Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


User:Fæ - ownership of uploads

Fæ (talk · contribs) is resisting cleanup of his file descriptions, see history of File:Mr Pickwick.jpg and File:Parthenon, Greece.jpg. He is restoring false licenses, removing author information, correct categories etcetera. I have tried to discuss, see User talk:Fæ#Stop deleting author information and stop restoring false licenses, but it seems that he needs some advice coming from an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a parody of my actions. Pieter Kuiper has repeatedly removed a bot template that enables tracking of bot uploads. I have explained this politely to him several times and his continued reverts appear to be becoming disruptive as pointed out on his user talk page. There is an obligation for Pieter Kuiper to ensure that he is not blanking valid information and categories, there is no obligation for other editors to unpick the curate's egg of his changes. As can be seen from my user talk page, Pieter Kuiper has been on an image stalking spree through my contributions, his allegations that I have been lying as an OTRS volunteer[1] and now that I have an problem with ownership of image pages are disruptive to my positive contributions to Commons. 4 days ago Pieter Kuiper raised a complaint about me at OTRS/N and raising issues here seems verging on forum shopping for his griefing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I also had a short discussion with Fæ on my talk page about this topic. I don't think I convinced him that tagging PD images with {{Cc-by-2.0}} was copyfraud (especially when the person claiming the right to be attributed is not even the author) and contrary to Commons' policy (as explained on the {{PD-Art}} template). He did not revert my change entirely, but added what I consider misleading information (the template claims that a bot verified the license and that "on that date it was licensed under the license included here", which is not true). Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this was not clear, the "license included here" can be seen to refer to the verified license from Flickr as included in the infobox information. If you feel the template text could be improved, perhaps you would like to suggest a change. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the template is badly worded, it's just not meant to be used in this situation. The fact that it verified a wrong license on flickr is not really important, is it? And if you're worried about preserving bot history, that's what the page history is for (if anyone ever wonders what the license was on flickr when the bot reviewed it, they can simply check the page history). But displaying wrong information just to preserve bot history doesn't make any sense to me. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template introduces a hidden category which means any problem with a batch upload (such as licensing improvements or infobox wording) can be dealt with by script. This is common practice for bots. I know of no way of using the page history to do the same thing for a batch of hundreds or thousands of files. If Pieter Kuiper insists on removing the bot template, and is not prepared to recommend a template improvement, then the minimum action should be to add the same hidden category when the template is blanked from the image page. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that hidden category. (Maybe Pieter wasn't either? It is, after all, a hidden category.) If that's the problem, then I'll make sure to add it when removing that template. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it might be a good idea to have your upload bot add that category on the description page directly. It doesn't seem like it belongs in a template about license review; it would probably create less confusion in the future. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About licenses: many users replace CC licenses with PD-art, and the public-domainness of 2D work photos is considered "official policy". However I am not sure what official means and there seems to remain dissenting voices. You may be interested in {{PossiblyPD}}.
About the tracking category: it is customary to add hidden categories through a sourcet template, would it be possible here ?--Zolo (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I agree that CC-BY license is not relevant and templates {{CC-BY-2.0}} should be removed once images are proven to be PD. I also agree that there is no legal obligation to credit Flickr uploader. However I feel like it is part of proper documentation of image source, and it is a right thing to do. A lot of people on Flickr look at our downloads as a form of stealing; I do not agree with tat view, but paying with a link back to the source and credit for the effort of scanning is a small price to pay for not alienating Flickr users.
As for "personal attacks", I have to set record straight that I did not observe any in exchanges between User:Pieter Kuiper and User:Fæ. I was only quoting the definition of wikihounding from wikipedia. I think the part I see most relevant was about "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason". I striked the rest. The way I see it, we do not have very large pool of active productive volunteers and we would like to keep them. I consider User:Fæ to be one such volunteer, and I am unfamiliar with work of User:Rebecca G or User:WhiteWriter. I understand that some actions are not going to be enjoyed by recipients, but I do not like that so many of single user uploads and edits being challenged at the same time. In my view (which might be a minority view) it crosses the threshold of stalking. --Jarekt (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately Pieter Kuiper is insisting on blanking original information about the upload, including the bot history as discussed above. Regardless on whether the Flickr source had a correct license or not, the upload background is plainly valuable information for the image page. His revert today diff shows that he intends to continue to disrupt my ability to manage these batch uploads, including having a reasonable chance of making later consistent corrections to the batch as can be seen with my current work made in good faith with Faebot. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess I fail to see anything wrong with that edit. Licensing is correct/Flickr is acknowledged etc - this does look like "ownership" to me (which is the start of this thread). What is actually wrong with his edit? --Herby talk thyme 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit removes the detail information available on Flickr, which may disappear when the Flickr stream changes or the image is deleted there. The edit also removed the Flickr verification template demonstrating when the confirmation against the upload source was done and consequently removed the category which tracks this information for future maintenance of the batch upload. As for "ownership" you will note that my edit did not change any of the additional information that Pieter Kuiper added to the image page, whilst his changes entirely blanked mine, twice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description field is for describing what is in the image. It is not for Flickr tags, Commons uses categories for that. It is not for mentioning the uploader to Flickr, it is not for license information. The Creative Commons license is absurd for this image and potentially misleading; paukrus is irrelevant. If his Flickr account would be closed, it would not affect status on Commons. Yet Fæ keeps restoring this stuff. Yes, it is history - leave it in the file history, this particular history is bunk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we agree to have this template info further down the page, not in the |permissions field? The permissions field should be for current permissions; otherwise you'll just confuse people. Historical info may be useful, but it should be further down the page. Rd232 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am prepared to get Faebot to retrospectively move all the instances of the upload template in question to be placed after licenses or after the information box, it's a relatively simple Python command. As for future uploads, I have been put off making any attempt to make any batch uploads from Flickr for the time being, frankly I could do without the depressing prospect of yet more accusations of lying, being an incompetent OTRS volunteer or being called absurd if I disagree with the judgement of Pieter Kuiper. I do have other plans for official batch uploads, but I am not going to discuss my future UK GLAM programme in this critical forum. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stay on this thread because some discussions are simply pointless. However - reflecting on this and widening it - we have a user who uploads file by bot - great - no problem.

