Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 43

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

GianniBarcelloni (talk · contribs)

What do you think about contributions of GianniBarcelloni (talk · contribs)? Are they all photos of photos? That case the underlying photos are probably copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I nominated 4 of them for deletion: paintings without permission, newspaper scan, picture without description or information. Others are probably his own, but may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Some files nominated for deletion as out of scope /St1995 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

66.96.246.234 (talk · contribs)

Open proxy (webhosting). 8 sites use this IP address [1]. Need (range)-block? /St1995 18:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
/24 Blocked, belongs to wildproxy.net. Alan (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickrworker

Hi, I blocked Flickrworker (talk · contribs) for a day for editwarring on Commons:Deletion requests/File:EastHanSeismograph.JPG. After that I saw that is a sock of KnowIG (talk · contribs) who is undef blocked on quite a number of wikis, including Commons. Should he be blocked also undef for block evasion? Flickrworker is also blocked undef on En WP. See also . Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Ping: INeverCry, User:Jameslwoodward) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked him indef, considering the repeat of confrontational/disruptive behavior, the disregard for copyright, and the fact that the master account is globally locked. INeverCry 17:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
17:13, 23 March 2014 Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Flickrworker@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Abusing multiple accounts) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The last 4 accounts whose work i liked turned out to be banned vandals :(..is there anyone on here who isn't a sock?..well a banned sock?...--Stemoc (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I know exactly how you feel. I made Flickrworker autopatrolled earlier and liked his tennis uploads. I had the same experiences last year with User:MyCanon, and User:MaybeMaybeMaybe. INeverCry 02:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Flickrworker was blocked on enwiki for a year now and no one noticed? ..hehe...someone needs to re-look at commons "enwiki != commons" :P ..--Stemoc (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It's all en.wiki's fault. INeverCry 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Judge people on how they behave here, and their alignment with our scope, not their wikidramaz somewhere else. Blocking people into infinity where there are good edits seems to me to be so <deskthunk>. They clearly have some semblance of reasonableness, and all you do by infinite blocks is drive them to a sock(s). Then we all get caught up in the cycle of sock-chasing, and not doing things that we want to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This particular individual was originally globally locked for cross-wiki harassment and email abuse, including here on Commons of our fellow admin Sandstein. This was after a ban was put in place on en.wiki. Ban's don't happen for nothing. And then his new sock is found out here through an edit-warring block followed by abusive arguing. Nobody "drives" these people to sock. Their own behavior is the problem. They are responsible for their own actions. If those actions get them blocked and locked, that's no one's fault but their own. Put the blame where it belongs. INeverCry 07:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Judge people on how they behave here" argument is bankrupt. There are exceptions to everything of course, but issues on a Wikipedia are often indicative of problems with social interaction that have yet to come to boiling point here. Article building is by its nature a more interactive activity than photo upload or playing whack-a-mole with copyvios. It typically takes a lot of effort and grief before long-time apparently-productive users get blocked and so belittling that as "wikidramaz" isn't helpful. Commons could be better at judging editors for their behaviour with others. All too often a large upload log seems to grant immunity from censure. There is no logic behind "there are good edits so don't block", only sentimentality. And doubly so when the "good edits" are merely uploading free images found rather than creating new high-quality educational content. Bad folk drive good folk away -- and you can't measure lost uploads/edits. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Beleiutz sockpuppet to block

Serial copyright violator User:Beleiutz is back as Antena 1 (talk · contribs). That account uploaded File:Jorge poza.jpg, an image which Beleiutz has often tried to contribute and which this time is sourced to a Flickr licence-washing account operated by "Vlad Beleiu" [2]. Another sockpuppet of his on Romanian Wikipedia is trying to get a user there to add it to an article on his behalf [3]. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Denniss (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

ChendlerBing (talk · contribs)

copyvios only /St1995 11:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

One cannot completely exclude that he represents the company that produces these machines. However, there is no evidence for a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done (blocked for now, mabye he replys now) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

