This user is circumventing the outcome I determined for images that were previously nominated for deletion, ignoring the arguments made in the most recent undeletion request and the second undeletion request and has renominated [1] two of them. He also added a no source tag to one when arguments were specifically made that these were inspired by photos in general and not derived from specific photos. I don't appreciate people renominating images until they get the outcome they want or circumventing process. – Adrignola talk 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please report Rama then, who kept pushing for undeletion, after a previous undeletion request had failed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-nominating does not harm but if it is with the same group of peoples then it will not have a good result..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it's completely fine to nominate something for deletion after an undeletion request. Undeletion request is not a "higher court", opinion of an admin on undeletion is not more important than an opinion of an admin on DR, so basically undeletion after deletion is just a return to the pre-deletion status quo. Moreover, DR and UDEL are not symmetric -- non-admins can't see deleted pictures discussed on UDEL, so discussions on UDEL are inherently crippled, and it's reasonable to initiate a new DR discussion if someone is not satisfied by the UDEL request outcome. Trycatch (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Şahzadə (talk · contribs) asked me to unblock him (see User talk:Axpde/Archive 3#Why?), he claims to be no sockpuppet as stated by User:Martin H. in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sortilegus, he's just using the same IP as Sultan11 (talk · contribs) ... what do you think? They missed to indicate this right from the beginning ... a×p_de^Hello! 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of processes here. I know what I am doing on en-WP but this looks a little different.

User:Kumarrajendran has been uploading images for some time now both here & on en-WP, quite a few of which have been of uncertain origin and some of which were certainly incorrectly licenced etc. A contributor copyright investigation was filed at en-WP following yet another discussion on the user's talk page there.

The user was blocked for a while & is not communicating much. Worse, similar behaviour started once more yesterday. There has been a suggestion that the user is related to some of the Indian politicians whose images he has uploaded but it appears that even if this is correct then their statement regarding ownership of copyright only applies to the older images that have been uploaded, as s/he is a descendent.

I have spoken with the blocking admin at en-WP and was advised to raise the issue here as that admin is also "aghast" with what is going on.

Thoughts on how to deal with this situation would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He or she has uploaded only one offending file recently here -- his only recent upload, which I have deleted as an obvious copyvio. I have also put a warning on his or her talk page. One problem does not warrant a block.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

However, I have blocked this user on en.wp for the same problem [2]. There are multiple uploads there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ww2censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have become convinced that Ww2censor is incompetent and should be forbidden from nominating files for deletion. His latest gems are nominating a couple of photos taken in 1943. He demands that the Flickr user, who gave permission to upload, "prove" they were taken by himself. How, pray tell, is he supposed to do that? That moronic logic would rub out every personally-taken photo in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't give us a link, but I assume the case is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shibe Park 1943-3.jpg. It seems to me that the DR is entirely reasonable. While we Assume Good Faith as a matter of policy, we have here a 67 year old photograph taken from Flickr. The Flickr source page does not say anything about the photographer. It appears at first glance to be simply another sourceless fan pic from Flicker. I might well have done the DR myself.

I will add that the only violation there appears to be your unwarranted personal attack:

"What are you using for brains, anyway?"

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given your equally-ignorant reaction to that picture, I should ask you the same question. The author says he was born in 1922, so he would have been 21 in 1943 when the picture was taken. More telling is the fact that it appears nowhere in Google Images except for the Flickr page, so it's unlikely he ripped it off from somewhere else... and it's obviously not of professional quality, so it's indeed likely to be a fan's snapshot. That reasoning is, of course, beyond the abilities of the average deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While I can follow your and the other keepers' reasoning, let me make 2 things clear to you, personally attacking other users does only weaken your arguments, and after your next attack you'll get a break. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First you need to block ww2censor on the grounds of incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Being mistaken is not a blockable offence. Making personal attacks is (just as it is on Wikipedia, as you know). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is hereby blocked for 24h for continued personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Baseball Bugs' vitriolic attack, both here and on my talk page, are totally inappropriate, and I see he has been admonished for that. My Flickr review of the images I nominated for deletion were entirely proper based my experience of reviewing both copyright and non-free images for several years here and especially on the enwiki. As we all know there is a lot of Flickwashing going on, so, because I did not find any evidence these 1943 images were actually taken by the Flickr uploader himself, nor did I find the 1922 birth date, but I did see the word "probably" in the file description which was one of the reasons that made me question if these were really his images, hence I nominated them for deletion as questionable, not a copyright violations. Baseball Bugs has claimed they were taken by the uploaded (I don't know how how he knows that for sure) but he says "In communications with the user who asked permission to put it on wikipedia", while other say the uploader was born in 1922. If he had communication with the Flickr user then he should easily be able to get OTRS permission to verify the images. Deletion discussions are designed to determine the status of the image if possible, and I am entirely happy to keep any properly licenced images. BTW Google image results are no measure of the status of any image found online and numerous free images cannot be found by Google or even Tineye.

I don't do drive-by deletion nominations but carefully consider several factors, however, I suspect Baseball Bugs was already angry because a non-free stamp he used in the same article Shibe Park, an article that already contains many historic image, where some of these Flickr images are now being used was nominated for deletion by me recently on the enwiki and was deleted despite his protestations. Ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You won the stamp argument despite a lack of consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I question the logic behind your decision to nominate those Shibe photos for deletion. It suggests someone who's in too big of a hurry to delete something without spending a minute or two looking into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Question the logic all you want on the DR. I see no bad faith here, or egregious misjudgment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What you actually see is an editor so anxious to delete stuff that he didn't bother to ask the uploader about it. Inadequate communication, typical deletionist "F.U." attitude toward uploaders, admins posting obscenities on talk pages... somehow I expected better from the folks on commons, goddess knows why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 19:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance. Simple fact of life. You are right however, what I said was uncalled for and I apologise. However, I still think you are taking things far too personally - deletion requests are essentially people saying "I have some concerns about this image, could you guys please tell me what you think about it?" It's not meant as an attack, it's out of concern. You call people deletionist, damn right we're deletionists here. If something has a copyright issue, it is much better to just remove it than hope no one cares. The issue that was originally raised was about copyright status, and frankly it was a perfectly valid inquiry. We get a lot of people claiming copyright over things they have no right to, so when something looks suspicious, we nominate it for deletion to get others' input into it. Then if consensus agrees there is a copyright problem, it gets deleted. If people think otherwise, it doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance." Which is exactly why I filed this complaint against a very annoying user called ww2censor. Yesterday you blocked me for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". The reality is that it is ww2censor who engaged in intimidating behaviour and harassment, by taking an aggressive and ignorant stand against an uploader. None of you bothered to take even 1 second to look into the discussion around this picture. Nor did you all demonstrate even 1 iota of logic. An amateurish photo taken by a guy in 1943 who's now approaching 90, and your gripe was that he initially couldn't recall for sure what year he took it. I have to ask again, what are you all using for brains? Until demonstrated otherwise, I have to assume you and your ilk don't care about anything except your insatiable desire to delete anything you don't like, and will continue to be annoying impediments to the rest of us who are actually trying to build instead of destroy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more simply: Would it have killed ww2censor to ask the uploader a question instead of just trying to shoot it down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it have killed you to respond to the DR as if it weren't an attempt to shoot it down, instead of making a huge fuss over it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I responded to what it was, which was an attempt to shoot it down, pure and simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Commons' "ilk" gets a lot of copyvios and garbage that volunteers sift through daily. I'm not sure you're very familiar with how this wiki runs, otherwise you might more clearly understand the community's SOP and how one ought to act. It's poor form to make judgements without that knowledge. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, here's what's going on: Having won that illegitimate victory on the stamp issue, ww2censor was emboldened, and specifically targeted the next upload from the same user. Only this time he's not getting away with it, because all the respondents have repudiated his ignorant attempt to clobber a 68 year old snapshot taken by a now 89 year old man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you have killed ww2censor if he asked you a question? I'm going with yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm irritated with him because he did NOT ask a question. I welcome questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See, here's the thing of it... We've had a boatload of discussion about various Shibe Park photos. We've been careful to distinguish those that are public domain (such as LOC) vs. those that are off-limits (Temple University Archives, for example). One of us had private discussions with the owner of the pictures in question, an 89 year old man who saw the game in 1943 (which he confirmed by checking a logbook he had). If ww2censor had asked somebody about the picture or done a little research, instead of turning his anti-aircraft gun on it, all this rancor could have been avoided. Instead, he took the "F.U." stance and basically got what he gave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All this rancor could have been avoided, if you hadn't started the shitstorm here. Frankly, the only offended person I can see here is you. As has been explained, a deletion request is just a request for comments. If you had simply given your opinion in a friendly manner over there and not started throwing allegations at people, the deletion request would have been closed as usual and everything would have been fine. Instead you are insulting long-standing users and behaving rather impolite. The way I see it, you are currently heading with high speed towards a longer block. Please stop this and calm down. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got it wrong through and through, but that's par for the course here from what I've seen. The rancor could have been avoided if ww2censor had done things in an ethical way from the beginning. A "deletion request" is not a "request for comment", it's a request for deletion. If you want to call it a "request for comment", you should call it that. P.S. If you block me again, maybe I should take the Alexander Liptak strategy, and demand that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 08:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Merely to say that I agree with ChrisPK. Take some time out and get to know Commons better. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it all too well already, and I am not impressed. The way they botched the Alexander Liptak case continues to prove to not be just an anomaly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One more time:

It is not the job of a DR nominator to do anything but ask the simple question "Is this image OK?" and let the community respond. There is simply not enough time available from those who work here to seek out the uploader of each image -- who may not be active at the moment -- and wait for a response to a question. We delete around 1,000 files a day so, inevitably, speed is important.

You have repeatedly said that Ww2censor should have asked you about the image. That is precisely what he did, putting a notice on your talk page, and asking the question in the DR. The only difference between what you have been demanding and our well established practice is that the question is asked in a very public place, one that hundreds of editors look at on a regular basis. That means that even if the uploader does not respond, others may do so (as they did in this case) and the image will be kept.

Except for your misunderstanding of our ways, this would have been a routine DR, closed as keep, as around twenty percent of all DRs are.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment It is actually rather sad that people think a deletion request is merely a "question". No, it is a deletion _request_. If you don't want to have the file deleted, don't file a request. For questions there is Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment No, I don't think so. It is true that it is not a perfect name -- perhaps it should be Status Determination Request -- but it is often used as a question. If you read a lot of DRs you will often see experienced users, including me, say, "I'm not sure of this, what does the community think?" or words to that effect. The fact that it is not at all certain is borne out, as I said above, by the fact that around twenty percent of DRs are closed as Keep.

We suffer a little from the fact that we have many places where one can ask questions -- on the user's talk page, here on ANB, Deletion Requests, the help desk in five languages and 43 different language Village Pumps. A DR has the advantage for this kind of question that it has the most eyes looking at it and is a definitive answer. The English language Village Pump gets many fewer eyes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So if you as an admin are closing a DR you are not _deciding_ it but merely answering a question. Maybe you should read your job description again. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jim, while I see what you are saying, I have to disagree. I have never brought an image to COM:DR unless I think it should be deleted. I'll sometimes include a comment that I could be persuaded in the other direction, but otherwise, my default belief is that it should be deleted. Otherwise, I leave it alone or ask a question elsewhere as Cwbm says. Wknight94 ^talk 14:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I see no reason to believe that Baseball Bug would have responded any better to a question anywhere else. In any case, the nominator has the right to believe that this image should have been deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're 180 degrees wrong. My complaint was driven precisely by the fact that the guy nominated a photo for deletion without having asked anyone. ww2censor had NO right to believe that the image should have been deleted. As someone pointed out on that page, his assumption that "old people don't use the internet" is a horribly bad-faith conclusion - and speaks to the competence (or lack thereof) of the ww2censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be driven by the fact that you have a grudge against the guy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor had not taken the approach he did, there would have been no issue. Had he spent even 1 second looking at the lengthy discussions the uploader has had about Shibe photos, it would have been obvious to him that there was no issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Per Baseball Bug's threat to claim that all of his uploads are copyvios, I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Metrodome with new roof.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• And I've commented there. Just stop. How silly. Wknight94 ^talk 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  And I have closed it. Please do not disrupt commons just to make a point. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Matt, I'll thank you not to assume other editor's motivations.

This was a serious deletion request. I've recently been involved in the fall-out from two editors who suffered a fit of "uploader's remorse" and decided that previous licences were henceforth revoked. Both situations were a damned nuisance to sort out. Such behaviour makes the future of Commons re-use deeply problematic and we mustn't allow such behaviour to take root. For an established editor like BaseballBugs to start throwing around such a strategy so lightly is very worrying indeed. Can we really rely on such content? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to commend you for your spot-on interpretation of the alleged "suspicious" nature of the photo in question, and which I've previously cited without crediting you: "The nominator's strongest reason for any suspicion here would seem to be "Old folks don't use the Internet", and nothing more than that." That goes directly to the (in-)competence of the nominator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but our agreement over a DR is no indication of support for your threat of a highly dubious copyright claim on your images. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate if you weren't involved in the Liptak incident, since you might have been able to help provide a better result than his little con game actually yielded. I'm not sure where you think I lied about something (I may be an idiot but I don't consider myself a liar), but I should point out the key word "MAYBE" in my proposal to use the Liptak strategy. P.S. I did in fact take the Metrodome picture a few days ago - but just like the guy who took the Shibe Park picture in 1943, I can't prove I took the picture - you'll have to take my word for it, just as you do with any other uploader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So saying maybe makes it okay to threaten to grossly violate policy and be dishonest and unfair?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, to threaten to lower myself to Liptak's level and similarly con the Commons leadership? No. Why do you think I keep bringing up his name? As admins have said more than once, the folks who run this joint, just like those at wikipedia, need to be reminded of their faults from time to time. (I certainly get plenty of reminders of my own faults, I assure you.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 18:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What faults? You want to pony up the $20,000 it would take to fight Liptak in court? I personally agree completely with the decision to cut the drama and get rid of Liptak completely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He uploaded those illustrations for the purpose of advertising his personal website. They were edited to remove his signature/watermark. He spent a year fighting to get them deleted, since his advertising scheme had been foiled. He used a variety of tricks, none of which worked. Then he hit upon something that did work: Legal Threat. He made a totally bogus claim of copyright violation in order to accomplish his goal. He's one of the weaseliest characters I've ever seen here or on wikipedia. So he's indef'd. Big deal. His purpose was to advertise, not to contribute. Once he could no longer advertise, wikipedia ceased to be of any use to him. And the so-called "leaders" of commons bought into his fabrications, hook-line-and-sinker. I've seen nothing since then to suggest that the leaders here have any more of a clue about anything than they did six months ago. "What faults?" That's funny. Reminds me of Eye-gor: "What hump?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WMF as a service provider is legally obliged to follow DMCA takedown notices, even bogus ones like that. And as far as I understand anybody could reupload these pictures and then to file a DMCA counterclaim, however nobody (including you) did this. I fail to see any fault made by the "leaders of Commons" in that situation. Trycatch (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no one here provided that good advice at the time. They basically said "dat's dat". Thanks for providing yet another example of incompetence at the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually this advice was provided from the start (see the original discussion Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#DMCA Takedown demand). Trycatch (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you'll drag an unrelated drama into this does not make at all inclined to privately discuss problems with photos you've uploaded with you. Make one move you disagree with, and you'll apparently hang onto it forever.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not one, but one of a growing number of screwups by various characters here, and they need to be reminded. It's what admins at wikipedia have called "keeping their feet to the fire". All this can go away if ww2censor withdraws his deletion request. It was a bad-faith nomination based on ignorance and prejudice, which others here have called a "mistake". I don't care if he owns up to his ignorance, prejudice and incompetence; but he could demonstrate some competence by fixing his "mistake" and withdrawing the deletion nomination - and then hopefully learning from that mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an established principle at WP, which I understand to be the same here, that an editor can invoke any legal process they wish - as there's little that WMF can do to stop them anyway. However such a practice is incompatible with editing here. As the only part of this that is within WMF's control, such a threat becomes an automatic blocking.