However - it seems part of the terms of that upload is that either

  1. PK is not allowed to edit certain aspect of the bot upload information as they currently do not see eye to eye which is not a reason to prevent editing in this case or
  2. No one is allowed to edit certain aspect of the bot upload information which is ownership

I am not PK's number 1 fan but that fact that there have been some issues in the past does not mean everything said and done by PK is questionable by any stretch of the imagination and I think in this case he seems to have a point. Why should a bot operator dictate what can and cannot be edited in the upload information? --Herby talk thyme 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This example edit mentioned above removes useful information and a template used by the bot operator for tracking. Pieter could perfectly well (a) move that content down out of the "permission" field, since that seems his main objection to it and (b) ask that the bot operator stop putting the content there and put it further down the page instead, so it doesn't need moving later. Pieter's efforts to discuss this, at User_talk:Fæ#Stop_deleting_author_information_and_stop_restoring_false_licenses and File talk:Parthenon, Greece.jpg are aggressive and unhelpful. It should not take an ANU discussion to adjudicate a content dispute, and the fact that it did I put primarily on Pieter's shoulders. Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What useful information did I remove? What that was not either duplication, irrelevant, or potentially misleading? /Pieter Kuiper (talk)
The Flickr source data is not duplicated, and to say it is "irrelevant" is to make claims about future uses of information you have no basis for (eg, maybe one day someone will want to search for the Flickr user name, to check if there are problems with other imported files, or just because their images are good, or whatever). The one point of substance is "potentially misleading". You're right in your implication that it is potentially misleading to have an erroneous claim of copyright in the source from which a PD image taken. But you're wrong in your conclusion that simply removing the fact of the erroneous claim is a solution, since the link to the original Flickr source with the erroneous claim remains. What's needed is an explicit statement that (a) Commons knows that the image source claims X and (b) X is invalid because Y. Otherwise, we're leaving potential reusers to sort out a contradiction. I suggest we create (if we haven't got one already) an appropriate template, something like {{Erroneous license claim in source}}. But, again, this discussion is not one which should take place on ANU; and that it is doing is down to you. Can you at least accept that you could have handled this better? Rd232 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as a general principle, if one editor is going to systematically go back over and review an extensive body of work by another, two things should be true: 1) there should be no existing conflict that would make the reviewing editor less than impartial; 2) when the reviewer finds some systematic problem, he should try to resolve or at least clarify the dispute cordially before getting a lot of different processes involved. If both those things are not so, it would be better for a reviewer to go over a category rather than a person, or at least, pick some other person. I don't know how well Kuiper did either of these things here, nor whether Commons has any existing guideline saying to do that, but I think we should. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PereslavlFoto (2nd time)

See also the first part of discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 25#User:PereslavlFoto.