During the discussion Fry1989 accused me in vandalism and ownership. I warned him to be polite and tried to explain that accusing your opponents in vandalism is not ethical behaviour. But user continued[4][5] to call my edits "vandalism", although I have explained the reasons for all my edits. At the last comment Fry1989 again says that my edit is vandalism. Also note the aggresive tone of this user. I think user Fry1989 has some problems with conduct with another users. Maybe blocking for some period will teach him to be polite and ethical. --Interfase (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing valid categories from a file which you have nominated for deletion is vandalism. You are removing these categories based on your personal POV, you are nominating files for deletion based on your personal POV, you are trying to dictate what categories files can and can not be in which means you're trying to exert ownership, and this is all based on very limited evidence. You are trying to censor Commons and I am not letting you do it. I have made it very clear in my responses that if you do not want a certain image to be used on Wikipedia projects because it is wrong, you are to discuss that on Wikipedia, but Commons is not censored and we keep sourced material whether you like it or not. File:Flag of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 (variant).svg is sourced whether you think those sources are right or not, and that is what matters, not your opinion. On the contrary, I believe it is you who should be blocked for your constant 2-year long attempt to censor any version of the Azeri flag with a larger Crescent & Star, including edit warring on File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg, posting choice sources as a claim that all flags were uniform, nominating files under false copyright claims, claiming certain sources "aren't reliable" when that is not a Commons requirement but rather a Wikipedia requirement, and now filing this frivolous AN claiming I should be blocked for trying to tell you the truth that you don't want to hear: Commons IS NOT censored. Fry1989 eh? 20:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, user continues accusing his opponent in vandalism and POV despite the distinct explanations. Also user uploaded this file under two wrong liscences. Despite the flag was made in 2003 and there is not any evidence (only suggestions) that this flag was official in 1918, user continues to claim that we can use PD-old and PD-AZ-exempt templates. We must do something with this. --Interfase (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you explain something doesn't make your explanation valid. Your problem, for all those who don't understand this issue, is that Interfase believes that Commons hosting a version of the Azeri flag where the crescent and star extend beyond the red field is wrong and unacceptable, and that the crescent and star were always inside the red field. This is despite several sources including stamps issued by the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic which existed from 1918-1920. Interfase has denounced these stamps as "unreliable", therefore attempting to exert a Wikipedia reliable source requirement which does not exist on Commons. They have fought against File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg for two years trying to change it claiming there was no way the crescent and star ever extended beyond the field. I uploaded the flag separately as part of this discussion where I have attempted to explain to Interfase that the proper place to argue whether or not the flag was a certain way is on Wikipedia projects where it will be used, but Commons is not censored and we have a right to keep copies of both versions. Interfase rejects this, and has nominated my upload for deletion under false copyright violation claims. Interfase does not understand any of this. Fry1989 eh? 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, I will not explain you everything again and again. If you don't want to understand that we cannot provide readers with fake information, this is your problems. Despite a lot of facts, reliable sources, historical documents you continue to stand on your ground and claim that the "picture on the stamp is a source". Also you cannot conduct oneself with your opponents in such agressive tone and call their edits "vandalism" when they are not so. --Interfase (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you are the one who needs things explained to them. You need to understand that Commons is not censored. You need to understand that policies like "original research" and "reliable sources" do not exist on Commons, that these are Wikipedia policies and if you do not agree with certain files being used on Wikipedia projects then you are to discuss the issue there, not try and get the files deleted on Commons under false pretences. You need to understand that Commons has the right to host copies of all different versions of images whether you agree with them or not.
Interfase is trying to censor files they do not like through deletion nominations, overwriting and edit warring, and removing of certain categories. File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918 variant 2.png is also another reported possible variant flag used during the 1918-1920 period that Interfase does not like, and this is the edit which I am referring to as vandalism, in which Interfase not only has nominated the file for deletion under an "original research" claim (again, a Wikipedia policy that does not exist on Commons), they also removed the file's category that they disagree with.
Interfase is clearly looking at this from a Wikipedia point of view which does not apply here, and I have tried to explain this to them but they refuse to understand the concept that Commons' requirements are very different. I have tried to steer them in the right direction, explaining that there is no harm and in fact a duty of Commons to host all versions, and that Wikipedia is the proper place to discuss which files should or should not be used based on Wikipedia's source reliability requirements. The problem is Interfase's understanding of the differences between Wikipedia and Commons. Fry1989 eh? 20:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is you who don't understand how Commons works. For each file we need to put sources and correct liscence. The sources must be reliable and the liscense must be appropriate for each file. We cannot draw flag with different colours and claim that this flag could be the official flag of Azerbaijan, let's use the categories "historical flag so f Azerbaijan", "Azerbaijan Democraic Republic" etc. there. No, it doesn't work so. We need to have reliable sources to claim that the flag was official. I still didn't see any reliable source claiming that the flag with large crescent or Russian tricolor were official. We have only suggestions and you own opinion based on the picture from the stamp. We don't have any evidence that the flag with the large crescent was official. Hoe can you use PD-old and PD-AZ-exempt templates there? Anyway. I tried to explain you. All my arguments are written. Let's wait the reaction. --Interfase (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed speedy closure

Interfase has clearly shown by their comments that they do not understand the differences between Wikipedia and Commons when it comes to sources, uses such claims as "unreliable" and "original research" and "a duty to our readers to not have false information". Their reason for reporting me and asking I be blocked is not for any sort of Commons policy violations (such as personal attacks, edit warring...) but stems from the fact that I have referred to one of their edits, removing a valid category from a file, as "vandalism". For these reasons, I believe this AN should be speedy closed and that an admin should take the time to explain to Interfase the differences between Wikipedia and Commons. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