If BaseballBugs' word can be taken as remotely serious that they intend to contest their previous licensing, then I would see this as putting them into a similar position. They can of course do this, however any editor that does so makes themselves persona non grata with the aims of the project and thus their continued ability to remain part of it. The two are simply incompatible. If so, then such content should be removed, and it should be removed forthwith, to reduce the risk of further entanglement developing for the future. We do not need or want content that has any contentious threat hanging over it - we're better off without. If editors even make such threats, we're better off without them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Several persons have pointed out the problem with your approach. Instead of reflecting on it, you keep on demanding, that people bow to your will. I once again recommend you to leave this discussion for a while and return when you are calmer. Continuing this discussion in this way will not lead to a favourable outcome for anyone. I recommend closing this discussion here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to continue stonewalling by closing this section, feel free. I have reflected on it. It further reinforces what I've already suspected about this site. Thanks for your contribution to that furtherance, and especially for standing up for ww2censor's continued cluelessness. P.S. I am totally calm. And I'm heartened to see that there are at least a couple of other users in this section who have a considerable clue. Needless to say, you're not on that list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It would really be nice, if you refrained from categorizing people as "clueless". That is a personal attack. I will, however, let someone else take care of that. I'm done with this discussion. Good night, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't and won't stoop as low as Baseball Bugs uncivil personal attacks, which he continues to make, but will point his some of his issues. He fails to remember that the burden of proof lies with the uploader to provide all the necessary details so there is no need to question an image's copyright status. It is not up to other editors to go asking questions of the uploader or the source. The uploader, Delaywaves, politely replied on the deletion nomination pages but not so Baseball Bugs. Why is he so angry about other editor's uploads? If he has such a high level of concern about these images he could easily have discussed it with Delaywaves and added appropriate information for clarity without the moaning and incivility. Bugs also mentioned consensus in deletion discussions but seems to have forgotten that it does not matter how many posts are made for keep or delete, the closing admin will make a decision based on policy and guidelines, and not by the quantity of posts one way or another. Put your bugs away and get on with constructive editing instead of wasting time with all the hot air. Ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been in dispute with Foroa over the a number of UK geographic categories: Specifically where the subject of the category in question, is arguably the primary topic for that term. I believe that if the subject is the primary topic, it should not be disambiguated and this view is supported by this discussion on the VP, this move discussion and the categories such as Category:Dogs which are ambiguous (domestic dogs, wild dogs, bands etc). Foroa believes there is no such rule on Commons.

The existence, or otherwise, of a primary topic rule is not the problem here, though a sensible discussion about it would resolve the problem in longer term.

The more immediate problem is Foroa has been speedily moving cats in line with his viewpoint [3], even though the category move is clearly disputed [4]. A disputed move should be discussed (either via CFD or a {{move}} discussion) and consensus established before implementing. He has also abused admin rights in pursuit of his views, by using CommonsDelinker inappropriately [5], the instructions state "Do not request name changes that you know may be controversial".

I'd like him to stop acting unilaterally, and instead try to establish consensus on what to do with the disputed categories. This would eventually involve discussion of the primary topic rule, its scope and applicablity, but this general discussion should not prevent the individual cases from being resolved.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I move only for disambiguation when I notice that several images are miscategorised or categorisation bots are plain wrong. Of course, people find "their" place very often the "primary" topic. In Commons, there is no rule for primary topic as they are very much country and language dependent. We are only more tolerant and make a couple of exceptions for major capital/historical cities for historical, practical and national/religious symbol reasons. --Foroa (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not have moved that category (and disambiguated), when you knew the move was disputed... If the bots are wrong, that may be a problem with the bot not the category, and the category should not be moved solely to serve the bots (as I pointed out on your talk, the move won't help in that specific case anyway).

"Primary topic" does have the subjective problem you mention, but that issue is not unresolveable - en.wikipedia mostly manages it, despite many shared name topics in the USA, UK, Australia etc, but the national groupings of editors can still reach agreement in the end. We are different as we have to serve all languages, but when all the topics relate to a single language (or even better single nation) it becomes simpler. The "exceptions" are part of that rule, people looking for "dogs" are overwhemingly looking for domesticated dogs, and thats true regardless of their background. Those exceptions are not exceptions at all.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself what anyone from any culture is likely to be looking for when they look for "Chicago", "Perth", "Gun". If you are getting a consistent answer then there is probably a primary topic. If not, then there probably isn't one.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The logic is amazing. Because you voted against the disambiguation of _Melbourne_ you claim that the disambiguation of _High Peak_ is implicitly disputed. Shall we take it that any disambiguation needs your permission now? And to be clear: High Peak is a clear case for disambiguation. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm I voted against the disambiguation of Melbourne yes. I also explicitly disputed the disambiguation of High Peak [6], there is no inference from the other. The opposition is due to the fact High Peak is the primary topic (and the Melbourne case is an example of how we have primary topics on Commmons).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The key request here is that Foroa does not "speedily" disambiguate a page, but should always use a {{move}} template to propose the move before actually doing it. Once its done it can be complex to reverse if that's what consensus wants. This gives anyone who objects a chance to object, and what's obvious and clear-cut to Foroa may not be to someone else.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Rodrigues2 (talk · contribs) continues to upload obviously copyrighted material after many warnings, including a last warning on his talk page. Please block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the deletion of his last remaining upload : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panoramica-teresopolis.jpg. We can't trust his own work claims after all those copyvios, and keep this last one just because we couldn't find the copied source. --Lilyu (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Site the photograph was stolen from was found and has been speedy deleted. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wetenschatje (talk · contribs) is best known for gruffy comments and in many cases inapplicable comments and argumentation concerning voting at VI, FP and QI. His provocative behavior does not only attract attention to me but also to others. A inappreciative question of the nominator I have commented like this [7]. Not bearing the truth he deleted in an editwar this commend with various arguments (spam, personal assault, ...). Because Wetenschatje behaviors becomes conspicuous in many cases I request for help in this case. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad personam comments as this have no place at nominations and the edit war which took place at this nomination page is a completely unacceptable behaviour of you both. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This Ad personam comment was folling his ad personam activity. I just describe it, like I do here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote from COM:VIS in regard to what kind of buildings can be chosen as a scope for a nomination: Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. Hence, it is legitimate to ask if the depicted building qualifies. This comment did not help to address this point but these comments did. I do not know the whole background of your conflict but in this particular conflict on the nomination page you refered to your ad personam comment was not justified and again the edit war by you both was unacceptable. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why this building was nominated and is more than just local interest. To ask a candidate is not a problem or the point. But if you are not confident with the topic you should vote carefully and best give the voting than when the circumstance are clear. In this case Commons:Valued image candidates/Boiler house, Dornach Wetenschatje suggested that the building is part of a museum and gave therefore a contra which is verifiable wrong. His whole argumentation was disproved but Wetenschatje is starting a new rampage instead of striking his voting because of not applying argumentation. And this dear AFBorchert is a behavior I sadly follow since months now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For obvious revenge reasons (because of temporal sequence) after the conflict he gave two dubious contra for my QI-candidates [8], [9]. I recommend strongly that this user calm down instead of rampaging and foiling the candidate sides. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is yet no interaction ban between the two of you. Hence, Wetenschatje is even then free to comment on your QI nominations if you edit war in parallel. In both cases, Wetenschatje issued comments which focus on the pictures. We cannot evaluate here to which extent these declines are justified. But I think that the avoidance of ad personam comments and the participation in edit wars is surely helpful in avoiding escalations which possibly evoke emotions that could disturb sound judgements in these nominations. Even if you feel that a comment was not fair, please stay cool. If your nomination has merit, it is not unlikely that others will support you. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an obvious distracting action of him. It is up to you to approve it or to ask him not starting conflicts. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've posted some comments at Wetenschatje's talk page. I do neither approve his nor your behaviour. I would feel significantly more comfortable if you both could pledge not to participate in any edit wars as you did in this case. And, if I may say without having any overview about your previous interactions, I see a lack of kindness in both of you. I find it neither appropriate to oppose quickly about the scope of a building without apparent knowledge about the subject nor do I see it helpful to respond to such an assessment ad personam. I can just recommend to be consistently kind and patient, this builds up reputation in these processes and helps to get support. And yes, these processes have also their faults. At times I am surprised not just to see what gets accepted and what rejected but on which reasons. This all depends on the regulars like you two in these nomination processes. If we see that these processes tend to self-regulate to achieve better results, then they are an asset for Commons. If they get dominated by petty conflicts and drama, then we need to raise the question whether they do any good to Commons. Perhaps it could be helpful to raise a discussion at Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list and other similar places how these processes can be improved to avoid such conflicts. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not first time that the behavior of Wetenschatje was picked as a theme: three examples you can see here, here and here. He know how to provoke but not go too far. For sure also the reason why User:Wetenschatje playes the "bad-guy" to protect his alter ego, the "good-guy" User:Biopics, because he hazard the consequenc of being banned maybe. At least he stopped with editwar and even with editing exactly the same time I posted here at AN/U (what a coincidence). We'll see how all this will develop. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly ok to have two or more different accounts if they are not abused. In this case, the relationship is openly declared at the user page of User:Wetenschatje. If there are ongoing discussions to find a consensus to which extent buildings can have a scope, this would be a good thing. The first discussion you are referring to was surely helpful and perhaps it is necessary to find a formal consensus for this which is binding for the coming nominations. Otherwise, please apply AGF. You are both excellent photographers. Both domains, architecture and zoology are important subjects which are in the core of our repository. In many cases, arguments can have merit even if they are conflicting. You cannot expect me to solve this conflict at this board. This board is for the violation of policies which need the attention or the involvement of admins (like an ongoing edit war or uploads of copyvios). But the only working approach for conflicts in nomination processes is to look for consensus and process improvements. And in some times it helps to have the patience to let other people comment. At times it is best not to respond at all. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Could a Kazakh speaker please explain to her that she must provide sources indicating from where she produced the scans she is uploading? Also, her uploads are missing any license and are uncategorized.

Possibly Russian might work, too. Thank you. Lupo 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try, she has ru-4 userbox on her kk. userpage. Trycatch (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Hm, and an en-3... didn't occur to me to check for a user page at kk-WP. But thanks. Lupo 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seckin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in uploading copyright violations after a final warning. I have already blocked him/her at en.wp [10]. I realize this is stale by several months, but it seems more important to me that we protect Wikimedia than that we practice some online form of statute of limitations. Of course, as I indicated at en.wp, the user can always appeal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this user does not look like a good bet -- I have just deleted his or her last remaining upload (File:Zincirli Bedesten.jpg) which was All Rights Reserved on Flickr and from which he had removed the FlickreviewR:failed tag.

On the other hand, as you say, his or her last upload was five months ago, so it does not appear to fit our requirement that blocks be preventative. This is one of those cases where I wish we could put a user's contributions on a watchlist, so that we could automatically see any new upload (if that's possible, please tell me how and I will add it to my Notes for Administrators).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This could only be accomplished via a bot (and would be surprisingly easy to implement). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Claratroddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) spam-account --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

+ a puppet account doing the same thing :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I need an admin to review/comment on this user's uploads. I have identified and tagged some as copyvios (even used a fake panoramio review tag) and the other uploads have multiple different camera models in exif data or no exif data at all. I suspect they are all taken from somewhere else and are not the uploader's own work - nuke them all ?. --Denniss (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the files that reviewed by trust user maybe {{Change-of-license}} will be correct.Geagea (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no file reviewed by a trusted user - this fake tag was added by the uploader. See history of File:Masjidrayaganting.jpg. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Thanks for the good job.Geagea (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Natuzzi mandus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuked and blocked for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, some of those files had an OTRS permission added quite recently. Was that permission valid or not? --Rosenzweig τ 16:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The user has been unblocked and the files restored. We also got a second email from another Unilever representative that covered other files the first email didn't cover. You trust me as an OTRS agent and Commons admin, right? – Adrignola talk 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone review files uploaded by him. One can't be the painter himself, and the person who took the photo of the painter. Suspicious to me.--Ben.MQ (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Many artists have friends take photos of them, and believe they own the copyright to those photos. It's a common mistake, but not bad faith. Also, an artist may have a photographer "work for hire", taking photos of them working and signing over the copyright to them. It's more likely to be the former in this case, since I see he has uploaded newspaper scans and claimed copyright on them. He's probably just documenting his own work in good faith, without understanding that he can't release other people's material about him -- only material he has created. At least, that seems most likely to me. All the best, Quadell (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Japanese-speaking colleague LERK to take care of him. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Constantinople (talk · contribs) is another obvious sockpuppet of Wikinger (talk · contribs) (cf. en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger). He has been creating useless files here and trying to insert them on multiple different wikis (where he doesn't speak the language: de-wiki [11], el-wiki [12], nl-wiki [13]) through various open proxy IPs. Since this behaviour is difficult to control on the other wikis, I request blocking him here and deleting his files. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so easy. Please don't let me fell prey to various joe jobs of various vandals, like [14]. (here Leszek Jańczuk is victim, while above Constantinople is victim) Being used by vandals is not being vandal.Constantinople (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't help your case by uploading and overwriting at File:Greek_alphabet_extended.png -- something which seems to have a strange hypnotic fascination for Wikinger/CBMIBM/Piast, like a flame does to a moth... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You really seem to have been pissing off Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise with your continuing edits at en:Talk:Alpha and Omega; if you wanted to fly under the radar, it would have been better to refrain... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It was only cleaning of spotted original research. Nothing more. Constantinople (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I am partially abused by FPAS when doing good faith original research removal, I stop hunting for it by self, instead I will ask AnonMoos for guidance in each case of spotted original research. Constantinople (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinger, I don't find you as annoying as some others seem to do, and after dealing with you since 24 September 2006 (almost 5 years now!) I'm kind of used to certain of your habitual modus operandi, but I really couldn't positively approve of most of what you do, since little of it is ultimately practically useful for Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only coincidentally similar to him (he perhaps is pagan-gnostic hybrid, contrary to me, who is only gnostic), not being himself. Not only he shares similar interests, see this. How I can be Wikinger? To being Wikinger, I would belong to http://hugogegenrechts.geschichtsag-hjg.org/files/wikingjugend.jpg Constantinople (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to deny that you're Wikinger/CBMIBM/Piast, then why did you re-upload on the old Piast image File:Ugaritic alphabet.png?? (By the way, a large number of the letter-names in that image and in the related image File:Ugaritiska.png are bogus.) As for Wikinger name-choice remorse, see en:Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet#Image:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet_reconstructed_23_glyphs.png (as you're already well aware). AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I wanted only purge nonsense made by these vandals. See that Ugaritic fabrications blatantly broke http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10380.pdf reference. I simply got their list from FPAS listing directly below, which turned to be good, especially because i later failed with other trial and error OR hunt, like this with western map available at File:Westerncultures map.png. Can you point me another vandals unknown to me and to FPAS which OR I can fix here? Constantinople (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Unicode names of the Ugaritic characters are actually not suitable for use in a Wikipedia article on the Ugaritic alphabet. Because 1) They were derived by removing all necessary scholarly diacritical marks. 2) Many of them are quite speculative, and do not seem to be based on any direct ancient evidence. It's very noticeable that there's a mixture of Hebrew/Phoenician forms (yod, kaf), Aramaic forms (samka, rasha), Greek forms (delta, zeta), Arabic forms (dhal, ghain), and mysterious forms of unknown origin (hota, thanna). 3) Assigning the name "shin" to character U+1038C is complete nonsense, since historically the Phoenician letter shin is connected with character U+10398, not U+1038C. I would guess that this resulted from Michael Everson (who is conspicuously not a Semitic scholar himself) being insufficiently supervised by Semitic scholars, or being supervised by the wrong one. The upshot is that the names would be better removed from the graphic, and only the sound values of the Ugaritic letters included... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess this aspect of the discussion should be continued on the relevant en-wiki talkpage (undisturbed by Wikinger). There seems to have been some backstory, as there were several subsequent encoding proposals by different people involving different character names (the names that were ultimately chosen apparently weren't the ones proposed by Everson). But in any case, that's not for this noticeboard. It's disappointing to see there's still no admin response here at all, and the sock is still roaming free and actively seeking more opportunities for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of disruption without any proof, which is against en:WP:CIVIL. Recently I did edits recommended by AnonMoos exactly as he wanted. For now, we have all Wikinger's machinations on Ugaritic script fully thwarted. Constantinople (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: accounts currently indef-blocked on Commons include CBMIBM (talk · contribs), Piast (talk · contribs), Polaczek (talk · contribs), Immanuel Gıel (talk · contribs) (an impersonation account, note the spoofed "ı"), Archer888 (talk · contribs), Load (talk · contribs), Lade (talk · contribs), VIRGENGÅRD (talk · contribs). See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_16#"Wikinger" using impersonation socks for earlier report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A strange aspect is that he sometimes seems to edit-war against himself, slowly and over the long term (especially if User:Load is also Wikinger, something I don't know from personal experience)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's old news. He always does that. Yes, Load was also him, there's not the slightest doubt about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Familieman has uploaded various images that can be found under different flickr accounts with licenses that are not compatible with Commons. The worst part is that he claims these works to be 'own work'. You may refer to his deleted contribution and his talk page. I have deleted a number of images that are confirmed to be copyvio (using Google image search), but there are still a lot of images left and they all look very suspicious - not assuming good faith here because he's uploaded too many works that not his own. Taking a look at EXIF will tell you that the images are using all kinds of different cameras. I hope someone else can assist in investigating the files and delete if they are found somewhere else. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to second this unfortunately. I have received in the past at least one OTRS complaint about one of his uploads which was claimed as own work. I have not received a reply from Familieman on my request for more information. A more thorough investigation might be necessary of his uploads. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rama (talk · contribs) is very stubbornly edit warring over his inappropriate no-source tagging, see here and here. He has ignored attempts to discuss on his talk page. This is not the way an admin should behave. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it is part of our usual practice to put a note on a user's talk page when you make a complaint about him or her here. I have done that for you.