My main concern with this user is the story of description of this image: File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. It is a graffiti from a certain park in Moscow, Russia which was notorious as a place of gathering of Russian neo-nazis. So it is quite natural that the graffiti says "Down with the power of kikes" ("Долой власть жимдов!", Russian word 'жид' is very rude word for 'a Jew'). But user PereslavlFoto has its own very bizarre idea about the meaning of this word, trying to use the Russian dictionary of 1860-ies as a reliable source for it. His original explanations were removed first by me [2], then by another Russian-speaking user [3], then by third Russian-speaking user [4], and each time PereslavlFoto restored his version. Then he tried to delete the image [5], see a funny discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. And now again we can see the same activity from PereslavlFoto: [6]. What could be done to stop this activity which is totally misleading? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a message on PereslavlFoto's talk page (which you should have done). I am waiting for his answer. Yann (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several questions, so let me answer in several paragraphs.
1) I found the neo-nazis reason from the discussion with Blacklake. Having no personal experience, I looked for the mass media and found there is nothing relevant about neo-nazis in that place. Mass media say neo-nazis stayed there until 1998 — it was fourteen years ago, and twelve years before I visited the park. Maybe you take fiction for reality. The links to the mass media are in the description.
2) The description was discussed and changed by several editors, who have meaningfully corrected the text, adding the details and explanations. Your reverts appear to look as POV-pushing, as you don't add to others' work, but simply deny it. Your point of view was reflected in the description both in English and Russian variants, and accurately attributed. [7].
3) The slang word from English language has other sense than the slang word from Russian language. If you use the slang word, it will be convenient to explain the difference. Please check the translation of Gogol's «Taras Bulba», for example. The Russian slang word has several of meanings, among which the literal translation is not the most popular. Needless to say the slang words of different languages do not match exactly, being born by different cultures.
4) After several personal attacks (when I was accused in chauvinism) I thought it will be better to delete the image that disturbs others and make them insult me. When I raised DR to delete the photograph, you wrote that I do the «kind of advocacy for Russian antisemitism». Sorry, I cannot understand why removal of this image will protect «Russian antisemitism». I decided this was another personal attack.
5) At last, it is not correct to say «restored his version». After the discussions the description developed into more informative.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"POV-pushing" is rather something like this one. A.Savin 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
«POV-pushing» is rather personal attack stated in the comment. I make the full explanation, and the pusher deletes it with explanation «no games with antisemitism». As in the proverb, uneasy conscience betrays itself. Should the editor avoid games, he'd add to the description rather than cutting it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This picture does not need any additional explanations because its meaning is absolutely clear and plain: it is an antisemitic slogan. Everybody in Russia except Russian chauvinists and their advocates would understand this slogan exactly this way. And you are the only Russian speaking user pretending that this question is unclear. Your references to the Russian sources of XIX century are completely false as far as in Russian language of XIX century the word 'жид' was neither derogatory nor slang, it was quite common - but the language used to change. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you call me «Russian chauvinists and their advocates» because I asked to delete this photo?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do call you «Russian chauvinists and their advocates» because you insist on denying the antisemitic nature of the antisemitic slogan. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the description I clearly show the possible antisemitic sense of the slogan, you may see that I never denied your opinion. So I may answer, you are «the advocate of false information», because the print sources claim that neo-nazi organizations left the park fourteen years ago.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an antisemitic (specifically anti-jewish) slogan. The root of the word greedy is "жадн", and not "жид". There is absolutely no way to accidentally confuse the two. In fact there is an old soviet comedy skit where a fake nazi in the village says "Жадные, значит жиды" (greedy, therefore kikes) when talking about his neighbours. The image should remain, but nothing about greed should be in the description. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, there is really Jewish government in Russia and the slogan is against it? Any proof? And the Russian Wikipedia tells the incorrect meaning of the word?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, i do not. The graffiti is clearly not about the government, it's about the jews. That was a poor attempt at twisting my words, try again. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a word «власть» ("powers, authorities")? Well, I can see it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Power is not "government", Kike is not "greedy person". Case closed! VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Authorities are not power ones? Also, Wikipedia thinks different about figurative meaning.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing your own post after somebody has responded to it or editing other people's posts is normally considered rude. Please do not do that. It is true that there are some americans who use the term "Nigger" to mean "stupid person", but if we see "Kill all niggers" graffiti, we don't jump to the conclusion that it's somebody from "No child left behind" educational institution. Same here, somebody who is making an antisemitic graffiti is doing just that, they are not communists who fight against economic disbalance. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I do not make any baseless conclusions, but explain the situation with links to the informative sources.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, too many of debates about one photo.
1) This photo displays real object or real event. We have many historical posters of military propagation, anti-national propagation, nazi propagation, communistic propagation and so on.
2) The Author of this photo has the right not to divide the point of view or ideas stated in this slogan. I am assured that the author doesn't support the anti-jewish propagation.
3) Any editor, even anonymous, can correct or add some description to this photo.
4) The description in the version of the author has the right to existence too. However this is not widespread interpretation.
With best regards to all in this topic. -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a neutral admin could take a look on the description page of this file and compare two of its versions.