 Support close. Source on Commons is not the same as Source on WP. With that aside, a flag that appeared on any stamp from any country would be appropriate to host on Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose close. First of all, the variant of the flag uploaded by user didn't appeared on the stamp. The picture on the stamp is not clear. It is inaccurate picture. Secondly, this request is on the unethical behavior of user, not related to the discussion on flag (we have another pages for it). --Interfase (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming it was official! I have told you twice now that it is being claimed as a "variant". As for my "unethical behaviour", there simply is none. This entire problem is because of you, and because you do not understand Commons. An admin really is needed to take some time with this user and who can explain (preferably in their native language) the many differences between Wikipedie and Commons, especially in regards to the fact we do not have "original research" or "reliable source" policies as Wikipedia does. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If this flag was not national flag of Azerbaijan why should we use inappropriate templates. If we don't have any evidence that this flag was official why the inappropriate templates and categories were used? --Interfase (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment There seems to be fault on both sides here. Interfase needs to understand that deletion is often not the best way to handle media of dubious veracity. Such concerns can be addressed in the file's description instead. (Sometimes files will be deleted from Commons if they have no conceivable educational use, but that can be hard to reach consensus on.) Rather than simply removing dubious categories, it may be better to replace them with categories that are less definitive (e.g. Category:Flags with disputed status‎ instead of Category:Historical flags of Azerbaijan).

Fry1989 should learn to follow the steps listed at Commons:Dispute resolution#Basic dispute resolution when disputes arise. In particular, he should assume good faith and not describe edits he disagrees with as "vandalism" when it is plausible that the other editor may merely be mistaken, not malicious.

Nothing here requires blocking anyone at this stage IMO. --Avenue (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not apologize for calling vandalism what it is. I did not say whether it was purposeful or by misunderstanding, but that doesn't change the fact that removing the category because they personally disagree with it is vandalism. This user has been on this crusade for several years it appears, and they do not understand the differences between Wikipedia and Commons, they do not understand the different requirements when it comes to sources, they do not understand the issues regarding copyright or simplicity or anything like that. This has been a complete waste of time on the part of Interfase and the best thing that could come of this is for someone to take the time to explain to them the differences between Wikipedia and Commons. Fry1989 eh? 23:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, they are not committing vandalism if they have no malicious intent. From Commons:Vandalism: "[if] you see vandalism, e.g. an obscene file is uploaded over an existing one, or another malicious change is made, [...]" (emphasis added). Mischaracterising other people's actions is disruptive, particularly when you are in dispute with them. --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Avenue, I would support your statement if this was the first occasion, but how long must one participate in stupidity before enough is enough? The repeated attempts at deletion are a deliberate disruption not founded in any Commons policy and needs to stop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If the files were uploaded under wrong licenses they should be deleted. If there were used inappropriate categories in the file they should be removed. If the file is own opinion of some user it must be represented as his own opinion, not the official flag of some country. If some user describes his opponent's edit as vandalism he must be warned, if he doesn't understand the warning he must be blocked. I think it's very simple, isn't it? --Interfase (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Also I can agree with Avenue that using of Category:Flags with disputed status‎ instead of Category:Historical flags of Azerbaijan is more appropriate because we don't have any evidence that these flags were flags of Azerbaijan in 1918. But again the files cannot be upload under wrong license, we cannot use PD-AZ-exempt there. --Interfase (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Saffron, I'd agree both parties have been repeatedly at fault here, and I can understand if others have lost patience with either of them. IMO the current level of disruption is tolerable for the moment and doesn't require immediate blocks, although I trust they both realise that continued disruptive behaviour may result in them being blocked. --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I consider vandalism as vandalism whether it's malicious or not, ignorance does not excuse improper edits (it excuses the intent but not the edit itself), and I don't care if you agree or not. I have not been at any fault here, I'm not trying to censor this project by using Wikipedia policies which do not exist on Commons, and I have not wrongfully removed valid categories from files (even if it was in good faith, which I have not commented on). Your diplomacy outlook of "we always have to share the blame equally" doesn't work. Now I would LOVE to see what edits you think I have made which are "disruptive" or worthy of a block. I've called a spade a spade, I've uploaded a flag with proper licenses and sources, none of that is disruptive or block-worthy. Stop being a diplomat and look at things for what they are. Fry1989 eh? 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And my comment stands that we need an Azerbaijani user (preferably an admin) who can explain to Interfase in their native language the differences between Wikipedia and Commons, especially in regards to our not having "original research" or "reliable source" policies. Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintor Es Madrid block?

