. I can accept that these are in scope, although I don't much like them. However, the user's behaviour warrants a closer look. A few days ago I misunderstood what was written on an image he'd uploaded, thinking it was an old postcard (which it isn't) rather than a derivative of one, and nominated it for deletion. I withdrew my request once this was cleared up. Mvart4u replaced the image with the comment (BÜCHERVERBRENNUNG 1933 seen by mischa vetere 2011 - for the wikimedians who try to censor me 2010 and 2011 over WIKIMEDIA COMMONS for CHRISTOF BLOCHER.). I later nominated what appears to be a derivative work of a Captain Jack Sparrow photo, and got the following message on my talk page: you stay off my category! it is OTRS approved for COPYRIGHT REASONS!! johnny depp personally has delivered photos to me, and the work is approved, my alteration.mvart4u ps: wännd din chrampf nöd uufgisch, länsch mi känne. seisch ja selber, verstaasch nüt vo kunst, dänn lan verdammt no mal mini arbeit in fridä - jedi arbeit isch OTRS approved; ziit vo de rufmörder fründ isch scho lang verbii. ich werd dich jetzt mälde. I then got subjected to the (apparent insult) that I am from Zurich. User seems to be paranoid about censorship, apparently the timing of this makes it obvious.

On the upside, apparently the UN, Obama, Jimbo, and Shakespeare's Cat like his work... -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: user has now reuploaded that image and added a book-burning image to the source field. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a little hard to sort out whether Mischa Vetere is notable or not. Most of the early Google hits are self-generated. There is no entry for him among the thousands of artists listed at www.artnet.com. He appears, however, to have had a number of shows in various places and an article on WP:DE, so his work may be within scope for us.

The behavior of Mvart4u (whether or not he is the artist) is not acceptable. My two respected colleagues, Martin H. and Mattbuck are just doing their unpaid volunteer job here -- protecting Commons from copyright violations and out-of-scope work. Occasionally they make mistakes -- we all do -- but the reactions by Mvart4u are unacceptable.

Some of the accusations below are serious. He accuses our colleagues of both libel:

"an absolute, inacceptable insult again, not to say clear reputation murdering (martin h's goal since sept. 09!) with many wrong information!"

and:

"i clearly think that the two named users, two unnamed, are for political reasons trying to destroy my reputation, harm my candidature - the way they act is clearly inacceptable, nothing but insults and unbelievable statements."

and also with interfering with his business:

i lost an important illustration contract in hamburg last year due to the 'deletion talk' organised by martin h."

While we do not have an explicit rule about legal threats such as the one at WP:EN, I think we should consider simply blocking this user until he settles down and agrees to obey our rules.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support an indef ban of User:Mvart4u and eventually of his "works". For the record, he's Swiss. This user has a habit to upload over his initial uploads lots of different versions, which in most cases are completely different images; see for example: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. As quite some of his uploads are derivatives, which may need proper sourcing of the non-own parts, the constant changing of image versions may invalidate the required sourcing/attribution.

IMHO, the most serious problems result from his behaviour to stage-manages himself as victim of censorship etc. and to suspect/claim conspiration against himself by everybody who "touches" his uploads, be it removing a nonsense category or asking for the source & permission of an not-own original image he used for his montages. If you dare to do that, as I and Martin H. did in 2010, you get insulted and slandered in similar way as he did again today in the thread below. He even spread his defamations (of Commons) on external websites, such as here (“fiesen zensurversuche über wikimedia commons”). If I would take him seriously, I might have taken him to court for slander last year. However, accusing others, who had challenged his opinion, of censorship and defamation seems to be his regular pattern of behaviour, as might be seen here in a Commons-unrelated discussion (in German).

In addition, he seems to misrepresent the copyright status of his uploads by claiming “fair copyright use applies“ on Commons (see: File:Westland lysander seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg, here and File:The last moment of princess di seen by mischa vetere 2010.jpg) as well as on external websites (see bergsee - definition of ART). His private definition of “fair copyright use“ may be confused with the totally different classical (US) „fair use“, but also seems to forbid free commercial use, as suggested by his statement „commercial use would have to be discussed prior edition, publication“ here and thereby contradict the CC-BY-SA licensing of his uploads.

In contrast to his earlier self-praises „i grant it genorously to wikimedia commons“ or “generously gifted to wiki commons”[6], [7], [8] he seems to use Commons as a promotional platform with the intent to get outside commercial contracts, as suggested by these defamatory comments "i lost on the 26th of october 2010 a confirmed illustration contract in hamburg, thanks a lot, turelio!" and "hab letzte woche als lebender künstler mit rechten bereits einen auftrag wegen dir verloren!".

If balanced against his contributions, IMO he produces too many problems. --Túrelio (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS tickets 2011052810004977, 2011052810004995, 2011052810005547, and 2011052810006608 have been received from the subject regarding this issue and that comments have been made regarding users. I can't really discuss them further, but I suspect that an indef ban here will require blacklisting at OTRS if performed. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing those to our attention -- they are much the same as the piece below, with at least one target not named here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No surprise. I think he never really understood OTRS, but views it as the supreme Wikimedia being (or ceiling cat). --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ach sieh an - türelio ist auch wieder mit von der partie (habe ich erwartet) - by the way: the swiss german is no insult, but due to simple oversight that mattbuck is from zurich, speeking swissgerman, after his second deletion request and simply says the same, valid for you turelio, martin h. - as long as i verify and have all works OTRS approved, just stay out of my category. your stupid comments from last year and your mutual mobbing now is just too obvious, of course not a way of censoring, of course not. mvart4u 19.17, 28.5.2011

this disussion is so unfair, because it has the clear goal to censor, like a year ago by martin h and türelio. the insults are on the userpage of mattbuck by martin h. of yesterday - all amendments on files have been o.t.r.s approved, because involved artists, if any, have sent their agreement - there are wonderful works liked a lot. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teatime,_samurai_2010_by_mischa_vetere.jpg eg, others less due to it's political content. can't believe that this goes through in the 21st century. [mvart4u] 19.48, 28.5.11

I'm not trying to censor you, I just had concerns about copyright and scope. That was it, to begin with. Now you've given me cause to bring you up here, because your behaviour towards me and Martin is frankly intolerable. I  Support your indefinite block and the deletion of all your images, entirely because of your behaviour. Really, the only problem I ever had with you is I thought your Jack Sparrow image might be the derivative work of something copyrighted. However, I recuse myself from the decision, since I am now biased because you've really pissed me off. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, don't let yourself get pissed off by him. That's his strategy. However, I know the feeling quite well from last year. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked Mvart4u indefinitely, such behaviour done by Mvart4u to valuable, long time contributors and legal threat (which was made in the sub section below this section) has no place here. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have just removed his talk page privs due to continued attacks on myself and Martin. I hope this is not a conflict of interest. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Bidgee and Mattbuck's actions. I was going to do the same this morning if no one had objected.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattbuck & Martin H.