Second, while the repeated actions are not good, you are the other side of almost all of them, so the same complaint can be made against you

Third, while I agree that a DR would be the best way out of this, the no-source/no-author tag is appropriate and should not have been removed until the necessary information was provided.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What? I did leave a note on Rama's talk page. And Rama's tag was also removed by High Contrast (talk · contribs) and by Tm (talk · contribs). I am amazed that you regard this use of {{No source since}} as approptiate. Speedy deletion (slow speedy) should only be used for obvious cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we had a timing problem on the note on his page -- I started my response above before you posted the additional comment to the existing thread there, which I didn't see. Sorry about that part of this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Though at first I might also have added a no-source/no-permission tag, at least after the resistance of several other users and considering the serious discrepancies between the 2 "versions" of the same image (it's even unclear what the situation was, either German soldiers marching in or French soldiers marching out of Paris), a further simple no-something tagging was insufficient and a DR was clearly indicated to finally solve the whole mess. Nothing serious, but unnecessary. --Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is only serious when done by non-admins? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I focussed on the tagging business, which you often criticize as inappropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, for the record:

1. Pieter Kuiper is a troll. As the standard procedure demands in such cases, I will cheerfully refuse to aknowledge his existence, except for the reverting of those of his gimmicks that directly hurt Commons. Like, you know, removing copyright tags. By the way, why the presence of Pieter Kuiper is still tolerated, and much less his removal of copyright, is quite beyond me. Can't the so-called "community" invent one of these bans to stop him interacting with me, so that there'd be something square to block him about next time ?
2. The others are not trolls, but they still have no right to simply remove a copyright notice. If they feel that this requires discussion, they are free to start a DR. It's not up to me to do that. The files in question are claimed to be Public Domain by a US archive, the sort of institutions that litter Commons with copyrighted photographs by Heinrich Hoffmann claiming that they are in the public domain; this institution can't seem to make its mind as to whether the author is itself or "unknown", nor as to whether the photographs was taken in Toulon or Paris (700 km); and when an author is proposed at all, it is a "Office of War Information domestic photographic units" (US domestic units in France ?), an institution founded in December 1942, for a photograph taken in the summer of 1940. Unilaterally removing a copyright notice that warns of such utter bollocks without stating a proper DR is out of line.

Rama (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have little desire to defend Pieter Kuiper, but I think your willingness to take the same action six times in a row, rather than simply start a DR, is wrong. You were, after all, the one who thought the file should be deleted. If other editors disagree, by far the best action is to start a DR. For some reason you think that's not your job. I think it is the job of all of us to take appropriate action when there is disagreement over a deletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My action is to put the copyright warning. Removing such copyright warnings is just not done, period. That's something people get shouted at for. I don't see why I should change anything to what I do because others are screwing procedures. If a copper issues a parking ticket, it's up to the driver to contest if he deems it necessary, it's not the police who'll ask for a review of their own ticket if the violator shreds it. Rama (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a well known photo, taken in France in 1940. I already saw it many times, and i'm not sure the US archive was the source for it. I find it quite unclear on how the US something could get his copyrighting hands over it. I still think it might be in the Public Domain, but i didn't knew that US laws made you the Author/copyright holder for compiling "Photographs Used in Publications from 1943 - 1946"... But, if it was first published in Europe, even the very day of when the photo was taken, than it's copyright protection can't last less than 70 years after publication if the author was anonymous, thus not making it free until at least 1st january 2011 (Commons:Anonymous works). So date and place of first publication is required.--Lilyu (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that simply knowing nothing about an image does not make it anonymous work. Anonymous work is when the author stated that he did not with to be known, or when a reputable source states that it is (and I do not feel that archives that offer copyrighted work as public domain, like Hofmann's work, are "reputable" in this sense). Rama (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rama rewverted again. Time for a block, in order to stop his edit warring? /Pieter Kuiper (talk)

Rama has given abundant reason on many occasions to be desysoped. I do not understand why he has been allowed to continue as a Commons administrator. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, go for it, last-useful-contrib-was-in-May boy. Rama (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, all of you, stop this fucking pathetic little war. I was fed up if it by the time I read the first sentence of the complaint. I have nominated it for deletion, go take your shit there and leave the rest of us in peace. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I protected the images for a month, and have unwatched the lot of them, including the DR. I will not take any further part in this farce. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattbuck. Rama (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but the title of this section really sounds like some sort of Harry Potter parody. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rama, what you don't seem to accept, is that Admins are supposed to act more intelligently and carefully than ordinary users. While Pieter Kuiper is also guilty of bad behavior here, and certainly has enough experience on Commons (55,000 edits)to know it, you should have risen above this and done what was right, namely tagging the file with {{delete}}. Your continuing the edit war after two or three rounds was wrong. Also wrong is your refusal to acknowledge that you had a responsibility to act correctly which you abdicated.

You thank our colleague, Mattbuck, above. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't think he likes your behavior any more than I do, so I am not sure why you are thanking him.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do accept that admins bla bla bla. I do understand that you do not like my behaviour, I understand that Mattbuck does not like my behaviour, and here's something for you: I don't like my own behaviour either and I think that Mattbuck did what had to be done -- which is why I thank him; I don't need him to agree with what I do to agree with what he does.

What I do not accept is that admins would be above humanity (we are not there to play the kindergarten teachers that can't poopoo the bad-behaved children; these all-responsability-without-power idiocies are not sound); I do not accept that I'd be forced to back off a stance that is perfectly by-the-book by one notorious troll and a couple of people who break rules.

It is amazing the amount of flak you get in here for just doing things by the book. We are supposed to have a certain amount of support between competent users, what the so-called "community" is supposed to be, but that simply does not happen. The closest thing I had to that was Mattbuck setting the DR. So, thank you again, Mattbuck. Rama (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. There is nothing good said in the book about doing six reverts on the same file over the same issue. Commons official policy at COM:SPEEDY makes it very clear:

"If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request."

You (or Pieter -- I won't let him off the hook) should have put a DR on it after the first round of reverts. That would have been "by the book". Anything else is a violation. You action here was a five-fold violation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's not how I see it. And it is plain unreasonable to expect people to react like Care Bears in the face of trolls who use "admin" like a racist insult. If you do not want incidents, you step in -- and you tell off offenders -- those who remove copyright warning notices, for instance. The amorphous that some call a "community", with its casual, spineless attitude of putting everybody back-to-back in all circumstances, is apparently not anywhere near to doing that. Rama (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rama's behavior regarding this image is needlessly tendentious and disruptive. I'm especially concerned that he is causing unwarranted aggravation[15] for contributors such as Dominic who are trying to work with the U.S. National Archives to get more content donations to Commons. I imagine that since Rama seems to have a gripe against the National Archives due to an unrelated Nazi copyright issue, he would not be that concerned about driving away users like Dominic. Personally, however, I would hope that such an outcome can be avoided by ending this pointless warring. It is not proper behavior for an administrator. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Rama for 1 day because of his continuous incivility. Trycatch (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Rama has uploaded 9 files[16] of photographs from a German museum and labeled the source as "Office for Emergency Management. Office of War Information. Overseas Operations Branch. New York Office. News and Features Bureau" in order to be POINTY (this is the same source that he claimed was invalid for the Weeping Frenchman image). This type of juvenile behavior coupled with his tendentious edit warring above leads me to believe that Rama no longer takes his responsibilities as a Commons administrator seriously. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion on what to do with these 9 images? I'm sure Rama wants someone to remove the bogus source and license so that he can claim we have a double standard. I'm not interested in playing games with Rama, but the source and license are clearly bogus and added just to make a point. Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to simply blow them away -- as you say, the source is just nonsense. However, part of being a member of a community is looking for consensus on important issues, so I haven't done so, I but would support a third Admin who did so.

I would also support a de-Admin proceeding -- the refusal to accept responsibility for a six-time revert war, incivility, and then wasting our time with nonsense sources on these images makes me doubt that Rama should continue as an Admin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything, but I did add tags indicating lack of essential information. The tag may not be entirely correct, but I'm looking at them as contributions from a newbie who thinks that because they got the images from somewhere else it's their own work as was stated in the source field. But I'll add support to blowing them away. It also appears that Rama is an oversighter, as in they have access to information hidden even from administrators. That's supposed to be a position of the utmost responsibility. So I'll add my support to the suggestion of a de-admin proceeding. – Adrignola talk 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't delete them immediately, as it will likely just provoke further dispute with Rama. I think nominating them for deletion (speedy or otherwise) is reasonable though. If Rama is not willing to amend his behavior, and end this campaign against the National Archives, I would also support de-admin proceedings. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the problem is his opinion about the National Archives. I think there's a good case that they haven't been careful with their copyrights, especially where Common's international rules come into play. I also think that Rama hasn't tried the community's patience on this issue; it's not an issue that's come up repeated with consistent results.

However, the fact that he uploaded images he didn't believe to be acceptable for Commons and the fact that he was engaged in an edit war do support a de-admin proceeding, IMO. Furthermore, his treatment of Pieter Kuiper is equally problematic; the community has (at least tentatively) decided that Kuiper is not a troll. If Kuiper has done something block-worthy since then, the appropriate response is a block. Rama could also bring a complaint to this noticeboard if he feels he has evidence that the community should reconsider its decision. Until that time, treating Kuiper as a troll and not a member of this community is unacceptable, especially for an admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that User:Rama has deleted his user page as of 20:31, 18 August 2011. Although Commons:Guide to adminship is not policy, it is supported by most of us and it requires a User page for Admins.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the page as it existed before that wasn't much good to users anyway, what with its content being   after the previous deletion in October 2010. Not sure why the friendly page prior to that was deleted. – Adrignola talk 23:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On 18 March 2011, Rama said, "if you absolutely must insist, I'd consider setting up a page for the infoboxes" in response to my request that s/he place Babelboxes and an adminbox on his/her userpage. Please see User_talk:Rama#User_page. I thought that was unhelpful but chose not to pursue the matter further. ---Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I loath defending myself, but I have to strike a balance with clarity.

• Revert wars are wrong. Removing copyright tags without filling a DR to replace them is wrong (and dangerous). It is normal that I be shouted at for reverting, it is not normal that I be the only one to be warned. I have said so before, so I find that suggesting that I do not accept responsability for the reverts is unfair.
• None of my actions made use of administrative privileges. There is a sustained anti-admin fad where any type of criticism again anybody will be presented as "Admin X does Y while he is being an admin", however irrelevant.
• I am not campaigning about the National Archives. Some users have for some reason decided that I am and that I have a fixation with Hoffmann's work, this is incorrect. Several respected users see my position as plausible (Prosfilaes and Carl Lindberg)
• I would have deleted the images I uploaded, as a bad joke and in a moment of exasperation, immediately, had somebody not decided to block me.
• User pages are in effect not mandatory. I do not see how one could be forced to do something that is not mandatory (and I have offered to set up such a page upon repeated informal request rather than when it a formal policy would be taken, I don't see how more helpful you can get when you do not want to have a user page).

Rama (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification.

I think Rama's statement shows that he recognizes that his revert-warring was clearly the wrong way to achieve his — fully justified — aim to draw the attention to the dubious copyright status of that image. His joke-upload of these 9 images was indeed bad behaviour for an admin. However, if I remember correctly, during the turmoil about the "porn-purge" in 2010 a few of us made some inappropriate POINT-actions and were later pardoned when they asked for it.

Though I would very welcome if Rama would set up at least a minimal userpage in order to be recognizable as admin for other users, this issue is totally unrelated to this thread and should completely be ignored for the final evaluation, IMO.

As I am confident that Rama has learned from this, I vote for closing this thread now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that Rama believes that he was wrong to continue a revert war through six rounds. While a User Page is not mandatory, it suggests that there is a disconnect between what the community thinks an Administrator and Oversighter should be and User:Rama's view of the positions. With that said, I defer to Túrelio's greater experience here.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence seems disturbing, and perhaps is indicative of the strong Commons inclination toward groupthink [17]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus" and "group-think" are the same thing, but the first word describes a good thing and the second is pejorative. Consensus is one of Commons core principles, so why should it surprise you that we attempt to achieve it?

I certainly have no problem disagreeing with my colleagues, some more than others -- just look at my talk page to find people complaining that I decided something in a way not to their liking. However, I know from experience that a de-admin vote is a difficult and divisive process which leaves ripples that go back and forth for weeks afterward. I'm reluctant, therefore, to press for such a vote when a colleague whom I respect has decided it is not necessary. Better, I think, to let the matter lie and keep an eye on future behavior.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, groupthink and consensus are the inverse of eachother. Commons (and WP too) does frequently achieves groupthink...if you want to call that an achievement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All of its uploads are copyright violations. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done All images deleted, User warned, neither action by me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, I just noticed that User:Taxiarchos228 removed old licences of several "own" images and replaced them by {{FAL}} (expample). I readded these old licenses (and left of corse the FAL) with a german edit note that they are not revokeable, and got instantly reverted by him. Question: I am correct, that the old licenses are not revokeable and should stay at the images? If I am correct, maybe an Admin could enforce this; pls. check this for more cases. If not, pls. tell me. Thx and regards --JuTa (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: Pls see also User talk:JuTa#Lizenzen meiner Bilder (a short diskussion about this case in german). --JuTa (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons talk:Licensing might be a better place for that problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Commons:Licensing clearly states: The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. I could move this case to user-problems if thats a better place. --JuTa (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

end of move. --JuTa (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If he replaces it with another equally acceptable license, I see no problem with his action. If he demanded deletion instead, that would be a problem. But this way, we can easily keep the images, and whoever wishes to be picky about the "non-revokability" can just treat them as double-licensed. The new license is in place, the old license can be retrieved via the edit history. If the uploader now prefers the new license, there's nothing wrong with displaying that to re-users by preference. If any future re-user should ever insist on treating them under the old license rather than the new one, there's nothing we can do to stop him, but so what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, some months ago I asked at the VP whether a license-"update" from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (actually recommended by CC) was acceptable and got many objections. --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am changing one valid and free licence into an other valid and free licence. This changing does neither effect Commons nor other wikipedia project. I am the photographer/ author and copyright holder of these pictures. More is needless to say here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you released the images under a free, non-revocable licence. And we know what that licence. Commons is under no obligation to stop distibuting the images under the old licence simply because you don't like it anymore. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't remove an old one... that old license is and will always be valid (as shown through the file history). You can certainly add any new ones you like, but the old ones should remain to most accurately reflect the true licensing situation. And yes, it could affect us badly in some cases -- if someone has made derivative works of one or more of these, the licenses of those derivative works, if they were correct before, would now appear to be incorrect (when in fact they are still fine). The same is true for derivative works made outside of Commons -- it is best to keep the licensing documentation as accurate as possible. If something like this was done shortly after upload, it'd be fine really, but after two years it's not really good practice as all sorts of use could have been made of it in the meantime (not to mention that the removal is factually incorrect). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I had put the old license back in and protected the page for a week. The user has since threatened to take legal action against me and I have neither the time nor the money for a lawsuit, so I removed the protection. I'd appreciate it, if someone else, who is willing to stand up to the threat, would take it from here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that legal action was threatened in this conflict and that the user whose re-licensing is discussed here does definitively insist on his position (he can change the licensing as he likes) suggests that we need a binding and legally solid policy about this issue in general (independent of this case). --Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that he breaks deliberately w:en:WP:THREAT policy. Constantinople (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The legal threat issue is discussed at COM:AN. This threat should only be used for the relicensing question. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think our policy is clear, as stated by Carl Lindberg above --

"You can't remove an old one... that old license is and will always be valid (as shown through the file history). You can certainly add any new ones you like, but the old ones should remain to most accurately reflect the true licensing situation."

A change to "an equally acceptable license" simply isn't possible as a practical matter. Suppose user A uploads an image under CC-BY. I download that image. Then user A changes the license to FAL. I can, as permitted by the CC-BY license, upload the image under CC-BY and user A can't do anything about it. It's very similar to the result when a Flickr user changes the license after an upload to Commons that has been checked by the bot or a Flickr checker. The change has no practical effect because, as a legal matter, the old license can't be revoked.