  • In this revision by Abiyoyo, the English description is the following: Terletsky park in Moscow, wooden bulletin board. "Down with yids' rule" slogan. A quite neutral sentence which describes what is seen on the picture: A bulletin board with a graffiti which means, if you translate it from Russian to English without further considerations what it could have meant, "Down with yids' rule". Not more and not less.
  • However, PereslavlFoto reverted this version by aleging Abiyoyo vandalism and now we see in the English (as well as in the Russian) description a bunch of unnessesary POVish attempts to declare what the graffiti does mean and whether it is really against "yids".

So, do we really need this kind of POV pushing here? And no, I am not going to revert this again, since it is for sure that the user PereslavlFoto will continue her edit warring in this file. - A.Savin 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Abiyoyo's variant was already there before that edit: it was, «Down with the Jewish power». This is neutral. May you explain your point of view that opposes Wikipedia? The graffiti may have any sense: either chauvinistic or political. This is fully explained in current description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it makes much sense to speculate about the meaning of a graffiti photographed and uploaded here, especially by editwarring and making "vandalism" accusations. A.Savin 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone takes full and detailed description and converts it into small and incomplete one, I think it makes a description worse, that's why I called it vandalism.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:IvanOS

This user continues to remove descriptions in Serbian, change the license without the consent of uploaders, and even to change the image without the consent of the author (basically those changes are made to remove the Serbian language from images). I warned him last week and reverted all his changes, but he did it again today. Here are the diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What do others think about this? I wanted to hear other opinions before doing anything. Thanks. mickit 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only the uploader can change the license on an image. I also agree that as a general rule, uploads over existing files should follow Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files, so that substantive changes such as the ones he made, are not allowed. I also agree that while he could add description in a new language, he should not replace one with another.
More generally, I think Commons should stay clear of regional disagreements, which appear to be what is going on here. I think each side in such things should leave the other side alone and the Commons community should enforce that as required. I see that you have warned him, so, if User:IvanOS acts up again, I think you should block him -- maybe three days to get his attention and more on any further offenses.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, of course. I didn't want to do anything before hearing other opinions, because I didn't want that my actions be interpreted as some kind of revenge. Thanks. mickit 22:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


My changes:
  • 1) When I added a description of the Croatian language, I have simply replaced the sr designation for hr and translate text. Therefore, it is mistake and I apologize.
  • 2) Changing licenses: User SmirnofLeary has published pictures under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, but some of them he published to Wikipedia on Serbian language. Then pictures from Wikipedia were added on Wikimedia by other users, but they have published them under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Serbian license, what is not license of those pictures.
  • 3) Sequence of language descriptions: It is logical that language descriptions should be ordered by alphabet, not by prolixity of description. By alphabet first goes English, then Croatian and then Serbian description.
  • 4) Changes on pictures: File:NEGOSLAVCI 1.jpg, File:Markusica 1.jpg, File:MAP OF TRPINJA.jpg, File:Borovo 1.jpg