I see that user mattbuck, together with martin h.

(the later permitted himself a year ago to insult me personally by saying, my art is "like shitting in the metro", read what he says these days on Talk:

"The files are trash, created within a few minutes in ms-paint or so. The guy suffers from some very strange idea that his work is censored by the government of switzerland and that he must use all websites to spread his opinion. Regretably he found our project. He thinks, that "OTRS-approved" means, that his work is absolutely ok on Commons - he however not undertand that copyrights and educational use are two different things. The copyright(OTRS) issue is of course resolved long time ago, the scope issue is unadressed so far. I only hope his plan (aka threat) of "insgesamt 5'000 - 10'000 bilder" will not become true. Maybe his candidature for the WM board will show, that Wikimedia Commons is not a place for publishing private opinions in form of self-created, previously unpublished paintings. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) p.s. I however continue to remove the tag-like category spam, this works are so pure, so unimportant and so POV, I myself also refrain from writing my personal opinion in Category:Barack Obama or putting my opinion in a paint file and upload it - although I have a person opinion on Obama that the world is interested in.. not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

- an absolute, inacceptable insult again, not to say clear reputation murdering (martin h's goal since sept. 09!) with many wrong information!,

DUE TO MY current CANDIDATURE, unmotivated started three days ago to place a deletion request over a new work of mine and after a 'unpleasant' discussion (of course, the deletion request is taken back, since there is no copyright issue ... it just served it's purpose)

- the reason for all these unmotivated attacks remains since 2009 the same: to get rid of an unpleasant political viewpoint and now clearly to harm the candidature. nota: my category was perfectly in order last week, and i ask johan for every single amendment to re-approve the relevant work.

mattbuck openly declares that he does not like art, why is he suddenly after my category? - i lost an important illustration contract in hamburg last year due to the 'deletion talk' organised by martin h. at that stage over two months, they even tried to delete the portraits by friends of mine (of course for copyright reasons...)

i like the wiki project a lot, but clearly, i have nice, reputable galleries showing my work, eg https://sites.google.com/site/purnevgallery/painting/mischa-vetere - the exhibition since march 16 in berlin was twice prologed till end of july 2011. i start to have real fans for my poetry as well as my paintings (i spend sometimes ten hours on one cycle - i am not that stupid to place the best works in high resolution on wiki [what martin thinks, see above]

- i say it frankly: this way of acting is how germans destroyed individuals, artists 7o yrs ago (let's not forget: BRECHT, KLEE, TM). the result of last year's 'deletion small talks' was the approval of all works by O.T.R.S. - who is martin h. to juge my work?! look how nice just this one blog is: http://vetere.blogspot.com/ - my illustrated books from early days are in collections, archives. THE HOPE-CYCLE eg helped to bring the current revolutions forward - eg the following summary is of highly educational content, was handed out as flyer at the recent conference "despotendämmerung" of the friedrich-ebert-stiftung in berlin http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mischa_vetere_pro_memoria_MANIFEST_AND_FURTHERMORE_2010.jpg - is it poor, that OBAMA, dalai LAMA, erika BURKART quoted me?, that i try to help with works to redefine important human matters: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hope_education_seen_by_mischa_vetere_2011.jpg (HUNGER!), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/be/20110224205646!Shakespeare%27s_cat_by_Mischa_Vetere_2010-2011.jpg (official copmplaint against planned apartheid in switzerland - fully adhered by the human rights commission on april 15, 2011)

i clearly think that the two named users, two unnamed, are for political reasons trying to destroy my reputation, harm my candidature - the way they act is clearly inacceptable, nothing but insults and unbelievable statements. mavart4u

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvart4u (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about your candidature, and please do not try and blame anyone here for losing a contract as you appear to be doing. Who is Martin to judge your work? He's someone who looked at it - art is judged by people who look at it.

My first deletion request was a mistake. I thought from reading the page that it was just a postcard from the 1800s, and so the bright primary colours made me suspicious. I withdrew that one when I realised you meant you had based it on a postcard, not that it WAS a postcard. The second deletion request is a perfectly valid concern about copyright of an image of Captain Jack Sparrow. I stand by that concern.

I am not trying to destroy your reputation, because that would imply I cared enough about your reputation that I wanted to destroy it. I don't care at all. I'll be honest and say I think your art is crap, but I think that about a lot of art. Art is subjective, and something that someone describes as good to someone else may seem like a pile of rubbish. I, personally, do not value your art, but I cannot make an objective judgement of it because art is subjective. I don't think much of the Mona Lisa either.

What I do not appreciate from you is what is frankly paranoia. We're not trying to "censor" you, we're not trying to politically destroy you, we're not trying to make you lose real world contracts. We simply want to keep Commons free of copyright violations. I really have better things to do than try and ruin the career of an artist I'd never even heard of three days ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

the problem i have with the concerted opinion - you do not answer why, when you first of all are not interested in art at all, in additon obviously do not understand much about it either, you go over artistic work (&judge!), over O.T.R.S. approved work of mine even (the so called 2nd deletion request) and why would you further spend your time NOW, this exact week to dicuss, not to say dispute with martin h with all disrespect and assisted by türelio again and again that i do not understand OTRS even? i tell you why: because of my candidature, this is clear mobbing (see martin's statement on your talk, his previous insult), it is to make me look bad again. my category is in order - i comply with all copyrtight needs, as OTRS know. you guys don't like OTRS, that's, mainly martin's concern... - why? isn't there the liberty of expression to respect, as h.clinton, obama re-reconfirmed jast a few weeks ago?! you're personal opinion about me, my art, in such a rude manner braught forward in addition, is of no interest to me - i don't know you, therefore allow judgments like you, an art-hater, does. i explained above, my oversight about language, your provenience; so it's no insult, no paranoya but by mistake in swiss german: stay off my category (if you intervene not even two minutes after an upload, where there is no copyright issue)! mvart4u 19.35, 28.5.11

Stop putting words into my mouth. I did not say I hate art, I just don't think much of yours. Again, I don't care about your candidature, I never have and never will. I won't be voting in the trustee elections, though you're giving me a damn good reason to vote against you. I simply don't care about those elections.