The problem is that the different acceptable licenses have subtly different requirements for some uses. For example, imagine that I have put together a collage of CC-BY-SA licensed images from Commons and license it as CC-BY-SA. Perfectly OK. Then we allow the copyright owner of one of those images to change the license to FAL. I would have to remove the image from the collage because the FAL license is not compatible with CC-BY-SA. Anyone who had used the old version of the collage would have to change it. That's an unacceptable burden on those who use our images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I can't quite understand what the fuss is about. About a year ago I reported User:Hobe who was changing licences of his images and did not even get a response. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't an admin a year ago. And now those PD to non-PD changes have been reversed as a result of you bringing it to my attention. Thanks! – Adrignola talk 18:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please return to the issue at hand? Since everyone agrees, that licenses are not revocable, is nobody going to do anything about this? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Taxiarchos228 (and a few others) seem to be convinced that the non-revokability of our free licenses, that we at Commons assume or take for granted, is unproven or is in conflict with copyright law (of Germany?)[18] - please correct me if I am misrepresenting this position. Therefore, I recommended 3 days ago (see above comment starting with "The fact that legal ...") that we should really make sure (by legal experts) that our prevailing opinion about the "durability" or binding power of free license for the licensor (author) is what the license code really says and is legally sound. Another — though not fully independent —question is our own policy in regard to this issue. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating wrong guesswork does not enhance the logical value.

Quotations of Creative Commons in italic font:

• Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license.
  • For sure. Someone who had downloaded my picture before chancing license and is using it correct I can not revoke but the chancing does not revoke anything that has happened in the past but supervise only the use for the future.

• You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish;
  • I can stop distributing my own work under a CC license at any time a wish. Chancing this CC license into FAL for example means stoping it. So did I.

• but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work.
  • Sure. We had this point above.

So I question you one again to show me the passage why I shall not chance the license of my picture work. Along the way: would CC regulations forbid right of termination it would be in conflict with the german BGB and SMG. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commmons license from circulation That's the point. Wikimedia Commons has a copy of your work that exists under a CC license and you cannot withdraw it from circulation. The Commons has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license and it is non-revocable. You can stop personally uploading your image to other places and distributing to other people or entities under the former license but you cannot withdraw it from circulation under the license which you formerly made it available. Warfieldian ^(talk) 12:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The license deals with termination in section 7 of the legal code. Regarding "I can stop distributing my own work under a CC license at any time a wish". Except, you're not the one distributing the file. Wikimedia Commons is. You granted an irrevocable and non-exclusive license for the file to Wikimedia Commons when you distributed it to us. You, under the license, are free to cease licensing the files to other parties that you provide the image to under a Creative Commons license, but you already entered into an implicit agreement upon upload with Commons. – Adrignola talk 12:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are both drawing completely wrong conclusions. There does not stand You can stop personally uploading your image but You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish. Termination is possible, would it be not I had a right of termination according to § 307, Abs 1 BGB. The use of right for Commons is not affect because Commons offers different types of licenses. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The licensing terms could not be stated any more clearly and you agreed to them when you uploaded your image to the Commons. Termination is possible of your license if you violate the terms of the agreement but as long as Wikimedia Commons abides by the terms of the license, you cannot unilaterally revoke it.

• This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Adaptations or Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
• Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.Warfieldian ^(talk) 13:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're pushing down a slippery slope. Let's see where it goes. If you're able to remove licenses that you already agreed to on Commons, a licensee, then that would also mean that we should allow uploaders to delete images they've uploaded here anytime they want, since they can "stop distributing" if we take your position that it's not Commons doing the distributing. But we're not Flickr, we're not your personal image host. Those sites let you delete your own images. Commons doesn't. Why? Because you've distributed images when you upload them to Commons and they've left your hands. – Adrignola talk 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know a general term and condition act that would regulate such triva like you can stop uploading. Sure I can stop uploading, I can also stop driving car and walking on foot or I can stop writing here because it's wasting time. Stopping uploading has nothing to do with the licensed work so this has not to be regulated. Termination is regulated clearly: You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would just ask that if you are going to base your entire argument (as you did in bold above) on a quote then, at least, quote the whole context. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work. Warfieldian ^(talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I already have argued here. No need for repeating, please read carefully. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please read carefully. The images you uploaded are copies of your work that are already under a Creative Commons license. You donated them to Commons. No taking them back or trying to tell us that the terms you told us we could use them under no longer apply when the original terms stated they couldn't be revoked. You are free to grant an additional license with new terms or to cease licensing additional files anytime you like. I'll say it again. The files here at Commons are not being distributed by you. They're being distributed by the Wikimedia Foundation and while you retain copyright, you do not maintain control of them here. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Adrignola is completely correct here. You, Wladyslaw, are welcome to stop distributing the files under CC whatever. But we, Wikimedia Commons, are under no such compulsion. We are the ones who are distributing the images, not you. You distributing was uploading it here, us distributing is keeping it here. I'd suggest we get whoever replaced Mike Godwin here to tell you so, but I rather doubt you'd listen to them either. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be User:Geoffbrigham, who is in office since some months. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the records. The first example I statet is not the only license revoke. There are a lot more. In case the decision would be to recover the old license all the others should be done too.

Here a list of Taxiarchos228 license revokes as far I could find (some currently already are recovered and are marked with *):

• [19] *, [20], [21] *, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61] *, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223] *, [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326]

I only checked back till 31. May 2011 1. May 2011. There might be even more. regards. --JuTa (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

@JuTa, don't know, but it might be better to put that on a separate subpage, as it might overflow this thread and as it is not only about Taxiarchos228's actions, but about relicensing in general, I think.--Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tranfered the long list to a subpage of my userspace and included it here. If a Commons-subpage is more sufficiant in this case pls. tell me. --JuTa (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out, JuTa. I took care of all 309 images above. I analyzed what the original license was, then combined the FAL tags added with the original tags. This was complicated by the fact that the license removals were combined with category additions and modifications to descriptions that were written by CommonsHelper. Total time spent on this: 4 hours. – Adrignola talk 23:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx a lot Adrignola. --JuTa (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Olybrius (talk · contribs) clearly has issues. He's getting completely mental over some of the categories he created, to the point of not seeing clearly how absurd it is to add them to some specific files. I am especially referring to File:Château du Haut-Koenigsbourg - lambris et fresque de Léo Schnug.jpg. The file's history shows that he keeps on inserting the category September 2008 in France. Nothing in that picture indicates that it has been taken in September, or in 2008, since it is devoid of nature or people, neutrally lit etc. It could have been taken any year, and in any month of any year. Adding this category makes no sense at all, but User:Olybrius carries on ever again. Someone should talk sense with him. --Edelseider (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have three questions for you:

1. Can you please explain what particular reasons you have for doubting the word of the author of the photo who placed it in a collection that he titled "Alsace 10 AU 13-9-2008" (Alsace 10 to 13 September 2008)?
2. Can you please provide a link to the discussions you had with the user to inform yourself and to discuss the matter (other than your rude comment in the edit box)?
3. Can you please tell where you got the notion that the page "User problems" is a tool to put pressure on a user with who you have such an insignificant disagreement about one file (especially when you seem to be on the wrong side of the issue) and why you think that someone with admin tools is needed in this?

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing says "September" and "2008" more than this kind of photo full of people in seasonal clothes and holding newspapers

I will answer your questions by another question: does the picture, when you look at it, say "September 2008"? I am not talking about the licence or the date when it was taken. I am talking about the picture. The visual content. You know, the things people deal here with, at Wikimedia Commons. Visual content. Does the visual content say "September 2008" to you, as opposed to, say, "March 2006"? This is not a laughing matter, it is a matter of principle: how do you judge and define the visual content of a picture. If you go solely by the date on which it was taken, regardless of what it shows, you act poorly, and in bad faith. --Edelseider (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Et puisque tu parles français, je te le redis encore : il s'agit du contenu visuel. Commons est une banque de données visuelles. Le contenu visuel de cette photo ne fournit pas le renseignement que la photo a été prise en septembre 2008. Il fournit d'autres renseignements visuels, mais pas celui-ci. En aucune façon. Et il faut vraiment être de mauvaise foi pour associer la date de prise de vue, qui aurait pu être n'importe laquelle vu le motif, aux informations que véhicule l'image en tant que document brut. Car la date de prise de vue ne ressort pas de l'image en tant que document brut, et c'est cela que je me tue à faire comprendre. Il s'agit d'une question de principe. --Edelseider (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully support date categorisation, eg "month year in Location" - even if there is nothing obvious that says it was taken on a certain date, in your opinion to others it may be useful. I personally think everything should be in categories "Day Month", "Month Year in Location A", "Year in Location B" where possible, although for some things this will just be via a subcategory, eg for an event.

To respond to the actual debates here, I think that Edeliser needs to calm down. Certainly there is no reason to be insulting over this. Was ANY dispute resolution attempted before bringing this here?

In regard to this particular photo, I'd say yes, categorisation is useful. Heck, the place could have burnt down in october 2008, and so this would be a useful thing to have. Date in location categories are not about people holding newspapers, it's a way to subcategorise potentially extensive categories to allow people to choose when they want a picture from. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you have more of a general issue about the purpose and usage of the location+date type of categories. I would think that people would use those categories for objective categorization of location and date of the image creation, without any subjective judgment about the image. By contrast to categories such as "Autumn scenes in ...", which do call for a connection with the visual contents. I could be wrong, I have not followed discussions about it. I'm guessing this has probably been discussed at length. This page here is still not the place to raise that discussion. I suggest you look for previous discussions and look for what the consensus is. And then, between you two, the user who ends up being on the wrong side either generously accepts to defer to the consensus or starts a new and serious discussion at the Village Pump or at any appropriate page for bringing up that sort of topic. I don't see how admin intervention would be needed unless one user deliberately ignores the consensus. Pour le commentaire en français, bien on ne peut pas dire que tu t'étais vraiment «tué à faire comprendre» ton argument en début de section ni dans tes échanges avec l'autre utilisateur. Bon, maintenant, je vois ton argument et si des discussions précédentes et l'usage général soutiennent ton point de vue, il suffirait sans doute d'y référer l'autre utilisateur. Sinon, respecter l'usage en vigueur quel qu'il soit et si nécessaire entamer une discussion sur l'usage de ce type de catégories dans les espaces appropriés. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the Flickr uploader says This photo was taken on September 16, 2008. for me is ok. Second, I see that both of you are edit waring which have to stop. You have to discusse in the files talk page insteשd. Geagea (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Edelseider

Edelseider (talk · contribs) clearly has has an attidude problem. He behaves like he were the boss. Not even bothering to discuss anything with me. First intimidationg comments, now he is plainly insulting me, I quote : t'as fini de casser les couilles de tout le monde avec des catégories insensées ? ? ?. this would translate as can't you stop pissing everyone off with nonsensical categories?. That's insulting and bullying. Whatever the problem, he has no right to be so disrespectful. This present request by him is a further step in his bullying. I don't know what the sanctions are for insulting other users, but they should be taken. My categorizations being moronic or not is another issue (about which he has never discussed with me). - Olybrius (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Olybrius acts and talks in bad faith. You can say that I'm being too rude but not that I am adding categories in spite of what a picture actually shows, which is what really counts. Behaviour like Olybrius's runs counter the very purpose of Commons, which is a visual database, not a collection of memoranda. --Edelseider (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

original

this should be cropped version

BelowGive (talk · contribs) is edit-warring to over-write the file File:DiverBC.jpg which I created as a cropped version of the original file File:DiversBC.JPG with the original, making it a duplicate. This defeats the point of Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files by refusing to allow a derivative version.

This is the sequence of events:

• 15 May 2010 - BelowGive uploaded File:DiversBC.JPG, a file prominently displaying himself, rather than the diving jacket which is the purported subject of the image. He then spammed this image over 20 odd wikiprojects, often replacing better images (as at English Wikipedia), and edit-warred on the project to keep it there.
• 24 May 2010 - I replaced the unsuitable version with a cropped version (I admit I was unaware of Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files). My edit summary: Cropped to remove distracting background
• 5 June 2010 - BelowGive reverted without edit summary
• 25 June 2011 - I reverted with edit summary: Restored cropped version as the background distracts from the supposed subject. The purpose of the file is to show a buoyancy compensator; there's no need for a person to be so prominently featured.
• 26 June 2011 - BelowGive reverted without edit summary
• 27 June 2011 - BelowGives changed the licence from PD-Self to GFDL-en, presumably in an effort to assert ownership.[327]
• 3-8 July 2011 - I gave up on the slow motion edit war. I decided to create a separate cropped version called File:DiverBC.jpg and request deletion of the original. Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiversBC.JPG. I also replaced the original on 20 odd wikiprojects with the new, cropped version having seen a complain from Greek Wikipedia: File talk:DiversBC.JPG.
• 11 July 2011 - Trycatch (talk · contribs) explained in the deletion debate that it is best to keep the original version, even when a more suitable derivative exists. I then withdrew the deletion request.
• 7 August 2011 - Having kept his original file, BelowGive then decided that his face should be on the cropped version as well, so he overwrote DiverBC.jpg with DiversBC.JPG, with an edit summary for the first time: My picture is in use in 20+ WMF projects.

BelowGive clearly believes that Commons and 20+ WikiProjects should be his personal photo gallery, and that he has a right to own the file (My picture ...), even to the extent of revoking a PD licence. He has made no attempt to communicate. I believe that the numerous Japanese IPs whose only contribution was a comment in the deletion debate look suspiciously like sock/meat-puppets. I have played by the rules all the way along, but I am now sick of banging my head against a brick wall. I have only been concerned to bring an encyclopedic tone to the images used in multiple wikis, rather than showing holiday snaps, but it seems that uncommunicative reversion can allow a most unsuitable contributor to thumb his nose at these ideals. I therefore request administrative action to ensure that BelowGive cannot continue his campaign to have his face plastered over scuba articles in 20+ wikis. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected the image, so that should fix it for now. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files did not exist in May 2010, so one could hardly fault you for being unaware of it. ;-) I restored the original PD tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for such swift and helpful responses. I appreciate the time you took to read my complaint, and I now know I don't have to participate in any slow edit-wars in the future! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper keeps insisting that unsourced claims about an image are true, despite having no evidence for these claims - see, for example, this edit. I'm not sure why he's behaving this way, but it's been going on for a while, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, he seems to have made some reasonable claims that appear to have held up (it looks like the photo first was published around 1914). When reverted, he suggested bringing it to DR to hash out the issues. I'm not sure what behavior is improper here. Warfieldian ^(talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This was a case where the uploader supplied only the URL of the image, not its web page and explained, much later, that this was because of technical problems. Pieter accepted the user's date at face value, Jayig didn't. It went to DR, which is where it belonged in the first place -- a {{no source since}} is too speedy when the issue is the Uploader's credibility. Pieter then located and added the 1914 document link.

There's not a lot of bad here, but, in fairness, I would say "thank you" to Pieter for doing the work necessary to save this image and suggest to Jayig that he or she use {{no source since}} a little less and {{delete}} a little more.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying there is an obligation to thank Kuiper for working to save an image he likes, when it is well known that he will frequently work just as hard to delete an image he does not like? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Give up, Malcolm! Pieter Kuiper is a holy cow at Commons. This has been going on for years. No matter how rude, insulting, vindictive, persecutory and full of ridicule and sarcasm his behavior is towards many of us who are just trying to do our best here, he's always got supporters to back him up because he "does so much good". OK, once in a while he catches some legitimate problems (just as often he's dead wrong) - I too have been corrected with good cause - but basically, he has carte blanche to be nasty and almost always gets away with it. No use trying to get him to behave, because he does "so much good". If you complain once, you are called over-sensitive. Next time you complain you are attacked by a multitude of Kuiper fans because you are "whining again and again". Every good wish to you! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jim: It was Tachfin who had traced down a reference for the 1914 date; I merely added that as a reference in the file description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict)

I don't think you have it quite right, Serge. Pieter is a royal pain in the butt. He has adopted an argumentative, non-cooperative way of working that wastes a lot of time and effort in discussions like this. And, although I can't prove it, I believe that he sometimes picks fights just for the sake of fighting taking one position on image A and the opposite on image B, even though they are similar. I also can't prove that he deliberately picks on new Admins, but I think that's probable. He has figured out just how far he can go without drawing an indefinite block and stays on the barely OK side of that line.

I should add that I have good credentials for arguing this -- he took me on as a target when I became an Admin 15 months ago -- I was one of four (if I remember correctly) on his "Wall of Shame" and had a complaint from him on almost a daily basis.

With that said, though, he does do a great deal of work here -- 90,000 global edits, 55,000 of which are on Commons -- and it's not just his volume that is impressive. He has an uncanny ability to dig out information on obscure images such as this one. So, I value his contributions and will continue to put up with his attitude as long as he stays on the OK side of the line.

And, yes, as I said above, I see nothing but good in his actions in this case. He suggested that it should be a DR rather than a speedy at the right moment. If Serge, or I had been on the other side of exactly the same edits with Jayig, no one would have said anything at all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm an expert. Have seen his vicious, vindictive hounding and cruel ridicule toward a host of well-intentioned users for years now. All you have to do is disagree with him once - just once. But I will never again subject myself to being attacked by his fans for complaining officially. That's just too offensive and derisive.