User:Pintor Es Madrid has uploaded copyvio (i.e. not originally theirs as far as one can tell from strong evidence) and/or spam material- despite being notified intially about it and given the usual "no spam" boilerplate, they uploaded more. After second warning, most recent edit was attempt to add spam blurb to their user page (Google search shows it comes from their website). Quite clear at this stage that they are not trying to contribute to Commons in good faith, so possibly block? Ubcule (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhelion violating interaction ban

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm closing this one. There is no consensus for a block and applying com:AGF seems like the wisest thing to do. This is only creating a Streisand effect. There is no reason to keep talking about this, that would only antagonistic the situation even more. I would like to ask Fry to stop running to this noticeboard for every little incident. It is not clear that the interaction ban has been violated and in doubt, don't block. This is going nowhere so time to move on. Natuur12 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the interaction ban between the two of us has has not been lifted, Perhelion has violated the IB. Fry1989 eh? 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It can not be the aim of a IB to prohibit over general decisions about the procedure on Commons. (That what it is in the end.) So it must be clearly an exception of a IB. -- Perhelion (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The interaction ban decision did not specify exactly what behaviour has been prohibited. en:WP:IBAN says that "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other", and Perhelion's post on that undeletion request did not mention or directly reply to Fry1989, so I don't see how it would have violated the interaction ban. --Avenue (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

+1, Fry1989 has violated IB with this post... --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(Context for my post, in case it isn't immediately clear that Steinsplitter is requesting a block) Shouldn't we assume good faith? Fry1989 mistakenly believed that there had been a violation and reported it. Being mistaken isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the exclamation mark. It might've been a joke. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict] This report might technically be a violation, true. en:WP:BANEXP allows "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once)", and Fry1989 did report a violation by Perhelion at ANV not quite two weeks ago. However that was in response to being reported himself. I'd be inclined to let this one pass without a block. --Avenue (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, COM:AGF --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


83.26.68.24

Block evasion of 83.29.253.191 /St1995 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

37.239.46.18

open proxy (80) + spam. /St1995 11:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

97.107.98.180

open proxy (168.8.27.23:8080) /St1995 13:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Upelon (talk · contribs)

copyvios after warnings /St1995 20:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this dispute needs some mitigation: User_talk:Jameslwoodward#wrongful_allegation_of_copyright_violation. Thank you. ScotXW (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ElkaSteve (talk · contribs)

copyvios after warnings, previously blocked /St1995 12:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: indef'ed. --A.Savin 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential problem user

An editing accident on Wikipedia brought my attention to User:Amirhmz who seems to be uploading to Commons and claiming "own work" for many uploads to circumvent needing to better document the ownership of the media.

Overall, I suspect it's a user who does not understand copyright rather than attempting to be devious. I'm not sure what the normal process would be on Commons - do we AFD the images one by one? Marc Kupper (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Most obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

JanCrazy

I believe this user may be another Sockpuppet of Namkhanh02, as they are continuing a very specific behaviour pattern of uploading Vietnamese flags, particularly uploading non-SVG images encoded as SVG and reverting SVG files to non-SVG renditions. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Helloooo? Fry1989 eh? 19:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
From a CU POV I'd say it's highly Likely. I've blocked the account for indef. In the future please add CU requests at COM:RFCU. Trijnsteltalk 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Elas10 sockpuppet of Papaleta110

This image has been uploaded half a dozen times over the last few days by both users. They also are both editing the same page on Spanish Wikipedia. Smells like socks. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And they just uploaded the image again. Why is this being ignored? Fry1989 eh? 19:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed and I found a few more socks, see Category:Sockpuppets of Elias110. And again, please add CU requests at COM:RFCU. Trijnsteltalk 16:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Largs Thistle (talk · contribs)

uploading copyvios/media without licence after warnings /St1995 17:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Blocked account referencing the Commons policy on group names. Deleted uploaded files. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jessicaevelin10

copyvios after warnings /St1995 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done 3 days. Alan (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Minister of Defence of Chile.svg

User Fry1989 has reverted my work in File:Flag of the Minister of Defence of Chile.svg without valid reasons. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I said very clearly in my edit summary that this flag should be consistent with File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg and File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, both of which were protected I might add because you could not behave yourself. Fry1989 eh? 01:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Not valid reasons according the Commons Policies. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh please, save me that sob story. You shouldn't need a policy to tell you two flags should be consistent with each other. Your attitude stinks, but then I'm sure you would say it's mutual. Fry1989 eh? 02:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As polite as ever... --Echando una mano (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Echando una mano, please do not overwrite and revert/edit war. Please use the talk page of the file and/or original uploader (in this case Fry1989) to discuss the issues you have with the file, rather then continually warring by overwriting to a different version, if you're still not happy with the response then take it to another venue such as Village Pump for others opinions on the matter. If I see one more revert, I will protect the file (I could block you, but that would require me to block both yourself and Fry1989). Bidgee (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
File indef locked again. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Иоанн Гаврилов (talk · contribs)

copyvios only + reuploading deleted content /St1995 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ITymz (talk · contribs)

mass uploading copyvios after warnings /St1995 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ronhjones. Alan (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And also blocked 3 days. Alan (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ан2014

Uploading unfree files. User Yann warned him, but no effect. /St1995 18:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave them the last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Участник весь день грузил дореволюционные (и не только) картинки без лицензирования в промышленных масштабах, т. ч. мне пришлось самостоятельно оформлять их и выносить на удаление неподходящие. Потом стал грузить исключительно копивио. Посмотрим что будет дальше. /St1995 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Civilacho1

Everything uploaded by user to date has been copyvio.