I have changed pictures, which were set up by user MirkoS18, because on pictures about Croatian municipalities should not stand cyrillic inscription, because it is not official alphabet in Croatia. In addition, that unofficial inscription is written in the first place. User Mirko S18 on Wikipedia has made many problems, when he started to put cyrillic inscriptions on articles about some settlements in the Republic of Croatia, though they are not official in Croatia. He should know that these inscriptions should be removed from those pictures, but he probably forgot that or he do not want to do that.

As for the File: Crkva u Banovcima.png, I removed the inscriptions for two reasons: a) This picture, if it should serve a purpose, should not have any inscriptions, especially them which are not official in Croatia. b) At the bottom of the image is former, now incorrect name for the village.

Thanks!--IvanOS (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply replaced the sr designation for hr You mean like this? ...but they have published them under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Serbian license. This is not true, because bot automatically adds the license that was on Wikipedia before transferring images to the Commons. ...because on pictures about Croatian municipalities should not stand cyrillic inscription Why not? The author can choose the alphabet and you can not change his images without his consent. This picture, if it should serve a purpose, should not have any inscriptions, especially them which are not official in Croatia. Same as in the previous case. These images can be used on all Wikipedias, not just on Wikipedia in your language. Wikipedia editors will deside which image is good and which is not. So please do not you change the other users' images. Thank you. mickit 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be bold enough to rephrase a little bit what User:Micki said, because one probably didn't mean that. It is ok to alter the image that is released under a free licence, in fact the reason why Commons uses free licences is exactly so that people can do that; what shouldn't be done, however, is overwriting other people's images (thus making them inaccessible). If you want to remove an educational inscription (that is not a watermark or some artifact) please reupload under a different name under a compatible licence to the one that original user used and then link to it under "other versions" section. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Beta_M. You're right. mickit 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate username Curt Cobain (talk · contribs)

A 16-days-old user account, who seems to belong to a :ru user and who has uploaded nothing but 5 copyvios so far, has choosen the name of the famous musician Curt Cobain for his account, which I find rather inappropriate. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another I see little value in the user. The name is probably wrong - the contribs definitely wrong. --Herby talk thyme 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Indef blocked for inappropriate username --Denniss (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent copyvio closures by Yann

User Yann raised my eyebrows by blatantly ignoring copyright and keeping clear copyvios (like this) with lack of FOP in Russia in place. Therefore I am asking the broader community and uninvolved administrators to overturn his decision for the following DRs:

Not sure about this one for the special situation about russia, but in relation to discussion result from [8] decision seems similar. --Neozoon (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overall OK if you have an issue with a specific picture from this bunch it needs to be discussed seperately --Neozoon (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
decision looks ok for me --Neozoon (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not see any copyright issues with these files, correct decision from my point of view --Neozoon (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Does lack of FOP in Russia ring any bells? Or the fact that design is quite original? Artem Karimov (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Karimov (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's already the same discussion on VP. Could you please stop cross-posting? Thanks. A.Savin 01:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was started after someone in that thread said that this page would be a better venue for discussion... that being said, since discussion has been more developed there, it should stay there I'd think. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artem Karimov, your indiscriminate mass deletion request are disruptive. They do not help the project. As I already told you, your understanding of copyright law is wrong. Actually some of the images you nominate show so little useful information that they may be out of scope, but certainly not a copyright violation. You need to be selective, only choosing images where there is a real original work. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Rd232

Would someone look into this?

  • Later in the discussion at Category_talk:Hidden_categories, Rd232 makes the following incorrect statements:
    • "since November 2010 these categories have been labelled "Non-topical/index" when shown at the bottom of File pages"
    • It seems that Rd232 still hasn't found their way to file description pages as there is no such things on file description pages.
  • Further on his comment, Rd232 seems to suggest that me (and Mormegil) haven't following proper channels before implementing a change. This despite that we followed a proposal made on the guideline on categories (Commons:Categories).
  • It seems to me that Rd232 is violating Commons:Talk page guidelines and misleading that community by substituting his own proposal to mine. As he doesn't seem to understand the topic well, his comments seem confuse users further.