I intervened after the upload because I thought there might be a scope issue - I was watching new uploads that day, you were unlucky. Believe me, given the abuse you're hurling I wish I'd never touched your few blobs of MSPaint on a postcard. I do this sometimes, watch new uploads, primarily for any copyright violations. NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE WAS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

again: "your few blobs of MSPaint" is martin h.'s comments - i use between two to four programms, on this one just two; my lawyer in berlin would wish to know the real identity of you, türelio and martin h - this, your insulting to obviously harm my candidature - my category was until this week all in order; yes it seems bad luck to get in touch with you - with fake and abusive deletion requests, supported by named 'friends' up to 'indefinite ban', just to harm the candidature (for what other reasons?! i care about people who would vote and due to you guys ether can't or won't or will, because they see what nasty game you just played) is going a bit too far to her, especially since i am only in letigimate legal defense of your various attacks, clearly against me as artist, human being. my email is mvart4u@mar.at. i asked the founder of wiki to decide about this artificial, ridicoulous case of yours. mvart4u 29.5.11

This has already gone too far, I don't believe it's acceptable to allow this kind of legal threats to such valuable contributors as Turelio, Martin H and Mattbuck, even more out of what seems to be a tempest on a glass of water, almost out of the blue. I'm not associated in any way with any of the intervening people in this case, but I want to voice my support to a block on this person. This kind of behaviour does nothing to turn Commons in a friendly place.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mvart4u, please do not upload any more of your art to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free educational media. Your artwork may or may not be perfectly good art, but it does not seem to be educationally useful. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mvart4u; No legal threats says, "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to block people for making legal threats on Commons (which I think we should), that should be stated in our blocking policy, as I've suggested in the past. The principle seems to have stronger support in practice than the discussion so far implies. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should probably be a universal policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about this on COM:BP.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for informing me. I said my opinion: This art is not usefull. I'd personally prefer if you look for some other publishing platform - not Commons. And I'd prefer if you stop riding on the idea that OTRS is your greencard for anything... OTRS means that you once approved your identity to demonstrate that not some schoolboys abuse your name for editing here. Thats all what OTRS means. Feel free to donate a few selected files to Wikimedia Common that you previously succesfully published outside, with an serious book publisher, so that Wikipedia projects are able to illustrate an article about your person. But stop using the project as your primary publisher. --Martin H. (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that most images in the user category are outside the scope of this project. If de:Mischa Vetere uses one of his works than, I can imagine keeping about 10 of his works but do not see need for more. --Jarekt (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"On the upside, apparently the UN, Obama, Jimbo, and Shakespeare's Cat like his work..." said (joked) Mattbuck, above. I just wanted to make clear that none of this has anything to do with me, and I've not weighed in positively or negatively on the fellow or his work. Having said that, I support the ban. For me, all that I had to see was "this way of acting is how germans destroyed individuals, artists 7o yrs ago" - outrageous and unacceptably vicious attack for no apparent reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. Nobody here really assumed any association with you. --Túrelio (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Documentation of position received in OTRS ticket 2011060810009641. – Adrignola talk 14:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User requests deletion of all files in ticket 2011061010005944. – Adrignola talk 16:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Shall I do it? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Having just read the ticket, I agree with that and I would just except those images which are in actual use. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

But make sure that you write in every edit/deletion summary that deletion was requested by Mvart4u. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Roland zh

Hello. I need some help and/or advice in dealing with User:Roland zh. User seems to be engaged in pigeonholing everything, and is not open to dialogue. Every attempt at dialogue with him I made was met with continuous reversal of my messages along with laconic and borderline offensive comments in the edition summary. I've been called vandal, edit warrior and even someone with some obscure wish to make the pictures I upload prominent. This picture, for instance, which represents a rat in Calcutta, in a waste bin in Calcutta located in a Calcutta neighbourhood is being constantly deprived of the Calcutta category, apparently due to the preposterous belief that a rat is a rat like a shoe is a shoe in any part of the world. In his last edition, Roland even killed the poor animal, which is very much alive (and was set free, in fact, after the photos were taken). This is going on in a number of other pictures and categories. I'm tired of trying to explain to him about pigeonholing, about statues not being only of people, about his hasty categorization efforts being the origin of many errors, and what else. And most of all, I'm tired of being met with such aggressive and uncommunicative behaviour from his part. This is the first time I've met someone like this here, and I really need some help or advise on what to do. Thanks, --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please refer to the edits of Darwinius and Roland zh – relevant are imho edits inbetween 21:33, 8. Jun. 2011 and 23:58, 8. Jun. 2011.

My imho strictly 'logical' and imho not 'pigeonholing' re-categorisations of the uploads by User:Darwinius are marked imho without any doubts in the version histories of the files Darwinius is referring to, and – pointing on that fact — Darwinius does not 'respect' {categorise} tags, p.e. – Category:Kolkata (that and that upload by Darwinius for example) – and Category:People of India in art, i.e. that upload by Darwinius for example.

btw: my user page is marked as {busy} and please contact me JUST in case of 'REAL' urgency, and imho it's a user's decision to participate in 'discussions', or not, so i do due to previous 'bad experiences'.

Imho there's no reason to 'discuss' so obviously 'correct' and commented re-categorisations with 'hints' within the version history of the related file.