Despite being repeatedly warned after uploads, then given "end of copyvios" notification (see User talk:Civilacho1), user has uploaded two further copyvios since. At this point it's quite clear that they can't understand- or don't care about- copyright and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Ubcule (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sfs90

For some time now, user Sfs90 has been tracking every thing I do on Commons and on Wikipedia, with those encounterings developing into innecessary content wars, sometimes, like the one I'll be reporting now, is totally bizarre.

Sfs90 has reverted me more than three times after changing the logo at {{Cc-Gobierno de Chile}} for a newer one now in use at the website alluded in the template (www.gob.cl). He has gone onto prove himself I was right, by saying the government website will have a brand-new logo in contrast to the one the government will use offline (basically, the same logo of the Piñera government). Thing is, Sfs90 has been edit warring with no reason, with unknown purposes (perhaps only to fastidiate).

You can check yourselves that the logo used by the Government of Chile is the one I'm proposing to change, and which Sfs90 has been constantly reverting. He basically reverts everything I do everywhere (here, WP) as if I were stupid, but that's another thing. I personally believe Sfs90 is a particularly helpful and hardworking user, but he's got this kind of problem with me that surfaced from nowhere. Please, solve this. Thank you in advance, admins, and I hope not to give anybody a headache with this. El Pichilemino (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment In the edit summary of the file Karol Aída Cariola Oliva.jpg, El Pichilemino said "that's a very stupid reason" when he reverted a version of the file, even when I exposed clearly the reason for my editions (the version of the image that have the BCN rights is a cropped version of other file; not the "higher resolution version" that El Pichilemino uploaded). In the case of the Chilean Government licence template (and the logo used on it), I also exposed that the typeface in the image is not the typeface used in their website's logo. Also, the same user made some threatening comments on previous edit summaries (as an example: "Please stop messing with the stuff I do, you psycho" as seen here on Coats of arms of Chile) --Sfs90 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sfs, be honest, you've had a bizarre behavior towards me since I requested the deletion of some pictures you uploaded in the past, and that were copyvios. That triggered your aggressive and unjustified behaviour, stalking every edit I do here, there, and everywhere ((Beatles FTW)). Anyway. Cariola's picture is practically the same, I have just uploaded a higher resolution version, which is preferred here. Your only reason is that the BCN version is of low quality, while the version I'm uploading (taken from elsewhere, IIRC Cariola's facebook) is of higher resolution and may serve better than that. Of course, the picture's license would remain the same, credited to the Library of the Chilean Congress. Please, think a little bit more when you take actions ahead and you're not totally certain whether you're right or not. In this case, and that of the GobiernodeChile-template, you have failed to understand properly my reasons. Instead of discussing it, you've aggressivelly reverted every single edit, and have overriden the 3RR. Stop, Sfs90. El Pichilemino (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The licence of the picture from BCN (the "low quality version" as El Pichilemino said) is only from the picture that was cropped and it's in the "Historia Política Legislativa" website. In the case the original file comes from Cariola's facebook, that doesn't mean that this version (the "high quality version") has a proper licence that is allowed on Commons. In the case the licence of the image is not compatible with Commons, we are in front of an evident case of copyright violation. In the "stalking" issue, El Pichilemino thinks that I'm doing that because I had a special watch over files related with Chile (specially Chilean politics). As you can see on my contributions page, the incidents about copyvio and other issues are not only about El Pichilemino files, and the reasons on all files I've nominated are clearly expressed on their respective pages. The differences about some opinions and issues doesn't justify that an user attacks or threats another. --Sfs90 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Aída Cariola Oliva image and chile-gob template protected, El Pichilemino got 1 month break for edit warring, harassment, and insulting other users. Next time the block will be indef. Looking through the edits, I can't see any stalking by Sfs90. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4 and questionable deletion nominations

I have witnessed several DR nominations by this user which I consider disingenous at best and outright dishonest at worst. My most recent concern is this DR where Stefan4 has nominated an Austrin logo using COM:TOO#Austria for the basis of their belief this is copyrighted. The problem which exists here is that this file is basic geometry while the TOO entry for Austria only has examples of hand-drawn signatures. In this nomination Stefan4 wrongly claims "even simple text logos are copyrighted in Austria", ignoring that signatures are significantly more complicated than "basic text". Stefan4 has previously done this on atleast 3 DRs that I can recall, including this DR and this DR, both where I have previously addressed the difference between basic text and a signature.

Another questionable reasoning for DR is here, where Stefan4 uses wordplay to question the status of a freely released image.

Even worse, Stefan4 often does not even pay due attention to the place of origin for images, as shown here, here, and here.