The fact that Peter Kuiper hasn't been permabanned log ago - regardless of all the faaaabulous work he does - is nothing short of disenheartening, disgusting and scandalous.

The natural question is, why does anybody bother to be civil? People that do lots of faaaabulous work don't have to be. Regards from another “whiner” a.k.a. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've disagreed with him without problem. Perhaps what you did was turn every thing that Kuiper did into a reason to call for his banning, which might actually annoy just about anyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You have disagreed with him, Prosfilaes? Really? Actually, it appears to me that you are leading a member of Kuiper's claque. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, we don't know

• who took the picture
• when the image was first published
• what webpage the uploader got it from

Finding a similar-looking, reversed image on another website, or a similar but smaller image on a blog, doesn't really tell us these things. I'm not sure, then, why anyone would insist the image can be tagged as if we do know these things. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this user has been leaving sexist, creepy messages to User:Beria for a while here [328] and here [329]. He's been getting personal for on-wiki categorization stuff, making reference to her bf and personal life. A few admins and stewards from Meta have left messages on his talk page. But I would like a neutral admin to please take a look. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

he also removed all the warnings and reply from his page now. here are the diff [330]. Theo10011 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left him another warning. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

After discussion with Túrelio, I have blocked this user indefinitely. While I recognize that there may be cultural differences working here, if the two people involved both worked for me, User:Wuhazet would have been fired for his repeated harassment.

I will see if we can find a Polish Admin to look at the cultural issues.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the user - or if can call that way - the victim here. And i'm asking for mercy. He was terrible. I agree and i don't have any excuse for. Cultural things don't make any better. But an indef block might be a bit too harsh for that. I'm asking permission to reduce the block to a month. Béria Lima ^msg 16:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks James and Túrelio, I really appreciate the quick response. After talking things over with a pl admin and others on IRC Is it possible for you to reconsider an indef. block, it seems this was his first offense by an otherwise productive user and there might be cultural issues here. I would suffice for the already given warning and a shorter ban, or even no ban, if he apologizes. Thanks again. Theo10011 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer above. I started with an indef only because you have to start somewhere. I solicited five Polish speaking Admins to look at it and comment as both Túrelio and I recognize that User:Wuhazet may not understand how his actions are viewed by others, including Béria Lima. After we've gotten a few more reactions -- and I would take Béria Lima as the most important of them -- we can settle in on a consensus of what's appropriate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No cultural issues allow such comments to be posted towards any user of the Wikimedia projects. Anyway, due to the agreement some of the Commons admins have just had on IRC, I've sent the user an e-mail (in Polish) in which I condemned his behaviour and asked him to apologize publicly on his user talk page. I'll keep you informed if a reply comes and I hope that the apology may be an appropriate way to solve the problem. Regards, odder (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that odder got involved already. I do share opinion that such comments even in polish would sound at least awkward, tough I believe that it wasn't Wuhazet intention to be harrasing in any way. Let's just call it clumsy flirting, which in Poland would be very embarassing (and if Beri'a bf happened to be around, he'd have a full right to punch Wuhazet straight into his nose ;) ), but I do realize that in some cultures would be rather considered as crossing certain borders, with a sexual harassment included. I'm in opinion that when informed about his faux pas, Wuhazet will know what he did wrong and won't hesitate with saying sorry; and if Beria agrees, we even might unblock him completely. Masur (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok people, He wrote an apology (in polish - Thanks odder for translating) and i accepted. So i hope any of you get mad by the fact i unblocked him. Thanks guys :) Béria Lima ^msg 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone involved for your quick and helpful responses to this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noted a "machine gun" image tagging incident last week, but no comments about any policy or guidelines have been made yet about such mass tagging. Are there any? By tagging 44 images uploaded over a year's time, they have effectively undermined the goal of rational discussion for a any particular image and made it impossible to respond in a timely or rational way. The tagger was previously warned about this on EN/WP. I posted this to the Commons:Disputes noticeboard three days ago, but no one has yet commented there.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations are not forbidden, it's not unheard of that 100 or even 200 pictures are nominated at once (it's recommended to use a single DR for such noms, see COM:MASSDEL). Of course random, badly thought out "machine gun" tagging can be considered as disruption, but it seems that User:Damiens.rf is mostly correct (with only few exceptions), so it's not the case here. Anyway, 44 pictures nominated once a week is not an unreasonable high count. Trycatch (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't the place to be discussing U.S. copyright law or any single image, but I'm just responding to your comments. The 44 deletion requests were posted over about 30 minutes(!), not a week, thereby not leaving time to respond in any rational manner. The typical rationale on most was:

No evidence provided to support the claim that this photo was first published without a copyright notice. We can't simply assume that all publicity still photographs were published as such.

Both sentences are clearly wrong: Each and every image has an explanation with source of why they are PD. And saying "we can't assume . . ." is attempting to overrule U.S. copyright law and scholars who made clear in cases and treatises provided that,

It has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain or owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation (2007).

So an editor is giving his personal opinion, who can't believe and doesn't understand U.S. copyright law, uses the all-too-easy technique of mass deletion WMD. It's just another way of some editor saying, "Personally, I don't care what your rational says, I simply don't believe it, and am not interested in discussing it." That's the effect of the tagging blitz for these images, which were added over a year's time. (BTW, many were actually discussed with Commons editors and approved after being uploaded.)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The key word in your second quote is "or": images meeting the first criteria (public domain) are acceptable on Commons, while images meeting the second criteria (distributed for no compensation) are not. It's the difference between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". If an image description page doesn't distinguish between the two situations, the image needs to be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first quote, User:Damiens.rf seems to be confusing two issues. 1st: Are publicity photoes public domain? (Copyright law says that they are.) 2nd: How do we know a particular photo is a publicity photo? User:Damiens.rf got suspicious of the methodology of User:Wikiwatcher1 on the basis of sound w:en:WP:Good faith edits he made to the WP article on w:en:publicity stills. Also, User:Damiens.rf seems to confuse "no evidence" with "insufficient evidence". I would grant that it is questionable to presume a photo is a publicity photo on the basis of "preponderance" of evidence without more solid "proof". So while there is some substance to the challenge, the exact wording of Damiens' rationale for challenge is confused on two counts.

All the followup comments from other folk have focused on the correct issue: how exactly do we know for certain these are really publicity and/or otherwise public domain photos? The discussion has been informative, and useful.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright law says no such thing. It says things like "works published without adhering to certain formalities are public domain". Publicity photos were often published without those formalities, thus making them public domain, but nowhere does the law say "publicity photos are public domain". --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction accepted. I meant really that they were de facto public domain by standard studio practice, rather than PD by law. Thank you for the clarification--WickerGuy (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Carnildo. It's really better to pick an image and comment there rather than here, which is intended to discuss "machine gun" tagging good faith images. But the U.S. cases and experts have made it clear that the difference between the two situations is almost irrelevant in the case of publicity photos. Stills taken and physically "owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation," are also PD. There are literally hundreds of thousands in archives and out in the wild that were intended to be as widely published as possible, as explained in the Film still copyright section. There's even a major case cited settled last month that explains and confirms this. If a U.S. photo is assumed to be PD by U.S. law, the Commons should accept it. These photo PD issues are not based on international law, but U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet you give no cites. Looking at the major case, Warner Bros. Consumer Products v. X One X Productions, I'll note that it doesn't say anything about publicity photos being PD, it says that the particular publicity photos in the case are PD. Big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that Warner was an exception when they did not copyright their publicity photos. It is telling of the customs in Hollywood. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I nominated several hundred unused personal images in a week before. Being separate images not uploaded by the same person, they all required separate nominations. The speed at which files are uploaded to Commons can require such actions. If it's the same uploader, as Trycatch stated, a combined request is less disruptive (but requires more effort on the part of the nominator). – Adrignola talk 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this user has decided that Category:Female politicians should be removed from Commons, and he is busy untagging pictures. TwoWings has apparently started a discussion with him on the topic but it does not seem very fruitful. The intervention of an admin could be a good idea. It might also be necessary to mass-revert his contributions. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about the issue itself on VP. --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Bookgeek205 (talk · contribs), ArtLibrn2011‎ (talk · contribs) and Librndiva7‎ (talk · contribs) are all the same, uploading images from artsbma.org without permission, sometimes in a weird magenta color, like for example File:Gelede Mask.jpg and File:Maxfield Parrish's painting of the Gardener.jpg. There may very well be more sockpuppet accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Could they be people employed by the Birmingham Museum of Art? Yann (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask for OTRS? --  Docu  at 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Their policy is rather restrictive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, a few of us in the GLAM community have noticed that people from Birmingham signed up to volunteer. I'm going to bring this up with a few GLAM volunteers and we'll investigate. You can see their sign ups here: [GLAM Outreach Volunteers please be kind to them :) Missvain (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, no need to worry at the moment. OTRS tickets check out, and GLAM have it all in hand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Missvain when you talk to them can you check what's up with the cyan color of their images? As such they are not very useful. If they need any help I will be happy to assist them. --Jarekt (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Valid OTRS tickets, close and a trout to Mr Kuiper for not assuming good faith. I don't know what you're talking about regarding "magenta" or "cyan" colours either, the colour balance on the images looks perfectly correct to me. Perhaps an error with your PC? Lankiveil (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

It does seems like browser bug since if I download the image, than it looks fine. However in my Fifefox 6.0 this jpg does not display some RGB channels. I have never run into other images having this problem. --Jarekt (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a cannonball trout from the other side ? ;) The greenie discoloured jpegs contain embedded colour profile "Phase One H 25 Product flash". On Win7, these are rendered correctly on IE8, but not on Firefox 6. I tried to convert their profile to sRGB in GIMP and reuploaded File:Grand Canyon, Yellowstone River, Wyoming.jpg (+ 4 others). Now it's ok in Firefox, but in IE the sRGB looks distincly different to the original (subtle tonal differences - ok for white vases, quite a difference for a painting). This case needs a bot that can strip all these alien colour profiles. NVO (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

never mind the bot, they're all set, uploaders notified. NVO (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kriloff77 (talk · contribs) is semi-rapidly uploading unlicensed files, despite numerous deletion notices and several warnings. Administrator intervention needed to perhaps delete the files and wake the user up. Cheers, theMONO 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 hours. Yann (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --theMONO 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to upload images for the last two days, but when I click on 'Upload file', nothing happens - a little icon spins round and round indefinitely. Is it me, or is there a system problem?

ThanksEpzcaw (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Both UploadWizard and regular upload form are in order now. An erratic glitch here or perhaps something on your end. If the problem persists, ask the folks at Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback. NVO (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Still not working so will follow your advice. Thanks. Epzcaw (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:commons.limousin Verstoss gegen Anonymität (en:Wikipedia:Anonymity) Nennung von Wohnort und vollem Klarnamen gegen meinen Willen ! User ist zu Sperren und alle Bemerkung dieser Art zu endfernen [331] und in der Versiongeschichte zu verstecken! PS Bitte User auch in en: udn de: Sperren, wurde schon einmal deswegen auf de: verwarnt. --Bobo11 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

the edit has been removed from the history --Neozoon (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The image AndyBlumenthal.jpg was incorrectly deleted from the commons. It is my picture and I am the owner of it. Kindly correct this and return the picture to the commons. Thank you. -Andy Blumenthal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It was claimed that it was a US government photo upon upload. Even if we look past that, you'll need to verify your identity, confirm the licensing for the image (if it's not US gov't work), and explain how you acquired the rights for the photo from the photographer (if it's not US gov't work) by following our instructions at COM:OTRS. Otherwise you'll need to direct us to the US government website that hosted the image to prove the government work claim. – Adrignola talk 01:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find the image with the given information but I only found some secondary sources so I had to delete it. It was tagged with no source for two weeks, more than enough time to alter the page and add a proper source/permission. --Denniss (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy / Fairedits -- for future reference, the best place for requesting an undeletion is at Commons:Undeletion requests. It will get better and faster attention there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm being harassed on my talkpage by IP socks of en:User:Wikinger, a user banned on multiple projects. Please semiprotect. And I'd be grateful if somebody could finally also block his latest block-evading reincarnation here, Constantinople (talk · contribs); all his contributions here are designed to help evade his permanent ban on en-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Took care of the IPs and protected your talk page for a period of time. A CU will have to examine the user account. – Adrignola talk 18:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The identity of Constantinople (talk · contribs) is very obvious to anybody familiar with the mode of operation of this vandal. See also the IPs that predictably popped up last time I reported him here [332] (the 83.* IPs are from the same known ISP's range as today's 79.* IPs). By the way, I only now noticed another little trick he played back then and that slipped through: ZhongguoZhizao (talk · contribs), a newly created account, was ostensibly reverting Wikinger's vandal IPs that were removing my post [333], but in doing so he was sneakily inserting words into my restored post that negated its meaning [334]. Yet another obvious sock. He does these little games all the time. Please block that one too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

... And the same games continue ... [335]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also found ZhizaoZhongguo (talk · contribs); both this one and the one you pointed out actually placed a notice on their user pages that they were Wikinger socks. They've now been blocked indefinitely, but I don't know that my IP blocks are effective. I can tell from the block log that I got someone with an autoblock of ZhongguoZhizao (talk · contribs). – Adrignola talk 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

IP-blocking him is difficult. He is on a highly volatile range and can easily IP-hop, and the range is huge (multiple /16s); he also often uses open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"uses impersonator accounts of unrelated users and then reveals them to be his socks, trying to fool administrators to block the original impersonation victim as his sock too"... The page User:ZhizaoZhongguo was created by User:ZhongguoZhizao. I was fooled. So that definitely connects Wikinger to the latter account. I just wonder if there's any CU evidence to connect Constantinople with these recent IPs and accounts, to push correlation beyond the fact that Constantiople likes uploading images of Greek letters and Wikinger liked messing with articles on Greek letters. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, getting confused now. I had that suspicion too for a moment, but no, I think you were right the first time round. Both ZhoZhi and ZhiZho placed these fake sock notices on each other's user page, so they are both socks. ZhoZhi was created two weeks ago in the incident I pointed out above and had a few other contribs on other wikis in the meantime; the ZhiZho account was created only now, two minutes before ZhoZhi created his userpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Now if Constantiople would kindly place on his user page that he's a sock of Wikinger, that would be great. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a checkuser request. It's a bit "for form's sake", because the identity is really rather painfully obvious to people who know him, but if you'd feel more confident about it with a formal confirmation, let's see if we can get one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone else wishes to go ahead and block, anyway, that's fine. I'm simply used to performing checks at Wikibooks and having nice clear-cut cases. – Adrignola talk 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For completeness - quite a quantity of Wikinger socks blocked by me today (including some of those mentioned above). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is blocked on eswp, a long block for disrupting editing, and continue here with that behaviour, I am sysop on eswp also and I am not neutral in this case Ezarateesteban 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done blocked for one month for upload copyvios, if he continues with this behaviour the block can became a infinite one. Béria Lima ^msg 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[336] [337]. He claims that the wording is a personal attack, but it isn't. It's a critic on someone else behavior. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: Is indeed inappropriate wording because it has been used for cruel murders. Furthermore I am sure you sue the false one. -- RE rillke questions? 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Censored.png, where User:Jorm (WMF), was one of the first few voting for deletion as "funny, but out of scope".

Answering to a request by RE rillke, Jorm clarified 7 hours later that he did not vote "as a staff member".

Despite that 36 hours-old clarification, :de-User:Eingangskontrolle today commented to Jorm "I think that a user with (WMF) has no right to talk to us in this way. You are on of the "Schreibtischtäter" responsible for this."[338] (bolding by me)

For those who don't know, the German term "Schreibtischtäter" (="desk criminal") is used for Nazi criminals who planned the mass murder actions,[339] of which users Eingangskontrolle and Niabot are well aware as native speakers.