Sorry for any inconveniences, no more wasting your probably also restricted free time, with my best regards, Roland zh 00:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, if you don't have time to answer people here in Commons about potential problems with your editions, then just don't make them. I don't know where you got the idea that street food in Calcutta is not related with Calcutta - something you even remarked above - but I've never seen such logic here. And even if you are correct, the proper way would be to discuss the editions, like I repeatedly and politely tried to do, instead of revert, revert, revert and revert topping it with insults and personal offences in the edit summary. I ask you again, please discuss those matters with civility. If you have time to categorise, you must have time to discuss what you do as well. I don't believe you have a "choice" on that, really.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. In my opinion you both have something to learn about categorization. The category Kolkata should not be simply removed, because that removes geographic information from the categorization of the picture. However, when there are relevant subcategories available (Nature of Kolkata -> Animals of Kolkata -> Mammals of Kolkata), the image should be filtered down to the most specific relevant category. I have applied the correct category to that image. Finally Roland, this is a collaborative project, discussion is important - usually a disagreement means that one or both of you need to learn something, and talking is the only way to achieve that. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the street food in Kolkata, there is no appropriate subcategory in existence. {{Categorize}} says "As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into the right subcategories." (my emphasis) Roland, if there is no appropriate subcat, don't just delete the categorization (I have now restored it). Leave it in the parent category until there are enough Category:Street food in Kolkata images to make that subcat. If you're really insistent about keeping Kolkata perfectly clean, make the category now. --99of9 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When I categorised that picture I was thinking in "Waste in Calcutta" which doesn't exist, and forgot to add the city category to the rat as the mammal it is. But IMO Calcutta should still remain there as a category, since there is nothing near "Waste in Calcutta" (or there is?), and so I don't believe that the categorization was incorrect. In fact I uploaded that picture precisely and primarily because it depicted a scene of waste in Calcutta, which I thought could have an educational use to illustrate an article, even more with the rat there. What I found more insulting, actually, even more than the vandal name calling, was Roland claiming that I want to make my uploads "prominent". If I wanted to make them prominent, I would certainly chose something more dignifying than a rat in a waste bin. Something like Janis Rozentals, for instance, or Orissa State Museum in a couple of days. Indeed, the Museum pictures were the primary reason why I got to that photostream, the rat was a fait divers I found there. I never thought it would give me so much trouble and offence.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Listing this picture in category:Kolkata (as the only image in root level) was wrong. We the pidgeonholing addicts (including yours truly) go great lenghts to pidgeonhole everything, deeper and deeper, because otherwise large categories quickly bloat. Category:London now has 422 images in root, Category:Copenhagen has 930. Compared to 0 in Category:Paris and 0 in Category:Kolkata. Which is the way to go? NVO (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it was wrong, as it deals with Calcutta waste, and that category doesn't exist. In any case, as improper as it would be to place it in the top category, it would always be much more improper to remove it without adding any other location category, which was what happened. An I believe you understand that I'm using "pigeonholing" in the bad sense of the world: A quest to remove everything from top cats by all means necessary. This is not helping, this is destroying others work. If you happen to notice my categorization editions in your watch list, you will easily verify that a great deal of effort is put in cleaning the top categories - in that sense I'm a pigeonholer too - along with a similar effort to place the images into meaningful categories, which if occasionally are not the best, they are at least the best starting point to proper categorization. While doing this, I try to avoid creating generic categories to place one or two images inside which can perfectly and easily be found in the top categories - something typical of pigeonholers. The files should be easily accessible and found, that is the top priority, not designing a category tree which may be logically perfect and brilliant, but functionally is a total disaster.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Suleymanbas (talk · contribs)

This user continues to upload unfree pictures that is promotional pictures from the film company. Now the user has started to refer to a completely wrong license since some of the uploaded pictures was deleted because of no license. Please take an appropriate action against the user. -- Tegel (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Files deleted, blocked 3 days. --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Captainofhope

User:Captainofhope has the disruptive habit to renominate images for deletion till infinity as long as the outcome is not according to his wish, often when there is a clear mayority oppossing his point of view. The newest example is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Burj_Dubai.JPG (4x DR / 1x UDR). Sometimes he even announces that he will behave like that, see here. What to do with this? Jcb (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See also User talk:Captainofhope#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block sounds good. – Adrignola talk 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree his behaviour is disruptive, but it by no means warrants an indefinite block. A few days at most, and frankly more just a smack to say "don't do that". User does seem to have copyright concerns at heart though, so at least disruption is well-intentioned. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Indef block would be simply ludicrous. Work with people - don't ban them. Commons appears to have lost the habit of communicating sadly. I see quite a bit of logic and certainly good work in Captainofhope. Doubtless others will see it differently but that is why I rarely get involved in anything now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't propose a (indef) block, the only thing is that the mentioned behaviour must stop. Jcb (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Captainofhope was once in ml.wikipedia (Username: Binukalarickan), where he tried to discourage other users from contributing. He also sabotaged upload page pretending as improving the page (total 2 times, one after reverting and warning, later page protected). At ml.wp he tried Gaming the policies and best practices and at last get a warning block (for 3 days (?)). At ml.wp indef blocks are not common because community is small, and vandalisms are easy to spot.

I assume after that he changed his stage to Commons. Here, he uploaded many copyrighted images. Malayalam Wikipedians contributing Commons found some of them and deleted. Then he get renamed as Captainofhope here and deleted his all easy-to-find copyrighted uploads, old userpage, and possibly all record that can connect to his old username. Then he started nominating useful medias from India to delete, using unavailability of digital records about them (other records are hard to search and find, I am personally sure that almost all such medias are in PD :( but no proof available in web). One can see all people with Indian background responding to those DRs claiming repeatedly that those works are in PD. He usually renominate every file survive a DR until it get deleted, just because he knows that people opposing his DRs usually get tired of such nonsense. He usually tactically invite a new admin to DR page so that they are easy to manipulate.

He nominated poster for Malayalam Loves Wikimedia campaign for speedy deletion, claiming source information not included (here). I also uploaded a similar image, with no source informations ;) but he didn't nominate it, just because I am somehow more active here than the user uploaded previous image (at that time category was almost empty).

I recently saw a google buzz requesting users to upload PD images to ml.wp other than commons just because of this user.

Please check Category:Sockpuppets of Binukalarickan, File talk:AshtaSiddhi.jpg also. Once I communicated about background of Captainofhope to an admin, later I lost follow up--Praveen:talk 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of that sockpuppets comes from a history with some copyvio uploads, this has been sorted out long time ago. I cant speak for his ml.wp work cause I cant read that language, but my impression was that he tried to improve acceptance of Commons in ml.wp which is a good idea, possibly something went wrong in this efforts - guide him. I agree with Herby above. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is my cent as I have tried to reason with him multiple times in the past in mlwiki and here. I am not too active in commons, but had dealt with Binu's uploads for the OTRS sake and that was eventful. After running into issues with that, Binu called it quits and declared that he is leaving the project. After that, a few weeks later, He got himself renamed to this and knowingly or unknowingly detached both accounts from each other. I will not assume bad faith here, as he did ask for a global rename in meta (which usually gets rejected or partially done due to obvious reasons) if I remember correctly. He has also publicly claimed that he has multiple accounts across projects. He has an attitude and he is obsessive when it comes to his way of RfDs. He often assumes bad faith, sarcastic/ arrogant on his manners to fellow wikimedians and targets many images that are not easily verifiable to a non native. Please see my talk page discussion for some of my past interactions with him. He is good, infact very good at learning the policies, practices and loopholes in a project and using it for his avail.