Overall, I am concerned about Stefan4's honesty in nominating images for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 02:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Section moved to here, from COM:AN by — Revicomplaint? 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Why would anyone search out these iffy or even mistaken DR subjects when there are thousands of blatant problem images just waiting to be tagged in Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention? Just go through 1 day's images, and you'll find dozens of images that can clearly and simply be tagged for DR or CSD, and won't end up being kept or argued over (or mentioned at AN). INeverCry 03:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't search them out, I've kept them in my watchlist because I saw a pattern and was waiting for enough examples to be worthy of concern and show that this is not one-off behaviour. Fry1989 eh? 04:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That comment wasn't directed at you Fry. I was referring to Stefan searching out the subjects for his DRs, which in the above cases would've been better off left alone. What I meant was that he could make a lot better use of his time by tagging the blatant problem images in the category I pointed out above. Why search around for scraps when there's a plate of steak and potatoes sitting on the kitchen table? INeverCry 04:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Fry1989 eh? 04:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I ask myself the very same thing. Some people seem to find pleasure in nominating for DR files that are adimittedly in a grey area, causing heated discussions and inflaming the matter with “deletionist” vs. “inclusionist” talking points. It is too easy, and not any less urgent or important, to find files for likely consensual DRs. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I too do not trust Stefan(2|4)'s judgement and see him as another one of that small, but vociferous, group of editors who is far too interested in finding "things to do" and has zero interest in "things that benefit the encyclopedia". They damage the project by damaging content, but even more importantly they damage the gooodwill of other editors by their unnecessary and inappropriate haste to remove things, just because they can find an excuse to remove it. Even if there is an alternative to removal, they do not consider this - there's no fun if you don't get to press delete. In the hands of such editors, truth is malleable. Here's one of his latest:

en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_23#File:Sectional_drawing_of_Hulsebos-Hesselman_engine.jpg – claiming that engineering technical drawings are "maps", because he has found an excuse for maps to be deleted.