-- Docu  at 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've no idea why Docu feels it appropriate to come to ANU with this (demanding some administrative action) without discussing it with me first. I guess he was right about the summary I added (it was very late at night when I added it; I couldn't sleep but was very tired); but I was just trying to neutrally summarise what I thought was being said. Anyway I've now moved it down to a new subthread. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've corrected the "Non-topical/index" error in my summary (it applies to category pages, not file pages - I had it right and then changed it... I was looking at the code in MediaWiki:Hidden-categories... I was tired :) ). Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was made when the talk page I mentioned had the following form:
Category_talk:Hidden_categories#Moving_to_.22Categories_with_HIDDENCAT.22
It seems to be repeat problem that you keep editing other users comments, rearrange threads and hide sections you don't like. You even make non trivial edits to your own timestamped comments without noting changes. You even continued doing that after this was brought up here.
If you keep dealing with requests to administrators while not feel well insisting on "amount[s] of discussion", it seems that you are somewhat misguided. You should consider limiting your administrative contributions to non-talk pages. --  Docu  at 13:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to respond to the vague points you mention you'll have to be clearer and more specific. And by the way, edit requests are only for uncontroversial edits or edits with a clear consensus - and one person agreeing with himself does not qualify as "consensus". That's especially true when it's a site-wide change, where more input is needed. Finally, your November 2010 edit request introduced a difference between the English interface and (as far as I can tell) all other languages, with no attempt to do anything about it. For a multi-lingual site like Commons, this is not trivial. It's bad enough having missing or incomplete translations, without changing English definitions without any attempt to get translations updated. Rd232 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rd232 in regards to the edit request - there is not consensus for a name change yet, so the edit should not be made until consensus has been achieved. Also, this seems like something that could be very easily solved with a friendly talk page notice. Not sure why the editor felt the need to bring it up here. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Rd232 has been requested not to tamper other users talk page comments in the past, but still persists. This independent of the question whether he understands categories at Commons or not. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tamper [with]" implies bad faith. Please do not make such remarks without evidence. Also, just to be crystal clear, the text I added which looked like it might have been attributed to someone else because of its location at the top of the thread was put there as an introduction to the RFC which I started in order to not merely block your totally premature edit request I had declined. I was trying to be helpful, and made a formatting mistake due to tiredness. Most people would manage to have let that go by now. Rd232 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tm

User:Tm repeatedly inserts unsuitable photos (from Flickr) and inserted the wrong category. Example of category: Category:Rail tracks and this photo: File:Blond woman on rail tracks 02.jpg, File:Blond woman on rail tracks 01.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 04.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 03.jpg, File:Blond woman in rail tracks 02.jpg, File:Berounsky Petr Koleje rijen 2010.jpg. These photos do not belong to the category Rail Track. I ask the user to check and added photos. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even posted to his talk page. Both of you used HotCat to add and remove Category:Rail tracks, so there hasn't even been edit summary discussion of the issue. Why don't you try discussing it? It's certainly a disputed point whether these files should be added to the category Rail tracks; like issues have come up on the Village pump and other places and not been clearly resolved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have you bothered notifying the user, as the top of the page asks you to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calls to ignore copyright by user:Andshel

User:Andshel calls me to disregard copyright by "fighting fat art persons".[9][10] Please isolate this user from Commons ASAP before he really starts uploading copyvios. Thanks. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to discuss with the user? No. Please stop notifying people here for no reason, it is bordering harassment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf? Banning somebody before they have ever done a single misdeed is simply not the way to do this. Oh, you were just trolling... then never mind... VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that Andshel should be watched, and if copyvio will start coming, one should be blocked, first termporarily to cool off, and then permenantly. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tvstrela

Please block Tvstrela for continuing to upload copyrighted logos even after receiving an end of copyvios warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for one week.  ■ MMXX  talk 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong user name

My user name is "Juan lacruz", is it possible to capitalize the surname to become user "Juan Lacruz" ? Thanks in advance