However, I am all against an indef block or ban for him from projects, as I still see a good reviewer and an avid contributor in him. He has necessary skills in what he does and he does really well on what he wants to do or accomplish. He spoils all his good side with a few bad actions or words. I would recommend that instead of calling for a punishment, we should put him on a mentorship / probation program under an active admin who is willing to oversee him for a few months. If we can mellow his ways and mold/channelize his ability to learn and use the policies and practices for the benefit of the project and possibly himself in real life, we may be able utilize his skills on a positive way. I am a strong believer that everyone needs a second chance by nature. :). After all, we are all human and we just need to learn to co-exist.

This probably brings us to another thing to consider, as it seems that we do not have any effective limits or decision review/appeal system to limit such disruptions from people like him. Thanks --Jyothis (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"we do not have any effective limits" - nature has it: sooner or later, they either burn out, or cross the line too far. No one balances on the edge for long. Just let them have their way for a while and see. NVO (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will start from first..

1. @ Admin Jcb - Other's repeatedly ignored on his variant Keep decisions on the file and deleted by other admin's which was re-nominated by me (Mostly freedom of panorama images), Noticed file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG was in this series deleted, kept, deleted,undeleted, kept and again a keep without a valid explanation. This discussion is still continuing on admin's noticeboard.
2. There is no issue of a behaviour here, rather than ignited user's with some deletion request's. As they were never believed that such image will be deleted from commons because of a single user..Please see my user space for such ignited DR's which brings the user's and comments here.
3. Its wellknown in commons's among with another admin's that i got a rename and i would like to keep my privacy and user:praveen is again bringing up the old sack of mud for a support to this discussion, and exposing the real life identity among other's and i cannot agree such behavious from this user.
4. I do agree with jyothis, that i was not fit for a project which was in the childhood stage and without many policies, so with my actions i don't want any more harm to the project and i withdrawn from that and concentrated on common's.
5. I welcome the input's of many known ml.wiki user's againist me or regarding my DR's.
6. Hope Jcb didn't forget the discussion happened here, is it a give n take policy, I complained againis't Jcb's disruptive behavious of DR keep's and now he/she is coming back to me with same question againist his 'Keep' DR's...(Captainofhope Vs Admin Jcb) let the community decides.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with some of his methods, I do understand Captainofhope's frustration with some DR closes that appear to be solidly against policy. Some of our colleagues seem to believe that architecture, and only architecture, does not really deserve the broad copyright protection that sculpture, painting, and other arts enjoy, despite the fact that in many countries (France is an exception) all architecture has a copyright. They call out de minimis against a building that occupies the whole of an image, or "insufficient originality" against a building in a country that imposes no such requirement.

I myself have decided to simply ignore these actions. With 10,358,591 (a number that increased by fifty while I was writing this) images under our care, a few that are on Commons incorrectly are simply not worth the hassle. Better to step back and concentrate on the larger picture.

Perhaps Captainofhope could adopt a similar policy and simply walk away from such situations. Unless that happens, however, I will oppose any action to sanction him for repeated DRs that appear to me to be correct. I think that before we impose such a sanction, we should think about formalizing a "2 DR" rule -- that a given image cannot have more than 2 DRs within thirty days and that a third such DR would be a speedy close in the same direction as the last. Without such a rule, we should not sanction one of us for actions that appear to some, at least, to be correct.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 05:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't need a policy to cover disruptive DR making. In any case, the problem is not so much the number of DRs, but the same person reopening the DR. If someone else agrees with you, let them open a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I can also understand Captainofhope's frustration with some of the DR closures I have seen, given that some have been poorly justified, and I would hence be opposed to any sanctions. I understand the point that Captain should not be re-opening DRs that have just closed, and should perhaps get someone else to re-open the DR if necessary. However, I think the argument can also be made that the same user, or some pair of users, shouldn't be repeatedly closing the same DRs either. It is better if someone who has not been involved in the dispute is left to close the DR. CT Cooper · talk 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Prosfilaes and CT Cooper. It is always best to involve others -- after all, if your opinion is yours alone, it is on the wrong side of consensus. I, for one, try to avoid closing any DR where I am the nominator and any controversial DR in which I have contributed an opinion. I wonder, in fact, if we shouldn't move toward that as a rule.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Loro 2

Loro 2 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) began their Commons career three days ago by creating a deletion request with the nonsense rationale (quoted in full here) "No dispone de Calidad". Yesterday, they created 17 deletion nominations with nonsense rationales such as "El archivo no sirve para un artículo", "No tiene una descripción fiable", "No contiene descripción" and similar. In spite of an overwhelmingly clear response to several of those nominations from several different users that perhaps reading some policies would be a good idea, they continue today with several equally nonsensical and disruptive nominations. The only non-deletion request related edits by the user were also unconstructive, making incorrect move requests[9][10], changing perfectly good English descriptions to Spanish ones[11], and moving headings to incorrect locations.[12] Judging by their user talk page on the Spanish Wikipedia, they have a history of disruptive editing, ignoring policies, and refusing discussion there as well. I suggest speedily closing their nominations, declining the move requests, and either blocking or warning and closely monitoring the user. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just informed to the user. If he continue with this actions please report me so I block his account, Thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 00:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now they've gone and moved their user talk page into the main gallery namespace (Discusión:Loro 2) and nominated the redirect for deletion. Oh, and uploaded a copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Abigor