Calling another user, whether or not he is working as a designer for the WMF as Jorm, a Schreibtischtäter is a very serious personal attack, possibly criminal libel. Though this DR discussion is rather heated, such an attack is not acceptable. I therefore removed it, when becoming aware of it. Niabot immediately restored the attack, which might per se be a blockable offense per WP:NPA. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should not take everything inside quotes so literally. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Verwendung von Worten darf man nicht vom Kontext trennen. Aber genau das wird hier gemacht. Das Wort "Schreibtischtäter" wird im üblichen Sprachgebrauch für Personen verwendet, die sich hinter seinen Schreibtisch verschanzen und eine gewisse Realitätsferne inne haben. Man könnte auch das ordinärere "Sesselfurzer" verwenden. Beleidigung? Fehlanzeige! --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Die selbe blöde Sache mit dem "Blockwart". Ja ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit Nazis verwendet wurde, aber auch ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit dem Hausmeister von Neubaublöcken verwendet wurde, und eine Person bezeichnet die penibel über das Anwesen wachte. Auch hier ist die Annahme eines direkten Bezugs zur ersten Bedeutung ohne Kontext eine schlichte Unterstellung. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Túrelio's actions were appropriate, in my opinion. Please read de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe (en:WP:PA). It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Comments like "It's just a provocation account and the human being behind the name plays the role of the learning resistant, permanent, instant troll" are unhelpful and serve only to inflame, not to further the discussion.[340] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I support the removal of the personal attack (which seems clear... quotation marks do not significantly dampen an insult), I would add a warning that the next similar attack will result in a block. --99of9 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There were three statements: the Schreibtischtäter attack, the statement that WMF was, indeed, behind the censored.jpg debacle, and the legitimate suggestion that accounts of WMF executives should not vote there. If someone deems Schreibtischtäter unacceptable, they should have deleted just this bit of "insult" and kept the rest. Why was it deleted, at all? NVO (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@NVO, agreed. I choose it that way (and left the user a low level civility warning) to invite him to eventually reword his comment, which he actually did. With that, however, he even aggravated his statement in regard to voting: "Employees of the object critized should not vote under any username"[341]. Questioning or even denying the right to vote/comment in a DR of a user, who had already stated that he did not "vote" as a staff member, is rather discriminatory, especially as I am not aware of any policy about that. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the comments of 99of9. I see no reason to discriminate against staff members. My experience is that their perspective is often helpful. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please deal with this IP and deletion. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fluffer_on_set.jpg. Deletion was closed Sept. 11 but 6 days later, the IP apparently has a problem with it and the related image and has re-tagged the image for deletion and filed a new deletion request. I don't care one way or the other about the image but tired of the deletion notices being left on my talk page by an IP who apparently can't take a hint. Thanks in advance. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I closed the DR and warned the IP. Yann (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As it can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054.svg , User:Iaaasi continues to support his POV even if the majority of sources states the opposite (there was a long debate about it). Moreover his activity is against the original uploaders' intention.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, many sources support my POV (Iaaasi (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how many sources support your POV. Different POVs get uploaded at different filenames, period. Powers (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is not an appropriate user name. --Martina talk 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally would let it pass, but it is very close to crossing the line of unacceptable. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little more interested in the web-resolution, no EXIF images than the username, which, IMO, is harmless. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I clearly recall reviewing File:RicardoSanz.jpg that was uploaded by ODS40 and initially failed my Flickr review but after a discussion with the uploader, who obviously was the same as the Flickr user, he changed the licence on Flickr to an acceptable one after discussion on my talk page after which I gave it a passing review. Now an anonIP, who does not claim to be OSD either here or on Flickr, has been removing the licencing and author information from this image as well as from another image File:Pilar_gomez_acebo.jpg that I did not review but believe the anonIP's claim on that one is also inaccurate though it was deleted earlier today. I replied to his rants on my talk page explaining that the CC licnece applied is not revocable at will but he continues to make the same claims that the image is now unavailable on Flickr and has no licence or permission, as well as making a veiled legal threat. There is no evidence this anonIP is the same Flickr user or the same editor who uploaded the image. If he were he could easily login here to at least verify his claim that these image are in fact his. Ww2censor (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the uploader has had some sort of dissatisfaction with sysops at the Spanish Wikipedia and decided to "withdraw" his contributions, as he explained on his blog. I suppose the problem here might be also related to that situation. Ironically, his blog is under CC-by-sa 3.0 and the photo in question is still there. (On an unrelated note, that photo prominently shows a painting, which makes it a derivative work, and as such it probbaly could not be kept without the painter's explicit consent to the publication of the photo under a free license.) -- Asclepias (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cropped out the possibly copyright painting, as allowable under the licence, and uploaded to as File:Ricardo Sanz crop.jpg, so you now decide to delete the original as a derivative work without permission. Ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 has first emptied the categories Category:State emblem of Mongolia and Category:Emblems of Mongolia, then put them up for deletion. I have voiced my opinion on that topic here Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:State emblem of Mongolia. When I restored his file removal for example here File:Coat of Arms of Mongolia.svg, the edit was undone with the comment "I don't give a crap what you think regarding the proper name of what this symbol is, you are making it harder to find". This is not in order. User should refrain from unilaterally emptying categories and putting them up for deletion when the opposite of his argument is quite clear, and especially avoid offensive language before issues are settled, which IMO is quite clear, see name of article here Emblem of Mongolia. Gryffindor (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go through the history, Gryffindor created the Categories "Emblems of Mongolia" and "State Emblem of Mongolia", and only put two files in it, the SVG and one non-SVG version of Mongolia's national emblem (at the same time removing them from "Coat of Arms fo Mingolia"). He made them harder to find, and I reverted him back to the long-standing consensus and common practice of "Coat of Arms of". Gryffindor then unilaterally tried to enforce his opinion by removing ALL of Mongolia's national symbols, current and historical, from the "Coat of Arms of" and put them in his new cats. You may not like my language (which is hardly harsh), but Gryffindor unilateral attempts to enforce his view of what the category should be called, over functionality and ease of use, are the real problem here. If he was really interested in consensus, why didn't he set up a discussion and possible re-name of the category "Coat of Arms of Mongolia", rather then bypassing that process, creating his own hard-to-find categories, and unilaterally removing everything from where people would look, and putting it in a place that is harder? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be of note, that I have no objection if the "Coat of Arms of Mongolia" cat was renamed, but Gryffindor's insistance of bypassing that process deliberatly made the emblems of Mongolia more difficult to find. We have a category "Coat of arms by country". That is the master category to find national symbols, and within that category is the sub-cat "Coat of Arms of Mongolia". That is where people would look. But because of Gryffindor's actions, they would instead have to go through "Mongolia"-"Symbols of Mongolia"-"Emblems of Mongolia"-"State Emblem of Mongolia". A lot more tedius and unneccesary process. Lastly, his claim that users shouldn't "unilaterally empty categories" is a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because that is exactly what he did, and the history will prove it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A subcategory is not "harder to find". It looks like "Coats of arms of Mongolia" is being used for coats of arms of the various subdivisions as well, so a category for the specific national coat of arms seems reasonable to me. Much like "Great Seal of the United States" is a subcategory of "Seals of the United States". And if its proper name is the "state emblem" and not a "coat of arms", it would seem to be correctly named as well. Not sure about the more general "emblems of mongolia", but if it's not technically a coat of arms, maybe the emblems is more appropriate alongside the coats of arms category, all under "Symbols of Mongolia". There is not guaranteed to be a "coats of arms of XXXX" category everywhere; "Symbols of XXX" is generally the standard place you'd start from. I'd agree with Gryffindor here I think. The edit comment sounds inappropriate... just because you disagree, that does not mean your idea of what the "proper" category name is should take precedent. Using proper categorization, if it's not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category -- this is why there is a more generic "Symbols" level above it, under which it should easily be found whatever it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does make it harder if you're looking for a national symbol via "Coat of Arms by country", and it's not there. What's worse, some countries aren't even listed there, such as Japan, since their national emblem is the Imperial Seal. Do you know what I mean? If we're gonna have a master category for national symbols, then every country should be there. Gryffindor wants to use the article page for Mongolia's emblem as reasoning for his new category, but ignores that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms shows every country's symbol, whether it's officially a coat of arms or not, which is good reasoning for having every nation's symbols listed in "Coat of Arms by country". Fry1989 ^eh? 03:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a symbol, start in Category:Symbols of Mongolia. If something is not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category, even if that happens to be the place you happen to habitually look for -- you're looking in the wrong place. Not all such symbols are coats of arms; the gallery page you indirectly link to notes for each one when it's an "emblem" vs a "coat of arms". Coats of arms typically have some heraldic aspects and are defined by blazons; some countries may use an emblem which does not have those characteristics, so they aren't always the same thing. If a country has no coats of arms specific to it, then you would expect there to not be an entry under "Coats of arms by country" for them. If you are determined to make a convenience link, maybe make "Emblems of Mongolia" a subcat of "Coats of arms of Mongolia" (using a more generic definition maybe), but do try to educate people that it is not properly a coat of arms by making the categorization accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand all that. But you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Anyhow, I'll let it go. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989 is certainly not playing a positive role on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, where he seems to take perverse delight in throwing around loose and inflammatory rhetoric on a subject that he actually knows very little about. He actually has a certain basic point about not usually overwriting images with other images of different meaning (though this is certainly not an inviolable absolute) -- however, he undermines his own efforts and pointlessly and needlessly exacerbates the overall situation by placing ignorant biased nonsense in his edit summaries (something which I really wish he wouldn't do). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That issue is addressed on my talk page. I have not thrown around any "inflamatory rhetoric", I have laid out the truth. I will not respond to that issue anymore, as it is dealt with (on my talk page). As for the original start of this AN/U, I have only reverted Gryffindor's edits which he is trying to force without discussions. It's a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because everything he accuses me of doing, he has done himself (unilateral removals of files from their categories, over-categorization by creating more categories than neccesary), and all I've done is revert his controversial and unilateral edits. He responds, rather then by trying to engage in a discussion or compromise, but rather continue to push his edits to get his way. He's tried forcing himself with the Emblem of Mongolia, now he's trying to force himself with the Emblem of Israel/Coat of Arms of Israel debate, as well as the Symbols of National Legislatures. All in all, he has forced his personal view of "it's not a coat of arms, so it can't be in any categories with that in it's title no matter what", over the objection of another user. When that user tried to engage him in conversation, hye ignores it and pushes his way anyways. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Zionism over-writing history"[sic] is the very definition of loose and inflammatory rhetoric (especially when the "historical" basis of what was over-written was extremely dubious at best), and your most recent upload summary on that file wasn't much better... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say. The facts speak for themselves. Two Israeli users have disrespected a user's personal map meant for the use only by Palestinians/Arabs and Palestine supporters. I don't seen any Palestinians or Arabs doing that to flag maps using the Israeli flag. So which side is the offender? It's pretty clear. Per my talk, the only way problems can be avoided is if both sides respect each other's maps. That is what I am maintaining, whether you like my edit summaries or not. Oh, and if you wanna talk about exacerbating a debate, go ahead and continue to claim you know the state of other people's minds, like you did on my page. What was it you said? "You take personal pleasure in..." I believe? Or how about "..on an subject you really no little about"? Yes, I'm sure it really helps a conversation to claim you can read your debator's mind. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And if you want the subject to be general policies on image overwriting rather than your personal behavior, then you really need to tone down aspects of that behavior effective immediately, as I already told you. I made the deduction that you know very little about the subject from your rather ineffectual and often irrelevant replies in a discussion which you've already deleted from your user talk page, and I made the deduction that you seem to take some kind of pleasure in being offensive from the fact that after I complained about your first offensive upload summary, you went right ahead with a second offensive upload summary. Believe me, I would be happy if these deductions were proved to be wrong! AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deductions? More like accusations, the way you throw it around. And what you consider offensive isn't always offensive to everyone. Did you ever consider that I feel what I have said accurately reflected the situation? I'm not doing it for shock value, that's not my style. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, things will proceed much smoother with respect to this file as long as you stick to statements on general image overwriting policies -- while keeping any forceful expressions of your personal ideology (whatever that may be) firmly in the background... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Which side is the offender" is a horrible question. We don't want to encourage editors to split up into sides, and you can and should correct editors without tossing "offender" at them. Furthermore, "Zionism over-writing history" is even worse than the question, since it goes beyond the behavior of editors on Commons and starts accusing a political movement of tampering with history, which is a pretty incendiary charge. Whether or not you feel what you've said accurately reflected the situation is irrelevant; it threw fuel on a constantly troubled situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Arab ideological manipulations with maps, I caught the first-uploaded version of Image:Samou-battle-1966-map.png having an Arabic label فلسطين المحتلة "Occupied Palestine" on the territory of 1949-1967 Israel -- however, the uploader was quite helpful and polite when I pointed this out (conspicuously unlike Fry1989...). Anyway, Fry1989 overlooks the sensitive issue of aggressive irredentism (among other sensitive issues) -- I wonder how much he would like a map of all of North America overlaid with the stars and stripes, under the title "Flag map of historic United States". -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism is not my concern (and your example of North America covered in the Stars & Stripes is beyond silly. I wouldn't give a damn, as long as American users leave my flag map of Canada alone. Nevermind how many of those maps I do see on the net all the time, of Americans wanting to annex Canada, Mexico, other places. You ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" theory?) Unless you want to ban all flag maps that don't reflect the current reality or claim lands that aren't part of that country, then my example of Serbia & Kosovo (per my talk page) is the example that should be used for Israel and Palestine. And yes, this is a case of one side being the offender. It was two Serbs who kept reverting trying to force the Serbia flag map to include Kosovo, and now it's two Israelis trying to get ride of a map of the entire disputed area using the Palestinian flag. You may not like my choice of words, but the actions of these users make the situation clear enough. And if I or some Arab user had over-written the Flag map of Israel with the Palestinian flag, don't pretend for one second that I/they wouldn't be called vandals, Anti-Israeli, and trying to force our POV of the situation. It shouldn't be any different when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian flag map. In any case, File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png has been uploaded separately, so the issue is now over, as long as they leave their opposing side's maps alone (again, as Serbia and Kosovo). Now, if you want an apology for my choice of words, then fine, you get one.I'm sorry for how I said what I said. But I want one from Anonmoos, who has claimed to know the state of my mind, and accused of me getting some sort of peverse pleasure from shock value tactics. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of simple historical fact, Kosovo has been part of Serbia in the past, while as a matter of simple historical fact the flag shown in File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg has never flown over all the territory included in the map at any date in history -- which is why a significant number of people consider such images to be a malicious blatant transparent lie at best, and an aggressive declaration of war against the existence of the Israeli and/or Jewish people at worst. This makes the image a sensitive issue to start with (whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not), and you did not handle such sensitive issues sensitively, but quite the reverse. I've uploaded several images in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical, but they're all historically accurate and appropriate (though I suppose it would be possible to quibble about the neutral zones in File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg), while File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg is neither, and would not be suitable to be included in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical if it were an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying either map with either flag is actually accurate, and I never did. Now, my words can be misconstrued to suggest that, but it wasn't the intent. What I did say once on my talk page was "more historic in the sense", but I didn't say it was outright accurate. Either way, unless you want to ban flag maps because they're irredentist, then the Serbia-Kosovo flag-map conflict is the example to follow. I'm still waiting on your apology Anonmoos btw, considering I gave mine. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nice that you're softening your position somewhat, but it comes much too late in the whole current brou-ha-ha to greatly change my opinion of you based on this incident (or based on the last several years of often-contentious interactions with you). If it makes you feel better, I freely admit that I have no evidence that you were maliciously trolling, as opposed to putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important. AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg: Commons is no place for personal points of view, we just display facts, we don't make facts! And it is a fact, that the palestine flag does not cover the whole British mandated territory. a×p_de^Hello! 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the solution has already been made. File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg and File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png both exist. Unless you're going to delete them both, I cannot allow the Israeli POV map to stay the way it is while the Palestinian POV map is removed. I hate double-standards more than anything else. So either delete them both, or let the users keep their maps and their points of view. I don't care which you do, but no double-standards. As for your talk page, you didn't say you didn't need hints at things on you watchlist, you said "I don't need additional watchlists(sic)", which reads as "I have enough things on my watchlist, I don't need more things to be involved in". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(With double edit conflict!!)