Juan

Please see Commons:Changing username. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wetenschatje

Hello,

Wetenschatje has been edit warring Angelus' valued images nomination (see User talk:Yann#VI images). After a warning, I blocked him for 3 days. However, I would like another admin to intervene for I don't want that this block is seen a personal issue. I removed the block. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request to stretch the blocking time cos w.s. is cheating here. --79.27.139.77 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the reason why Wetenschatje was unblocked. His behaviour will not chance as he did'nt chance his not compliant to rules given contra. I disbelieve that we will an improvement in his disturbing activities. But we will see. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yann could be considered involved as an admin (at least I do), and it was good judgement of Yann to reconsider and unblock W.S and post here for second opinions. Thank you!
It is pretty clear from W.S. latest post at the VI talk page that W.S. no longer wants to be a part of the "vanity circus" at VI (his words). As I have known W.S. for years, he is not likely to participate in VI again when he makes such a statement. Thus, no reason to reblock now, as there is no risk for future disruption. Whereas I think some of W.S. edits were disruptive (and very annoying), I have no doubt that they were done with the best of intentions for the project - to keep its standards high. However, his edits to scopes were done against clear community consensus in a POINTy manner.
Having said that, I think the aggressions against W.S. has bordered a witch hunt. I do think the VI community should be a little more open-minded to criticism in the way things are done and a little more roomy. W.S. actually had a point. --Slaunger (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Auto insurance

All of this user's edits have been to spam the webste of an auto insurance firm onto insurance-related images. I have undone all the edits, but the editor should be blocked to prevent further disruption.

And if anyone could point me to where I can request rollback, I'd be grateful. I have it on en-wiki and have found it to be useful. It would have come in handy just now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and you now have rollback. Cheers! Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miniotx

Is a bit of a problem user over in the English space. Now he has decided to migrate over here to pursue his very strange agenda regarding Opel/Vauxhall. Mysterious removals of categories and countless "see alsos". User also doesn't communicate very well, I have only once seen a response to a query.

More problematic is his steady stream of copyvios. Every single image in his gallery is stolen, many with Opel or Vauxhall given as sources but many with "own work" stated. I marked some images as copyvios but quickly realized that Miniotx hasn't created a single image itself. I suggest a removal of all of these files and a warning which could be turned into a block if there is no response. Oh, and how does one acquire rollback rights?

File:Opel OPC 2011 logo.jpg
File:Vxr logo 2012.jpg
File:Opel combo 01.jpg
File:Opel zafira iaa 01.jpg
File:Opel combo 1.jpg
File:Opel zafira tourer 1.jpg
File:Opel zafira tourer 2.jpg
File:Opel logo 2009 .png
File:Opel insignia blitz.jpg
File:Opel Astra OPC 2012.jpg
File:Opel logo opc grill.jpg
File:Opel opc 2012 logo blitz.jpg
File:Opel Mokka.jpg
File:Opel Corsa OPC 2012.JPG
File:Opel corsa opc facelift.jpg
File:Opel Mokka 2012.jpg

Mr.choppers (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that looks familiar. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug youvan

It appears to me that Doug youvan (talk · contribs) may be attempting to use Commons to harass User:Kraaiennest (en:User:Crowsnest), e.g., Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_.... [11] This may be in response to incidents on en.wiki, where Doug youvan has been blocked since 2008 for block evasion and disruption, and off wiki.[12][13][14][15] I suggested that as an involved party that he not discuss the work of Kraaiennest (Crowsnest).[16] He chose to ignore my advice. His comment to Kraaiennest, "Please be aware that I am not criticizing you..." seems disingenuous to me based on a careful reading of his other posts in that section and User talk:Kraaiennest.[17][18] "$10,000 Donation to the WMF, if ... anyone can prove that the attribution of 'File:Deep water wave.gif' as 'own work' is true" strikes me as a implicit and unsubstantiated allegation of bad faith.[19] While we neither endorse nor dispute actions taken by other wikimedia projects, nor do we judge Commons users on behavior that occurs elsewhere, we strongly discourage users from importing conflict from elsewhere to Commons. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not all all like his comment that he was emailing colleagues of Kraaiennest. It would be a very good reason to block him /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=66807263"