Abigor is a showing disruptive behaviour on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ajax1.nl.jpg. This is an 'out of scope' nomination of the logo of an 'out of scope' website. A promotional article about that website has been removed at NL.wiki. Abigor is a recognized troll at NL.wiki, being perma-blocked there already for a long time, see here the impressive block log. Now he is abusing Commons to trouble the NL.wiki community in their image related work. He speedy closed the above mentioned DR three times (1, 2 and 3), although there is no reason provided for speedy close and his closing statement is an obvious lie. (We are not going to need the logo of an unknown childish fan site to illustrate the article of one of the top level NL football clubs.) The original nomination was a speedy nomination by MoiraMoira, who flushed the "article" about the website at NL.wiki. I converted it to normal DR. Abigor is frustrating the processes with this behaviour. It's not without a reason that he has been blocked a lot of times and finally permanent at NL.wiki. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just about to open a deletion review on File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Libya.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for privacy violation and other various problems on nl-wiki indeed. The problems how ever are linked to commons unfortunately since pictures were uploaded by sockpuppets, removed by the account (Abigor) with the admin rights and traces of wrong doing were tried to be removed as well. Seven admins (I was one of them) and three checkusers have been involved in unravelling all the mess in the last month. The blocks were given and recently also confirmed by the nl-arbitration committee. Several pictures uploaded were made by the person behind the account Abigor but uploaded by other accounts, also voting for quality status was done by sockpuppets on commons. The net work was unravelled by combining the nl-wiki and commons data as well. I report this upon request of jcb who asked me to give some more information. It is up to the commons community to deal with matters according to their own policies of course. Relevant links are:

• privacyviolation block by arbitration committee nl-wiki
• blockmsg notifying the user of the reasons for the block and the list of sockpuppet accounts
• arbitration committee ruling confirming Delay is scokpuppet of Abigor (note - on commons Delay uploaded a picture he later wanted to be removed, thus it was nonimated and then removed by Abigor - it concerned a person called Eva Krap - I notified a commons admin via the steward channel but he decided not to act and disbelieved they were sockpuppets even).
• checkuser on nl-wiki and additional conclusions
• checkuser of the sockpuppet found today (also commons problems)

These are the accounts confirmed to be all sockpuppets as confirmed by several checkusers on nl-wiki:

• Abigor (talk · contribs)
• AbiBot (talk · contribs)
• AbiBot.nl.wiki (talk · contribs)
• Huib (talk · contribs)
• Huib (old) (talk · contribs)
• Sterkebak (talk · contribs)
• SterkeBak (talk · contribs)
• P.J.L Laurens (talk · contribs)
• Delay (talk · contribs)
• Delay1 (talk · contribs)
• Bottleneck (talk · contribs)
• Miss-Art (talk · contribs)
• Thunderflash (talk · contribs) - uploaded copyvio picture File:Sky_above_Charatte..jpg

Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

At Commons, when we disagree with the closure of a deletion request, the appropriate forum is: COM:UNDEL.

If the file wasn't deleted, one can list it a second time.

Jcb shouldn't edit war with the closing user just because he disagree with him. It seems a recurring problem with that user that he uses revert or undo functions instead of using our process.

Not sure why wasn't blocked for that BTW. --  Docu  at 11:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Abigor a vandal? What the hell? I know he's changed usernames a few times but he's always seemed pretty good here. Edit warring over a DR is pathetic, but remember you need two people to have an edit war. Let's just let it run its course and forget about it again. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have administrators such as jcb reverting closures of deletion discussions instead of using the proper process. --  Docu  at 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Docu - Strongly tempted to block both for edit warring - totally unacceptable behaviour in admins. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Abigor's speedy closures were inappropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Herbythyme, I don't think you investigated sufficiently what happened, otherwise you won't have come to this statement. Jcb (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable period in my book and totally inappropriate behaviour in admins. An admin should realise that they should seek assistance from others in such situations. Had I seen it in progress I would not have hesitated to block. As I pointed the same out to someone called Wales a while back you will understand I make no exceptions for bad behaviour. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack removed.[13] The Accounts Huib, Sterkebak P.J.L Laurens Etc etc are all old accounts, not socks, everybody knows them and there was a message about those on my userpage at the time I still had a userpage. Currently they are just used to make a big deal about something. There is no rule on WikiMedia that says you cant switch accounts.

The Account Delay Delay1 and Bottleneck are not my accounts, there was a checkuser preformed on NL.wiki and it came out negative. There has been a checkuser done also on ThunderFlash and again it was nagative.

O and for crying out load... Since when are bots socks? Get a live please... Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ow btw, I don't think its a crime also to delete a image of my girlfriend or her request when its outside to scope. And this is a story that repeats itself every year (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Abigor) Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Abigor, one thing, the checkuser wasn't negative, otherwise you weren't blocked on nlwiki. @all - I'll provide more information later today if you want. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The checkuser data was negative and you still blocked... Because I deleted the picture here on Commons... Please go to hell and never come back. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 13:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment - about the blocks at NL.wiki, please note that I was never involved in getting Abigor blocked, but the contrary, I did a (successful) unblock request for him last year, see here. I supported him for a long time at NL.wiki, but he really didn't want to function well. I don't understand why Abigor didn't stop his obviously inappropriate speedy closures when I advised at his user talk page not to provoke escalation. Jcb (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Delay uploaded File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpg as own work. The same image appears on flickr as created by Huib Laurens i.e. Abigor. It was nominated at QI where User:Thunderflash voted in support. If these are all socks than it's pretty messy. Similar issues with the other uploads of Delay, for instance File:Swan number 5.jpg is from here, where copyrighted by Huib Laurens. --ELEKHH^T 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I would really strongly urge Abigor to disband his zoo of sockpuppets. This is in my view not compatible with the responsibility as administrator on commons. As administrator you have to show your accountability in a transparant way. Abigor, will you disable this socketpuppets and stop working with other socketpuppets on commons in the future?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Croquant

A question for us, which reflects my frustration with this situation:

User:Croquant introduced a new category, Category:Coasts of Maine to a wide variety of images and categories. I suggested, on his or her talk page, that Maine has only one coast and that it should be "Coast of Maine". User:Croquant agreed that it was wrong but has refused to fix the problem, saying:

"As there are many other interesting things in the life, I'll do nothing at all. Bye."

This seems to me an attitude that we don't need here. By and large, we clean up our own mistakes. The exceptions are almost always mistakes made by former users -- either those who are blocked or those who have disappeared.

Unfortunately we have no penalty short of blocking. While I'm tempted to give the user a short block, obviously I shouldn't, since I am involved. I also wonder if a block is too much?