Like so many editors and ex-contributors here, I'd leave this project if I could. Certainly it's not big enough for both of us here. Stefan is one of the major reasons why I've stopped contributing to Commons, after thousands of past uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Processing obvious problem images is great, especially when we have so many. But more complex DRs can also be useful, by making it clearer what we should keep or delete. For instance, a good response to those closed Austrian logo DRs would be to update COM:TOO#Austria accordingly.
I don't agree with Stefan4's positions in the DRs Fry lists above. But Stefan4 launches a lot of deletions, so a few mistakes wouldn't seem unreasonable. Just looking through his last 10 DRs (i.e. from the last couple of weeks), I see one is listed above, five have been closed as delete, and none were closed as keep (although one of the deletions has since been reversed). Meanwhile he has also identified problems with around 30 images that have since been speedily deleted. One or two mistaken DRs in that period is not a bad rate IMO.
I also don't see any reason for accusations of dishonesty. Fry1989, have you tried to discuss your concerns about those DRs with Stefan4 before bringing the matter here? I don't see anything like that on Stefan4's talk page. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you do not understand how calling hand-drawn signatures "basic text" even after this has been rejected several times before is dishonest, then perhaps you don't quite grasp the issue here. It's like saying File:Statsikon.svg is "basic geometry". Fry1989 eh? 19:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That was non-responsive to the main question I asked you. Should I take that as a "no"?
Personally I agree that "basic text" is not a great description of signatures. But if Stefan feels that the difference is insignificant (as one of his posts here suggests), I don't see why him describing them that way would be dishonest. Maybe a bit careless, if he's aware that others disagree with him on that point, but not dishonest. I think you should be a lot more careful about publicly throwing such accusations around. --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It's dishonest because it's been rejected several times before, not just by me but by closing admins, and Stefan4 is still trying to use this claim in DRs despite this rejection. It's dishonest because it may mislead users who know little about copyright thresholds to think that signatures and basic text letters are actually the same level of originality. It's dishonest because it overly simplifies the issue of threshold of originality altogether. That is why I think Stefan4 is being dishonest. The wordplay I showed in another DR example is even more careless and frivolous, and that should also disturb anyone observing this. So if you want an answer to your question, the answer is no, I have not discussed this with Stefan4 outside of DRs, because twofold I think Stefan4 won't take my concern as valid and I believe that this requires greater scrutiny from the community. Clear enough for you? Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
When Fry1989 states something, he often provides no source for his statements. The statements can therefore not be assumed to carry any weight. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
And which statements exactly are not true? The fact your claim of signatures being basic text has been rejected in other Drs before, which I HAVE proven by linking the DRs above? Do I have to link them in every single response I make or else their weight expires??? Or the fact that impressionable new users with little knowledge could be mislead into believing that signatures and basic text do have the same level of originality if they look at your DRs? Or the fact you used wordplay in a DR to completely twist around a free license into a non-free license? Or the fact that you have made it clear you do not take my concern about this seriously and therefore talking to you about it personally would be a waste of time which is why I came here instead? Don't play stupid, the proof is here in all the links I've given. Fry1989 eh? 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not search for File:Logo Wiener Lokalbahn.svg but happened to find it because it was mentioned on a page on English Wikipedia which happened to be on my watchlist. I do not remember how I found the other files. When I search for problem files, I am more likely to look at OgreBot's galleries of recent uploads by new users and w:Special:ListFiles.
It seems that Fry is searching for deletion nominations which he does not like but ignores other deletion nominations. If a user makes a lot of nominations, it is only to be expected that a small number of those may be mistakes or errors. It also seems that Fry has misunderstood COM:PRP, which says that we only can keep images if they beyond reasonable doubt are free, whereas Fry seems to think that images can be kept as long as they are not beyond reasonable doubt unfree. The only examples we have from Austria at COM:TOO are two handwritten logos, and the Austrian supreme court decided to apply a fairly low threshold of originality for such images. We do not have any examples of geometric shapes, so we have to assume that the threshold of originality for geometric shapes also is low. We also do not have any examples of images which are below the Austrian threshold of originality, so we have to assume that there also exist images which are simpler than the examples at COM:TOO#Austria which still are above the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's another one that I was involved in recently. en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_15#File:Altcar_Bob.jpg]
No effort to check the sources (this is a well known image from postcards and several books of the 1910s and 1920s). No consideration that it would meet NFC. No consideration of whatever encyclopedic value a resource has, merely an undue haste to get it deleted regardless. Stefan has had hundreds of my UK-PD illustrations (see [7]), citing URAA, without the slightest consideration as to their value, their actual age, or the effect on the encyclopedia. This project has become nothing more than a bureaucratic playpen for Stefan and his friends to play at being traffic wardens. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Andy Dingley: The problem is that you often tag files with "PD-UK" without showing that the files are "PD-US". In the mentioned case (en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_15#File:Altcar_Bob.jpg), you also failed to show that the image was "PD-UK". The file was listed on that discussion page for almost two months, and you were still not able to show that it was published before 1923 before the file was deleted. If you have evidence that the image was published as a postcard and in books in the 1910s and 1920s, then why didn't you present that evidence during those two months? In fact, the uploader is supposed to provide this information already when uploading the file, which the uploader failed to do. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Stefan4, I haven't "searched" for anything, I've been watching your DRs for a long time and the ones I have listed raise very important concerns about your honesty. You simply must know that signatures are not "basic text", that signatures are unique to every person who writes them, and yet you repeat this lie for the 3rd time that I can prove. The wordplay you attempted to use in creating this frivolous DR show that you are playing games with serious issues. Then the fact you don't even pay attention to origin of images when it very clearly says in the file description box that a file is from Belgium and not France makes you look incompetent. I don't think you should be allowed to nominate files, or should have very heavy oversight. You created this problem yourself by your own actions, not by me hunting for things to dig up on you. Fry1989 eh? 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Signatures are basic handwriting (although sometimes with calligraphic elements, of which there are not many in the examples at COM:TOO#Austria), just as the logo generated by File:Logo Wiener Lokalbahn.svg shows basic arrangements of geometric shapes. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