Hmmm, good point. As said before, commons doesn't make facts. Both flags/maps are intented to manifest a certain personal point of view and to provoke the other side. File deleted! a×p_de^Hello! 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I know exactly what I wrote, and I still don't need you to be my additional watchlist. As you might know this is "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" and I'm an administrator! And I'm not responsible for your missinterpretation! a×p_de^Hello! 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyhow, if they're both gone, then I am no longer concerned in the matter. My only intent was ever to First: protect a user's file from a complete over-write to support the opposing POV (which I consider an abuse), and then Second, stop any double standards. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that any POV is bad for the reputatioin of commons. Commons has to strictly respect the NPOV! a×p_de^Hello! 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Axpde -- We can definitely host irredentist maps here, but they need to be clearly labelled as irredentist (and not as "historic" if they're obviously not historic), and they need to express the views of some notable individual or group (and not be merely the personal views of the image uploader)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said several times before, the one that's correctly "historic" is File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg; the User:Maher27777 version of File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg would be more accurate and less offensive if it were under a name such as "Map of Palestinian Arab territorial aspirations" or whatever. Anyway, as a result of the file uploading and re-uploading on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, Arabic Wikipedia has changed over from that image to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg, which I regard as a positive step... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It pains me to say this, as Fry has never been anything other than gracious when I've contacted him, but I'm extremely disappointed with the way he has acted lately on his talk page. Although I don't believe AnonMoos is entirely blameless, especially with his most recent edit, but Fry's response of blanking the discussion with far from complimentary edit summaries bears mentioning here, in case it was missed. Here are the three, oldest first:

[342] [343] [344]

Apologies if this is out of turn. I'm not sure if this is the correct medium, so I apologise if not. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care so much about his removing comments by me from his user talk page as such, but it can be one manifestation of his general personal infallibility syndrome, which is definitely rather annoying overall. Part of the reason why we don't have too much patience with each other is lingering bad feelings over Fry1989's complete refusal to acknowledge -- over a period of years -- very obvious basic simple facts about Commons policies, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive. Most recently, we're in a strange "war" at Image:Gay_flag.svg, where Fry1989 is re-uploading an old file version by me, and is again refusing to acknowledge basic facts (and nominated File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif for deletion because it provides factual evidence that he was wrong)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have apologized and acknowledged my faults countless times with other users (look above, is that not an apology??????). I also have no problem getting along with others. Look at my talk page, it's full of "pleases" and "thank yous" and me having conversations with other users about changes I've made, and us taking a look at them. Perhaps Anonmoos should "get it" (as he has said to me before) that his personal approach towards me is rude, presumptive, arrogant, carries an air of superiority, and turns me off of having any conversation with him. He has yelled at me, he has called me names, he has questioned my intelligence, the emotional state of my mind, and my personal motives in my work here countless times in over a year. He has called my work "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", and he has claimed I have a personal infallibility syndrome. These are not the words of somebody who wants to get along and talk with you, it's the words of someone who wants to talk over you. All I'm asking for is an apology. Why is that so hard for him? I believe it's because he actually believes he is better then me. The way he addresses me shows such disdain that I simply can not engage with him anymore. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As a third party, it seems clear to me that AnonMoos is more experienced with vector graphics than either I or Fry - I would never have noticed the double-fill issue, for instance - and Fry's refusal to acknowledge improvements to files because they've been edited by him seems needlessly obstructive. However, whether or not it is understandable due to previous communications they've had, I cannot say. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NikNaks, he has abused me for too long, it's been over a year now. I simply will not allow it to happen anymore. Once he apologizes for how he addresses me, and the abuse stops, only then will I engage with him in any sort. It would be so incredibly easy for me to make a list of his systematic abuse and seek punishment. The only reason I don't is I'm not that petty. But I warn him if he reads this: If it continues much more, I may change my mind. Nobody should have to deal with what I have for as long as I have, and have him get away with it. If I had done what he has to another user, I have absolutely no question I would be punished, possibly even banned. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I told you early on that your revisions to the file had introduced internally-inconsistent color specifications, and opened the way towards possible hairline cracks (don't feel like trying to retrieve those comments from the morass of deletions that is your user talk page), and you simply ignored those concerns when I first expressed them, and when I presented objective factual evidence that hairline cracks were in fact present, your response was to try to get the evidence deleted (unfortunately, all too typical of your tendencies to often completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge in any way clear objective facts, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive, etc. etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor: Fry1989 Edit Warring

I hope someone can point me in the right direction I'm having a problem with an Editor Fry1989 ^eh? who's edit warring w/ me on a file I've uploaded File:Transnistria Air Force Roundel.svg I'm not sure where to report this kind of activity. Any help would be surly appreciated, a million thanks Jetijones (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• See also this DR. NVO (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  DR closed because the reason provided does not apply. a×p_de^Hello! 07:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I must say, Fry does seem to be raising a lot of hackles recently, and I think it would be in everyone's interest if he just calmed down. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you guys its seems he has ceased his harassment of the file. Side note he was recently Blocked on Wikipedia 24hrs for Edit warring. It might be a ideal thing to give him a reminder, to play fair here too. Jetijones (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I upload protected the file for a month. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Matt Jetijones (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I went to bed. Jetijones ignores other sources because he likes to force his own favourite sources. There are plenty of pics showing the Estonian roundel as the triangle pointing downwards. 1, 2, 3, and 4 shows it both ways. But there is already File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force port side.svg in his prefered orientation, so why he wants to force himself on File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force.svg is beyond me. So it is actually him who is abusing the Estonian roundel, because he says "per sources!", but ignores when somebody have sources that show it a different way. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Fry only one problem with your four photos they all show the Estonian insignia on the wings, and on your last photo it shows the insignia in the right-side angle, on the fuselage. Furthermore, this is also the case for the Hungarian Air Force roundel seen here, and here. So I guess Hungarian roundel is WRONG as well ehhh?? I'll leave at that cause I know this is not the page to discuss such things . Jetijones (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is this: One, there's already a file with your choice of orientation, so you shouldn't force yourself on the others, and second, the wings are a source for roundel orientation as well. Look at Canada's roundel. It has the maple leaf facing upwards on the fuselage, and "forwards" on the wings. Many other countries are that way too. You should have used the other file of your choice of orientation, then this never would have happened. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

After warning by Mattbuck he continued the edit war, blocked for one day! a×p_de^Hello! 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, the edit war was a revert war, and I fully protected the image... what did he war this time? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, attitude take your pick, either way it's good thing to give the guy a some cool down time. Jetijones (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

I am creating this AN/U to report the recent abuse from Anonmoos towards myself. He has been attacking me, my contributions, and my state of mind, and refuses to apologize for it.

Septembre 2, 2011:He calls my work and contributions "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", he yells at me, and accuses me of having a "personal infalability problem".

Septembre 2, 2011: I had previously removed one of his conversations on my page, and he reverted me to force himself back on just to make his point.

August 28, 2011 He says I have been "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way".

August 27, 2011 He accuses me of "forceful expressions of my ideology".

August 26, 2011 He starts a talk on my page by yelling at me.

August 26, 2011 He accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure and of being a "spectacle". He also claims to know my knowledge on a subject, as if he can read my mind.

August 26, 2011 He again accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure (in this case using the term "peverse delight") and calls me ignorant and biased.

All of this is his most recent manner of talking to me ("a person like you"), but our conversations have rarely been more cordial then this. Often he addresses me with an air of superiority, and talks to me like I'm a child, and claims I have a personal infalibility complex (even though I can give consistant examples of myself apologizing for my faults). He refuses to apologize (that's all I ask for), and that is why I will have nothing more to do with him. If you have received a "please see" from me on your talk page, it is because I have told you about his attacks (or you have been involved with a dispute between him and myself before) and you either didn't acknowledge it, or said to bring it here. So I have. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate if I sometimes lose my patience, but frankly I find your long-term habit of completely ignoring and simply refusing to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (such as that galleries are selective and categories are comprehensive, or that the 535-byte version of File:Gay_flag.svg -- which I originally uploaded by the way -- is technically inferior to the 485-byte version) to be quite annoying, especially when persisted in over the long term. When it comes to substantive factual issues (as opposed to occasional rhetorical exclamations betraying profound annoyance), I've been more sinned-against than sinning in our personal dealings over the past few years, and I imagine that most neutral observers who objectively examine the facts would come to the same conclusion.

It's unfortunate that you've become fixated on the issue of a personal "apology", but I found your "apology" on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg above to be extremely belated and not even all that particularly relevant anymore, since it followed extensive and pointed discussions in which you persistently ignored and refused to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (something which did not really change), and by that point Arabic Wikipedia had already moved on to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg anyway. Since I can't reasonably expect you to do the right thing or behave significantly better in future, it's impossible for me to assign the same epoch-making and cataclysmic significance to your "apology" which you apparently do. And furthermore, it's simply childish to ban me from your user talk page and have "nothing more to do with" me, because that means that if we have factual issues over an image, we can no longer discuss them, but only edit war over them...

Frankly, my reactions towards you arise much more from long-term wearied annoyance (i.e. "here we go again with yet another round of nonsense"), rather than from any pugnacious desire for combat, or condescending beliefs in innate superiority over others... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is an apology for your sensationalist comments about me. I'm not asking for punishment or anything else. I have apologized to other users when i make mistakes. Why you can not do the same is beyond me. But until you do, I can not have you on my talk page anymore. You have yelled at me, called me names, and questioned the state of my mind. if you think it's childish for a user to no longer want or allow themselves to be subject to such things, that's your problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that you focus solely on your lacerated personal feelings, to the complete and utter exclusion of the factual issues at dispute (such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive), or any consideration as to how unnecessary frictions or confrontations can be avoided in future. After seeing your often obstructive and rather insensitively obnoxious behavior over the last three years or so, I don't know that I can take your alleged feelings of vulnerable wounded hurt very seriously at this point. If you had shown a little less "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important" over the years, then your claims about your current fragile emotional state might be more credible to me... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my personal feelings and everything to do with you, personally attacking another user, and getting away with it. Saying you loose your patience with me is absolutely not a valid reasoning to attack another user's work, calling it shoddy and sub-optimal, nor is it a valid reasoning to call another user names, and act like you can read their minds. You're a child and a bully, and I have no sympathy for you. Either apologize for your behaviour, as I have to others, or leave me alone. It's your choice, but I've had enough, and I'm sure any other user would too, if they were subjected to the types of personal attack that you have chosen to engage in. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the 535-byte version of File:Gay_flag.svg (which I originally uploaded) is objectively factually technically inferior to the 485-byte version, and you've provided no way forward to resolve this issue, or even to discuss this issue, but instead remain focused solely on your interior emotional drama -- which I find hard to take too seriously at this point, given your rather unfortunate past history and patterns of behavior at Commons (see "sinned-against than sinning" above). AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have found that two photographs, "File:De Gea Man Utd.jpg" and "File:David De Gea.jpg West.jpg", uploaded by Coombeschico91 appear to be copyright violations, as according to [345] they are credited to "Mike Hewitt/Getty Images". The photographs "File:121131805 crop 650x440.jpg", "File:De Gea.jpg123.jpg" and "File:David+de+Gea+.jpg" appear to have been taken on the same occasion, and are probably copyright violations as well. I think it may be necessary to sternly warn and/or block this editor. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the files and a message at the talk page seem sufficient for now. (Done for both). Jcb (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think Coombeschico91 may need a sterner warning. Despite being asked to stop uploading copyrighted images on 20 September, he did it again on 21 September, and re-inserted the image into "en:David de Gea". (An editor has already nominated the image for deletion.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, uploading copyvio after warning = block - file deleted and block applied - Jcb (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold and wave has recently been participating in some deletion requests regarding human nudity and sexuality, and has been most unhelpful. Every response is just copy/pasted, regardless of relevance to the image in question. He has been repeatedly warned for just saying "per nom" and not replying to people who have completely debunked the nomination. Warnings such as this by myself, Geo Swan and others are responded to by repeated talk page blanking, and generally ignoring our concerns.

The user's history on deletion requests pretty much boils down to this:

1. Find deletion request
2. Add "per nom" or whatever copypaste is his latest flavour
3. Go to step 1

I don't believe he has ever made a useful contribution in this manner. His latest little thing is to c/p {{vd}} Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity onto about 10 DRs, regardless of their content. NSFW: I'm pretty sure File:Jumping ball 01.jpg wasn't taken by someone dropping their pants to take a photo, File:Male masturbation 1.jpg is a drawing so couldn't be, File:Cum eating order.jpg is a legitimate collage which is in use, and who the hell keeps their File:Tits.png in their trousers? This user has done nothing but attempt to get perfectly in scope images deleted this past month, which in turn is keeping me from doing anything but watching him. We need some intervention here, because this behaviour is frankly trolling. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"been participating in some deletion requests regarding human nudity and sexuality" It goes beyond that as there is no nudity related to this image. Nor even sexuality. I don't know if "trolling" is the right term. Maybe "over eagerness"? Newishness (he has been here for a while now)? Everyone knows that Mattbuck and I agree on nothing, but I do feel that some of his responses, while having the same "vote" as mine, aren't the best. Perhaps a stern talking to to come up with catered rationales would help? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL Mattbuck, please warn people about NSFW - that Jumping ball image was not as innocent as the title suggested and I spilled my soda as I quickly x'ed it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, we tried talking to him, all he does is delete the warnings. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean this? He seems to have stopped the "per nom" after that but switched to another problematic rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Oh, and sorry for the NSFW, I assumed it was obvious given I started by talking about nudity and sexuality. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the above. He did many attempts to get rid of pictures and categories that relate to Mafia and negative connotations related to Jewish people. --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 This behavior is more then obvious. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A two week vacation is now in effect due to disruptive editing and failure to heed constructive feedback. – Adrignola talk 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Support this decision. I've tried to discuss with the user on their talk page but my messages would just be deleted without reply. Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that this user may be a sock for someone else, though quite who it might be I don't know. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, the CommonsDelinker service removed a very nice little award someone had posted to my talk page. (I've since undone the edit.) Recommendation: Don't delete image references! A redlink image has two important properties: It serves as a reminder to replace the image, and it may have a caption which is important to the article (or user!) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly what CommonsDelinker's primary purpose is. Delinking. – Adrignola talk 15:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that that is what it is programmed to do. I am suggesting that perhaps this is not a desired behavior in all cases. Discuss. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 15:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You can protect your user talk page against such changes, by adding {{nobots}} somewhere at the page. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unusual for such awards to be presented as simply an image with caption; normally, the award text would remain and only the image would be removed. The bots don't have a good way of distinguishing such images from other uses. Powers (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern is larger than just awards -- users will be notified of changes to their own pages, so bot errors can be corrected. I was more concerned about the loss of information on regular articles. But... I'm no longer highly active in Wikipedia, so I am not interested in defending my position strongly. Just thought I'd raise the issue. (I posted to this board originally because I thought it was a unilateral bot action, not a service used by multiple admins.) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 18:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:RebelRadio LetterHead.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:RebelRadio Logo.gif. User:Italianrebel202 has uploaded these images here claiming to be the copyright holder. If this is indeed the new logo of the University of Mississippi radio station WUMS, one would imagine the copyright is held by the University as a business logo. The uploader has twice added both images to the WUMS article on Wikipedia and after my second removal from that article, the user has sent me a personal email via the Wiki-email system threatening me with legal action if the images are removed again and/or deleted. I've tried to explain to the user that copyrighted business logos aren't public domain or free but I'm not as well versed in image issues as most of you are and I'd appreciate some help in dealing with the user and helping the user to understand the image policy and help the user determine if one of the images could be uploaded directly on Wikipedia and used under a fair-use aspect. Thanks for any help and attention to this matter. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted both images from Commons as they are clear copyvios from a web site with an explicit copyright notice. I have also warned User:Italianrebel202 on his talk page and offered help there if he needs it to try Fair Use on WP:EN.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:RebelRadio Logo.gif is {{PD-textlogo}} and should not have been deleted. Powers (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} does not apply to trademarks and copydesign. The images are copyrighted by The University of Mississippi and used as trademarks of WUMS radio station. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? --  Docu  at 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing copyright law and trademark law. We have plenty of logotypes that are tagged with a combination of {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}}. Trademark protection does not magically make non-copyrightable text copyrightable. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LTPowers that File:RebelRadio Logo.gif is close to the line, but there is more than text there and I think that taken as a whole it goes beyond PD-textlogo, which is why I deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My 20 cents: According to COM:TOO I think this logo is on the acceptable side of the line. --Leyo 13:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim, we received an email in ticket 2011092410012404, but I'm confirming its validity with the email listed on the WHOIS for the radio station's website (I will not make telephone calls and they don't list an email on the site) because it came from a Gmail address. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from text, the only elements in the image are a simple color gradient and six simple arcs. The U.S. copyright office would take one look at it and say "not eligible for copyright". Powers (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that it is close to the line, so I would not object to someone else undeleting it. Hopefully, we can get permission from the real WUMS to keep it, which will make the question moot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay... I have undeleted the file. But for future reference, if you think it's "close to the line", you should have let the deletion review run. There was no reason to jump to a speedy here. Powers (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cafedelyon uploaded File:La classe de Herman Richir.jpg; I DRed it, and it was deleted. He then uploaded it again. I marked it for speedy deletion, and left a note on his talk page. He has not replied to the note, and he has uploaded it a third time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Image is deleted, user is blocked for 3 days. - A.Savin 08:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:SaphenMikeCentry has uploaded two images, and both are versions of non-free images from Wikipedia, with changes that seem to be vandalism. I tagged one for deletion and the user reverted and removed a warning. The user has not made any edits to Wikipedia with this account, but several accounts and unregistered users have been vandalising the articles associated with the images (Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5) today. It's likely that this user is only here to be disruptive and to violate policy. Peter E. James (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User completely unreasonable. Has been blocked now by Beria. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolvedall accounts indef blocked --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Previously, I made a report to this board regarding this editor (see thread). The report was effectively ignored. The editor continues the pattern of behavior, in uploading copyright violating content, despite multiple warnings to this effect. See warnings 1 and 2. Today, this user has uploaded two more copyright violations at File:Disney Channel Logo HD 2011.png and File:Disney Channel Logo UK 2011.png. I've tagged these as copyright violations as well. Every upload by this editor has been deleted. The same goes for his sockpuppets at User:Happy6057 and User:Happy1017.