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly not a blockable offence. It sounds like he chose that name based on an existing precedent, so in a sense it wasn't even his mistake. I've seen admins who don't clean up their own mistakes! I'm not saying that's good, but this is a wiki, in one way or another we all clean up each other's "mistakes". --99of9 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn -- it actually took me only ten minutes to fix -- I'll do the other "Coasts" cats as well.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jim. Tout est bien qui finit bien, as we say in French. Croquant (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Bill Shakespeare spoke French. ;-) As a more general comment on the topic of penalties, please keep in mind that "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one" (quoted verbatim with original emphasis from Commons:Blocking policy). I agree that the attitude is not the most collaborative I've seen, but ultimately, we all have different priorities, and that's something we have to live with. Getting blocked isn't going to motivate anyone. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncollegial accusations by User:LX

Could someone who knows English make it clear to LX (talk · contribs) that it is not ok for him to accuse colleagues of acting underhandedly? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To give some context, that's in reference to User talk:LX#Underhandedly? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

While both Pieter Kuiper and LX have spent considerable time working and studying in English speaking countries, neither of them is a native speaker. I think they should both remember and be careful that English has many subtleties that vary from place to place, particularly across the Atlantic. The OED definition of "underhanded" is relatively mild -- I would not object to being called by that meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary, on the other hand, is much stronger, and I would certainly object to it.

Since LX appears to have spent considerable time in Australia, and, if I remember correctly, Pieter Kuiper, has worked in the United States, it is perfectly understandable that LX offered what seemed to him a mild English adjective and Pieter Kuiper took offense to the American meaning of it.

None of this should mask the fact that while LX may have chosen a word that seemed OK given his background and experience, but was offensive to Pieter, it is Pieter that removed several problem tags without appropriate discussion or edit comments.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Use simple english... :) --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Need admin involvement in user dispute

editor CutOffTies apparently has a personal grudge against editor Tomwsulcer having nominated 11 or so contributions in a row for speedy deletion with "do not see the otrs template" as the explanation. Additionally, editor CutOffTies seems to be edit warring with editor Tomwsulcer in order to keep these speedy tags in place while Tomwsulcer takes steps to meet the other editor's demands. Tom has stated that this action was only taken by CutOff after a debate took place at a Sarah Palin article. Would an uninvolved admin take a look and see if there is a way to help these two editors resolve this civilly? I'm not really too familiar with Commons, or I might try and help with this more myself.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CutOffTies

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tomwsulcer

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking File:TroyParfitt6.JPG as a sample:

1. Normally CutOffTies should have tagged them with "Missing Permission" ({{subst:npd}})

rather than {{Copyvio}}

2. Once Tomwsulcer sent permission to OTRS, he could re-tag them with {{OTRS pending}} rather than simply remove the previous tag. Even if he mentioned it in the edit summary, users who would just file description page, wouldn't be informed about its copyright status.

3. Later an OTRS member would add the appropriate OTRS ticket reference.

Given Tomwsulcer's edit summary, the sensible thing to do now would be to replace the current {{Copyvio}} tag with {{OTRS pending}}. --  Docu  at 06:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hunter4fun (talk · contribs)

Following Ulflarsen's complaint at VP I've indef'd Hunter4fun (and temp-blocked IP 85.164.242.33) for on- and off-wiki harrassment of Ulflarsen (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the indef-block. --High Contrast (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaimesaid (talk · contribs)

I have received a legal threat from Jamiesaid concerning the good faith renaming of a file ("File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif") and updating of the information on the file description page pursuant to a request by Nerêo. Please see "Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 35#Falsificación de autor", the file talk page, "Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif", and our latest e-mail correspondence below. What action is appropriate? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

E-mail conversation with Jamiesaid

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jaime Said <jaimesaid@newport.cl> wrote: Mr. Lee, I do not know who you are, but you have manipulated the information on the Map including the "French Title of the map itself". You tell me that this will be deleted. I and Patagonia Media have requested this matter several weeks and you keep saying the same, and maintain NEREO and others coordinated in this issue, in order to gain time and maintain the map with copyrights up there. We do not want to take this to another level legally, but tomorrow morning we will send this information to the chilean authorities, with copy of all communications and the issue that you maintain a Map of our property published, with copyrights, in an iligal way, used and abuse of this situation, coordinated with your media. Jaime Said Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM Mr Said, I do not know who you are either, but I disagree completely with your version of the events for the following reasons: I did not "[manipulate] the information on the Map". On 18 May 2011, I responded in good faith to a request by Nerêo for the file to be renamed, and updated the information on the file description page based on the information provided by Nerêo. "Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" is an appropriate title for the map because those words appear on the image itself. After the file had been renamed, you kept changing the information on the file information page back to an old version without explaining why. It was only on 29 May 2011 after I left a message on the file talk page that you said that the image was not the original 1841 version of the map but was a modern modified version of the map published by your company Patagonia Media in 2007. You asserted that the copyright in the 2007 version of the map was owned by Patagonia Media. I then advised you on 30 May 2011 that if your company owns the copyright in the 2007 version and wishes to keep it in the Commons, you need to send an official e-mail confirming that your company agrees to license the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licences. On the same day, I also updated the information on the file description page based on your claims. Instead of confirming that your company wished to license the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licences, on 31 May and 1 June you posted messages on the file talk page asserting that your company owns the copyright in the image. Again, I explained in a posting on 1 June that if you wanted the image to remain in the Commons you needed to send me an e-mail confirming that your company was licensing the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. I did not hear from you for the next 18 days. On 18 June, you posted a message on the file talk page claiming some form of conspiracy against you by other users. You also said "now it is a legal issue, copyrights of the Map and my Book PATAGONIA have been Violated, In this ambiance, you must understand that we will not give you the rights or licence to place our map in Wikimedia Commons or in Wikipedia at all." Since you no longer wanted the file to remain in the Commons, on 18 June itself I nominated the file for deletion by an administrator using the established Commons file deletion procedure. I have no power to delete the file myself; this can only be done by a Wikimedia Commons administrator (which I am not). It is not sensible to claim that I somehow acted together with Nerêo and/or other people "in order to gain time and maintain the map with copyrights up there" since it was you who neither confirmed that you wished to license the image to the Commons under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licences nor asked for the file to be deleted for 18 days between 1 and 18 June 2011. I certainly have not been participating in any form of conspiracy with Nerêo or other users, and completely reject any suggestion that I have as baseless. I have not communicated with Nerêo since 18 May. I do not see how you have any viable claim for copyright infringement or otherwise since it was you personally who uploaded the file to the Commons in the first place. I also do not see any evidence of financial loss to your company as a result of the renaming of the file or the updating of the information. In any case, I do not reside in Chile and therefore am not within your country's jurisdiction. Please note that making threats of legal action against Commons users is against policy and may result in you being banned from the Commons. Jacklee

This is such an horrible and sad misunderstanding - If I well understand, the user donated the map, which was mistakenly took for the original it was based upon, and has been called a falsifier and worst. Tough the accusations were made in good faith, it must have been quite harsh for him, indeed. It seems to be developing and spinning out of control now. I recall looking into this issue at the time of the requests at COM:Licensing, and I did found the original book at archive.org (which has some good plates well fit for Commons), but unfortunately the map was folded and couldn't be seen entirely, so I forgot the issue. I wonder if there is a graceful way of coming out of this mess, perhaps with some communication with the user? What he has done to Jacklee has no excuse, but the context of all this has to be appreciated. --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If an administrator feels that blocking of the uploader is warranted I have no objection to that, but I am not particularly fazed by the legal threat. I just don't think the uploader has done himself many favours with the way he has conducted himself. I acted in good faith as a filemover and went out of my way to explain to the uploader how to license the image properly, to the extent of e-mailing him so that all he had to do was respond to the e-mail which I would then forward to OTRS. It is therefore quite annoying that I am now being accused of participating in some sort of conspiracy to breach the uploader's copyrights. (I am not privy to any dealings he may have had with Nerêo or other users.) Right now I feel that the best course of action is simply to delete the disputed image, but if anyone has any advice on further steps that may be appropriate I welcome it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This probably isn't an issue any more, but from what can be seen in the folded image of the original map, it seems clear that the new work is indeed creative and original (the borders, the old ships added, etc). Yes, I believe the best path would be to delete the new map as soon as possible, but it is very unfortunate that this has developed this way, and involved you, a completely innocent part on this, in such a manner, Jacklee.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that the new image is indeed not the same as the original public domain image. It is a pity the uploader cannot be convinced to license the new image to the Commons. Anyway, I hope that we can obtain a copy of the original public domain image at some stage. Please comment at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif" if you support the deletion of the image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. This is very sad. Although the original map has a much higher historical value (and we'll probably have it in the future), the retouching and additions in this one made it visually much more appealing. But what's done is done.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We can probably close this matter. The file has been deleted, and I haven't heard anything further from Jamiesaid or his company. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs)

This user seems to insist on tagging a few public domain images with a "no source" tag:

• File:San Bernardino station, 1915.jpg
• File:Bird's-eye View of Montpelier, VT.jpg
• File:Pine Grove Springs Hotel, Spofford Lake, Chesterfield, NH.jpg

It was explained in the past to Fastily that the image is in the public domain, this isn't indispensable.

The problem is that Fastily now even blocked users over this.

Please deblock Pauk (talk · contribs). --  Docu  at 06:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cute, but lacking in many key points. I have initiated a formal block review at COM:AN#Block Review -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fastily that a valid source is essential per COM:L#License information. This must be given regardless if the license requires it or not. If it wasn't given at en-wp this file should not have been transferred to Commons in the first place. Independent from this, I would recommend not to edit-war around this but to escalate such things to a regular DR whenever someone objects to speedy deletion tags. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK... But thousand postcards (Categories:19** postcards) have Source as Scan. Old cards should be deleted too? I only wanted to moved PD-files from enWiki to Commons for using by all users (Not only in enWiki). --Pauk (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "Scan of Old Postcard" (as you claimed), but a photograph from 2002, and en:User:Brownsteve is not the author (as you claimed). You can not just make stuff up like that! It's very worrying that you still seem to think that you have done nothing wrong. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That file wasn't listed an Fastily didn't even detect that. --  Docu  at 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

...which is of course exactly why blanking out problem tags without giving notice and without discussing it is a bad thing. It doesn't get detected. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good, Fastily reconsidered his slip with the block button.

As for the "no source" issue with public domain images, it's not just limited to postcards, have a look at the 25492 files on this list (slow, takes 6 minutes to run). Looks like AFBorchert will mass delete them. --  Docu  at 11:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, enWiki needs of big cleaning. But not delete old free files... --Pauk (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to disagree with Fastily and AFBorchert, both of whose opinions I respect, but I do here. It seems to me that a postcard from the United States that can be reliably dated as pre-1923, either from evidence in the photograph or from a date on the card, should be a keeper. In the United States the date of the author's death is not an issue pre-1977 and the act of publication is obvious for a post card. Certainly it is possible to have taken a picture in 1910 and not published on the post card until 1930, but it is unlikely and how many postcards have had their copyrights renewed? -- probably none?

With that said, of course File:Essex High School.jpg doesn't fit my stipulation above -- it is obvious that it is a recent building.

The issue of censure for Fastily is moot, I think, see COM:AN#Block Review.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand well this point but at the moment our policy is quite strict in this regard. I think that if we want to relax this requirement for selected cases, we need some consensus for it and, if we indeed want this, we need a process for it. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which part of the policy linked to are you referring to when you say "quite strict in this regard"? I don't follow you --Tony Wills (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a consensus for this, the question comes up once in a while (e.g. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_6#User:AnonMoos_undoing_my_no_source_tag) and Fastily was probably already reminded about this. --  Docu  at 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Jameslwoodward, the images have a source and there is no "significant doubt" that the old postcards are PD. The source does not need to be online. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• If any user in good standing - like the uploaders in the three examples above - claims his/her upload is from 1915, then {{No source}} and other speedy delete tags are definitely inappropriate. Just go directly to COM:DR please. Wknight94 ^talk 04:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A source is required for every images, for the purpose of licence requirements, and that's the policy, if there is a change required on that policy need to be reviewed not a user - action review...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a degree of instruction creep here. "Scanned from a post card" is a description of the source. A verifiable source, does not mean that there has to be an online source. That I can not verify the source without getting up from my computer, does not mean that it is not a verifiable source. If the source is stated and we do not have a reasonable "significant doubt" about it's validity, it meets our policy. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Down6546464 (talk · contribs)

Sockpuppet of whom? --High Contrast (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sockpuppets of Fark. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)