He is long overdue for an indefinite block until such time as he understands our policies with regards to copyrighted works, and for sockpuppeting. Please, would an administrator step in? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indefed. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion some images the user Negromacondo (talk · contribs) uploaded, and they were deleted. Some days ago he opened an undeletion request and i (as in the deletions request) presented my opinion why the images must stay deleted. However, thats not the question.. the thing is that in providing the proofs via images uploaded to imageshack, the user insulted me several times using the filenames of the files uploaded. The undeletion requests are: this and this. The filenames he used are, for example:

• http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3250/chupameunguevogil.jpg
• http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3064/lavateelortogil.jpg
• http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5838/culorroto.jpg

This is a tricky way of insulting me, since these filenames may pass unnoticed to the english speaker, but are evidently a serious personal attack to any spanish speaker. If the meanings are unclear to the english speaker i could translate them.. although i would prefer not to do it in commons pages. --Zeroth (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Spanish, but did s/he insult you in sites other than Commons? — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Never like this. He acused me of vandal, manipulating the users and information and some other stuff, but never with this violence.--Zeroth (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I just advise to the user. Those filenames are unaceptable --Ezarateesteban 13:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This behavior is disruptive. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a violent unaceptable insult. As well, the files that he nominated were acepted by Carl, etc. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_2_1972_Argentina.jpg Line 9 (" ...you are lying..")--Negromacondo (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The user was asked in every deletion request starting in june repeatedly to provide the full scan of the back of the album that he claimed to have. He recreated the images previously deleted two times without presenting the proofs, so i had every reason to believe he was lying. In addition to the insulting filenames, he also mispelled mi nick in several times in an equally insulting way (that may also be unnoticed by the english speaker): "Zoreth" (that would be translated as "sh*t"): 1, 2, 3, 4.--Zeroth (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Commons:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No hagas ataques personales (en:WP:PA) apply. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." Can we put this matter behind us, please? New violations of Commons policies and guidelines may be brought here and may lead to blocks. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

All uploads are copyvios related to en:Death of Carlo Giuliani; his tribute site credits all to Reuters [346]. Request nuke all. NVO (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Yesterday, by User:A Savin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Has been blocked a couple of times in the past for copyvio uploads, he's now back to uploading copyvios again -- File:Shiv Nadar 72.jpg. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again. WJBscribe (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations --67.126.142.85 09:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Recent uploads deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Al intentar subir un par de imágenes, sustituí por error el archivo original que se encontraba en File:Chiles_en_nogada.jpg. Solicito, por favor, revertir mi edición para restaurar la imagen original. Gracias, BetoCG – ¿decías? 07:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Se puede hacerlo sin estar administrator. Yo he revertido el archivo.  :) NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

¡Gracias NikNaks93! BetoCG – ¿decías? 20:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

All the current cricket image uploads by Neelendra Kumar (talk · contribs) are either photos of a TV screen/internet video, can someone delete them, I don't think a DR would be required for this. Quite a few have already been deleted. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I take a look --Neozoon (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved Deleted the screenshotuploads and left the user a message

• File:Sunil gavaskar2.jpg
• File:Sunil gavaskar.jpg
• File:Sunil gavaskar3.jpg
• File:Sunil gavaskar4.jpg
• File:Sunny Gavaskar.jpg
• File:Javagal Srinath2.jpg
• File:Javagal Srinath2.jpg
• File:Kapil dev2.jpg
• File:Kapil dev3.jpg
• File:Kapil dev4.jpg
• File:Kapil dev01.jpg

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 22#User:Olybrius)

User:Edelseider is back with his editwarring. In spite of you telling him to discuss the matter and User:Geagea reverting him and telling him to stop.

He now even removed the year Category:2008 in Alsace without any comment at all.

So, suspecting some on the sly thing I reverted, but realizing I shouldn't assume bad faith (even from someone as arrogant as him) I ask him if he obtained a consensus in some discussion about this issue that images have to show ephemerality to be tagged chronologically.

His answer: This category brings nothing to this photo, one is perfectly deranged who asserts the contrary.

Ok, insults as usual. Discussion you said? Why bothering wasting precious time with maniacs, since anyone disagreeing with his principle of subjectivity is mentally ill.

In his paranoid weltanschauung the Internet is nothing but a lair of madmen (of which I'm one that is). And how does he deal whith these scums?

Blocking, evidently (and of course 24/7 surveillance, but that goes without saying), but alas he can't ask for my blocking, so, to get rid of me for all that, he's considering asking for the deletion of the file or the chronological categories altogether!

My! Nothing less. In his delusion, he even thinks I'm the mad inventor of all the chronological categorization!

And as a parting gift, he asks if I have ever done anything useful on Commons.

The conceit and arrogance of this guy are simply baffling! - Olybrius (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edelseider is not conceit and arrogant. I'll try to mediate in this case. I already made a commend on his talk page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Wladyslaw. I fear he's hopelessly bossy though... - Olybrius (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This user uploads images of Internet to Wikimedia without respecting copyright. He has been advised in all and he has relapsed back up the same images that were deleted, as these: File:Municipalidad de El Progreso.jpg or File:Nueva remodelación de la Municipalidad.JPG. Sonsaz (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of this user's uploads were deleted by Odder as copyright violations, but the user is now uploading those same files to fi.wikipedia. I also am sending an email to Odder, but it doesn't look like either of us understand Finnish. – Adrignola talk 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an ongoing DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Game-Genie-NES.jpg, that's bringing up some subtle and complex copyright issues. Instead of keeping to the issues, he continues to abuse other editors with threats of banning and personal attacks; [347], [348]. Many of his other comments have been unnecessarily personal. I was going to let it go; User:Clindberg and I have been around for a while, and we could shrug it off. Then I noticed that he chased down a commenter to their user page and told them "Your statement here is inappropriate." I find it very problematic for a user to respond to honest comments on DRs by going to user talk pages and telling them their statement was inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Trying to claim a bottle is equivalent to a picture of a man is outright disruptive, especially when they are trying to make the claim in pushing clear copyrighted material as uncopyrightable. They also tried to claim something that is clearly the focus of an item is de minimus. These claims are so absolutely absurd that they cannot have any rightful place in an honest discussion, and Prosfilaes et al should honestly know better. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, your claim of "personal attacks" are false and you must strike that claim. Saying something is impossible to say is not a personal attack in any definition, and it is disruptive to make that claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this a prime example. OR can't just disagree; he must tell me to "strike that claim" and assert that it was "disruptive" to even make it.

While I find that saying that it is "100% impossible" to hold a position to be abrasive and ill-conducive to real discussion, I did not claim it was a personal attack; further down the same edit you said "Yes, it appears that Clindberg, like you, and others, should have been removed long ago but have managed to abuse the consensus type system to push a matter that is completely against our principles".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My dear, you said something that was an actual personal attack - making up false claims of personal attacks. That isn't allowable. You have a strange way of trying to justify inappropriate content and behavior here. And commenting on someone's abusively pushing for copyright infringing works to be kept on Commons is no different then you claiming I committed problematic behavior. It is commenting on user's actions, not on the personal aspects of the individual - weight, race, intelligence, etc. It is 100% acceptable. w:WP:NPA - comment on behavior, which I did. However, false claims of personal attacks are a personal attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"My dear" is completely inappropriate language here, and I would appreciate you not referring to me with such language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't say "my dear" yet you can make false accusations while also making outright false claims about the law? That is an odd standard, and you think you are acting appropriately how? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• As an additional point, the image of the man on the Game Genie logo is the equivalent of the Starbucks logo, which is non-free and cannot be claimed to be CC-BY-SA because it is on a cup that has a shape that is non-copyrightable. Satava v Lowry makes it 100% clear that even if parts of an object are "common", even minor differences from nature or other objects are enough to be copyrightable. Company logos of a complex nature, i.e. more than just basic text, fall under that 100% and have always been respected until Prosfilaes et. al. tried to push for Commons to violate copyright law. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Proposed: topic ban Carl Lindberg, Carnildo and Prosfilaes from all copyright related discussions. It is clear that their attempts to apply a ruling based on a smooth bottle with only simple text on objects with far, far greater detail, images on it, etc., is not productive nor in the best interest for Commons to allow them to participate in such discussions. The absurdity in the argument, especially in trying to claim Commons:De minimis applies when it clearly only applies to items that are obscure, out of focus, not the object of the image, etc. (as pointed out by Dcoetzee), shows that they are actively disrupting conversations where we are required to go out of our way to ensure that there is no copyright infringement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and build democracy in Cuba if you would, overnight. Seriously: get back to subject and make up some non-controversial "consensus", at least among active sysops. NVO (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I've been talking to sysops about this for a while, especially on IRC. If you noticed, Dcoetzee made it clear that the image does not qualify for CC-BY-SA on Commons as the picture on the Game Genie is copyrighted and can't be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, You can no ban from commons everybody that does not agree with you. I think you agree to disagree on this subject. I also do not like frequent references to what other users (like Dcoetzee) said without providing links to it. If you can not provide link than do not mention it. Otherwise it is hard to judge the content of claimed statements. --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is more than disagreement. I disagree with people like Mattbuck all the time and yet there is no problem between us. This is not a difference in view. They are willfully claiming things that are utterly absurd - that this picture is some how the same as a smooth glass bottle, or that de minimis applies even though the image is clearly in focus and represents a significant portion of the image. And Jarekt, there is already a link to what Dcoetzee says: the page in question? It was in the first line by Prosfilaes and is what everyone is discussing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rima, I don't see why whether you are right or wrong has anything to do with whether or not your behavior is appropriate. You gave an example of using inflammatory language here. That, unlike an argument that you need citations, is what is inappropriate. If you have a case, you can argue it without impugning the character of those people involved.

Plus attacking someone else because you feel attacked is inappropriate. Saying you want someone banned because they argued that your behavior is inappropriate is very, very unacceptable. Please calm down and stop responding in anger. Trlkly (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacking someone? Feeling being attacked? What are you even talking about? You claim I am angry, which has no merit. You went to the page with very little history, then claimed that the individual was correct when there is no way any of the case law supported his claims. Dcoetzee pointed that out. Commons has very clear standards and policies, to defend it and to point out inappropriate behavior is not a problem. :) All that matters is the law, and it is not acceptable conduct on Commons to try and justify clearly copyrighted images by obfuscating about what the law says. I pointed out that it was clear that a smooth blue bottle is not the same as a complex plastic toy with a clear logo and image that dominates the majority of the item itself. They refused to acknowledge that and proceeded to make statements about de minimis that blatantly contradicted everything about the idea. They really should have known better. We have banned people from making such blatant inappropriate statements regarding deletion discussions quite frequently. If they are going to manipulate our policies and what court rulings say to try and jeopardize Commons by justifying clearly copyright infringing material, then that is a serious problem. I have already requested Sue Gardner and the legal counsel to make an official statement about it because of the seriousness of this matter. Dcoetzee, a veteran and one of the most respected people in copyright related discussions, made it clear that de minimis did not apply and that the item was copyrighted, and not once did they bother to realize that hey, maybe they should re-evaluate their actions and stop trying to push unjustifiable claims. That isn't good, and everyone should be able to recognize that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please cite when people have been banned for making incorrect statements on DRs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Merely typing in the request in the search will pull up many hits. Here was a recent one in which I sided with the ban of a user who was clearly disrupting with his votes even though I agreed with the need for images to be deleted. It has nothing to do with if you vote keep or delete - it is all about making disruptive rationales. Making misleading comments, constantly trying to claim one thing equals another when they clearly don't, etc., isn't appropriate. It has been pointed out that you continue to make misleading claims, even going as far as to claim a DR not related to this nor having me involved lacked anyone calling for another to be banned when it clearly does. You don't even apologize or accept that you shouldn't have made those statements. Why would that be appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima is well known to comment perpetually nearly every user-request, especially in deletion request. Impressive example for that is this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Censored.png. I never saw this user supporting this project constructively but always kick up a row. I am very curious how long he can act up with us like this. I await Ottava Rimas offensive replay. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of deletion requests that I haven't commented on, and I think you give me too much credit. :) I merely patrol the recent changes. Fyi. Notice some of those djvu's? They were all hand scanned, and contain many important images. Many of those images cannot be attained anywhere else, and they are all of major importance to military history. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Personal disputes against images (which is the main point in that thread) are not reason to block anyone. Ottava thinks is a copyvio, Prosfilaes thinks is not. That is case for a DR, not for block anyone. However, I would ask everyone (And I DO mean everyone) in this discussion to remain calm and be civil. The main point is not a case for block, but a personal attack will be. Béria Lima ^msg 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The conflicts with Ottava Rimas behavior has nothing in common with differences of opinion. This would for sure be not a reason to block. But I am not sure if an abnormally and purposeful disruption should be tolerated unlimited. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Beria's comments. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a personal dispute about an image. This is about how Ottava deals with those he disagree with. Let's look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:No Israel.svg; it managed to get through 3 contentious DRs pretty much keeping the discussion on the image; no calling for the banning of other users, not calling them disruptive, not saying their behavior is bannable, as far as I can tell not chasing them down to their talk pages accusing them of inappropriate behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the problematic behavior. That link has nothing to do with this discussion. All you have done is put forth misleading statements, ideas, etc., including trying to reinforce a claim that a smooth blue bottle is some how the same as a complex logo. You haven't put forth an idea - you have made statements that mislead others. That is problematic. Prosfilaes even is making things up in his link, which clearly has "Someone ban this troll" in the middle of it! Making things up, especially over and over, is bannable, and Prosfilaes directly made a false claim about something that wasn't even part of this topic for no real reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a lie on Ottava Rima's part, and I demand he be blocked for it, as per his own standards of blockability. Nobody has claimed that a blue bottle is the same same as a complex logo; we've claimed that a blue bottle is the same as the uncopyrightable chassis of the Game Genie device, and the complex logo is the same as the label on that blue bottle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"and the complex logo is the same as the label on that blue bottle" - Plain gold lettering is now the same as this logo? There is no honest way to claim that plain gold font is the equivalent of font with surrounding lightning, multiple colors, a red silhoulette of a man holding up a sign, etc. They are very, very different. That is the problem. You are trying to say something basic and simple is somehow the equivalent of something very complex. Your rationality would also claim that most complex logos are usable, which puts us in serious legal jeopardy. Commons treats copyright with a when in doubt and is very conservative about using other people's works. You are endangering Commons while pushing ideas that are directly and blatantly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

May I just add that the proposal to topic ban Carl Lindberg from all copyright-related discussions is the single worst proposal I've ever heard anyone make on Commons, worse even than the most extreme censorship proposals I've encountered. Carl obviously knows more about copyright law than any other one active contributor we have. The idea that we would topic-ban such a person over someone thinking his logic was wrong in one particular extrapolation is absurd, and says far more about the person making the proposal than it does about Carl. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jmabel- well said. --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A person who thinks a case about a smooth, blue bottle with a clear dissent that points out even that could be copyrightable, is equivalent to complex images is not one who is making sound arguments about copyright. There is no way to make the claim that the Game Genie device is even close. If you want to understand US copyright law, read this for a while. Then you will realize that many of his claims are utterly absurd and are detrimental to Commons as a whole. Furthermore, Dcoetzee has a proven track record regarding copyright matters, and if you are going to say that someone "knows more about copyright law than any other one active contributor", Dcoetzee is clearly the one you would mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree with Jmabel. With all respect to Dcoetzee, the two people I bring into complex copyright issues when I need help are Clindberg and JackLee. Also, while I don't have the strength to read the 5,000 words of DR that gave rise to this thread, I note that Ottava Rima adamantly defended a clearly incorrect position with respect to the applicability of de minimis in a variety of contexts.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting silly and seems to be mostly focusing about what Dcoetzee (mentioned 9 times so far) said somewhere on the subject. So far only Mike Godwin was quoted as widely in copyright discussions. ;) --Jarekt (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, de minimis is dead except as a fair use argument in the US, as you can see from reading this. It also was only applicable when it was so insignificant or out of focus not to be recognizable, which is clearly not the case. I think after you read the above piece you will re-evaluate who you trust on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• May I ask what is the purpose of that thread now? Started to talk about Ottava behaviour, 3 adms already come here give their opinion, no one saw anything who deserve a block. So Why are you people still debating here? Why not move those de minimus talk to the DR and let that page to actual problems that can only be solve by admins. The COM:VP is not here. Béria Lima ^msg 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

There will be no user block in this case and requesting a topicblock for Carl Lindberg is outright silly. --Neozoon (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)