No they're not!!!! How can you possibly call a signature, something that is unique to every person, "basic" in any conceivable way? If you and I were both asked to handwrite the same sentence, they would differ greatly. That's why it takes forensic experts to check handwritting in criminal cases to look for fraud. Signatures and hand-writing in general are extremely personal and unique. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think that writing a word in slightly different ways is any different to arranging geometric elements in slightly different ways? The same word, written by different people, becomes different because different people have different skills (unless we are talking about calligraphy which we are not in at least the Bauer case). However, skill is only relevant for the sweat of the brow principle (which requires skill and labour), but Austria does not seem to use the sweat of the brow principle in the first place, so the important thing must be something else. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Stefan4: did you miss out a word or two around "becomes because"? I'm having trouble following what you mean there. --Avenue (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, missing word added above. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that handwriting is unique from person to person, and the requirement of forensic expertise is admissible in courts of law should be clear enough to you that signatures are not "basic text" in any stretch of the imagination. Fry1989 eh? 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
However, "different" is not the same as "original" or "creative". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say that something which is unique from person to person is "original", though perhaps not "creative" unless speaking about calligraphy. Still, it's not basic, it's not the same as simple letters and shapes. Fry1989 eh? 23:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan's contributions to DR are definitely problematic, and will likely be costing Commons images/contributors . The examples above are similar to my experience, where he tried to cite a UK court ruling about newspaper headlines to argue that an image of a utilitarian 'no trolleys beyond this point' sandwich board (which wasn't even the main subject) should be deleted. Thankfully it wasn't lost in that case, but such is the state of Commons, it's not hard to imagine how others might be. He really needs to stop trying to play at being a lawyer and concentrate on protecting Commons from realistic actions - if he can't find a court ruling/legal opinion that is actually relevant to the image/s in question, then he shouldn't be trying to find one that he thinks is similar just for the sake of argument - that's not what PRP is about at all. Contributors really shouldn't have to be forced to waste their time engaging with these hyper-theoretical arguments. Ultra7 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion discussion, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone involved to stay civil and keep a cool head. Bandying about accusations of lying, misrepresentations, blindness or simple-mindedness is not helpful nor conducive to the atmosphere of Wikimedia Commons, and I would advise participants involved to lay off it and do something more productive. As noted above, Stefan has done some valuable work for Commons, so he would be prone to a few mistakes here and there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: Yes, but we're not talking about a pattern of a few mistakes here and there, and before valorizing our aims (the encyclopaedia) we should valorize the more our means (our community and its norms of behaviour). We know that there are oddballs who contribute to Wikipedia who make life very difficult for us, the celebrated 'passive aggressive' obsessively uploading (say) images of Bollywood celebrities whose free status can't be determined and who just won't be budged from their pattern of behaviour, but who nevertheless is careful always to maintain civility and to avoid bans. But these people exist on the other side of content/policing divide as well. In Stefan's case, given that he is plainly problematic, the first thing we should be doing is to insist his accounts Stefan2 (Wikipedia) and Stefan4 (Commons) are merged (along with other accounts he may have) so that we can track his behaviour the better. I outline my own interaction with him below. He really upset me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not possibly to steal other people's accounts (at least not without making those people upset or violating their attribution rights), so I am not sure how your proposed merger would work. I use the user name "Stefan2" on all projects except for those where the user name is held by someone else. I am not sure what other accounts you are talking about. Are you proposing that my bot account (User:Stefan2bot) should be merged with my normal account? In any case, it isn't possible to merge accounts on Commons, as mw:Extension:UserMerge hasn't been installed on Commons. Also, there should be no problems at all to track my behaviour, as my user page on Commons clearly indicates what user name I am using on Wikipedia and as my Wikipedia user page clearly indicates what user name I am using on Commons. Also, w:User:Stefan4 and its associated talk page are redirects. I am not sure why you think that I am "plainly problematic". --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Funny how all of these "Honest and entirely unavoidable mistakes" err on the side of deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like a formal admonition towards Stefan4 that signatures are not basic text and to not use this comparison to nominate files in the future. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Stefan2 aka User:Stefan4 has now taken to refactoring my Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I had several disagreements with Stefan about copyright issues, and I mostly agree with the complains above, but I won't act as I would seem to be involved. However the changed mentioned above doesn't seem acceptable by any standard. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yann, that refactoring was a bit a far out of left field. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The policy w:WP:NPA tells that you may not put personal attacks on pages on English Wikipedia. I found some personal attacks on a page, so I removed some of them. I realise that it may have been a bad idea, but the user has constantly been inserting personal attacks against me on various pages on English Wikipedia, and it is getting annoying. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I was expressing matter of factly a sense of harassment and stalking. That's not a personal attack and I did notify you on your Talk page at the time here at Wikipedia:User_talk:Stefan2#File:Eva_Hesse_-_Repetition_Nineteen_III_.280.1_MP_reduction.29.jpg. on 20 February (diff) A normal response would have been to express regret and to seek some resolution. You did not, neither did you defend yourself against my charge of harassment either directly or by pleading "personal attack" as you do now. It was quite plain that I was really upset over the Chilkat blanket, but you did nothing to smooth things over. Rather you justified your deletion tags on Eva Hesse. The overall effect you conveyed was of self-satisfaction. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I am not an administrator here, and don't recall any previous interaction with Stefan2/Stefan4/etc. However, I have looked at all the incidents linked here, and it is clear to me that there is a systematic problem with his deletion nominations. |While some of the nominations were correct, the error rate is far too high, which combined with the spurious arguments for deletion and combative interaction style mean that he is actively harming Commons by driving away contributors. I would strongly encourage whomever can do so here to topic ban Stefan2/Sefan4/etc. from nominating any file for deletion and from introducing any new arguments into any deletion discussion (he would be able to comment on/endorse/oppose any arguments presented by other people). He should be allowed to raise concerns about any image on the talk page of any administrator here, subject to that administrator's permission, who may then choose to nominate the image for deletion if they wish but would take full responsibility for the nomination and for ensuring that the nomination reason is accurate and relevant. Put simply, Stefan2/Stefan4/etc cannot be trusted to behave in a way that is in accordance with both policies and reality. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think he needs mentoring. As an ambassador for Wikipedia he sucks loads. [Magog the Ogre complains on my Talk page that that last struck out was a personal attack. I certainly have to remember that Stefan is not a native speaker of English and should be careful to express myself more straightforwardly and not in a way that a non-native speaker might interpret as a personal attack. What I meant is that it's plain he's disliked by many and that is not a good thing from someone who acts as an agent of our project.] Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm, why? Users are complaining about a very small number of my total nominations, and most of my nominations result in deletion, suggesting that they are correct. Are you suggesting that I should list hundreds of {{Copyvio}} tags on an administrator's talk page? Sounds very cumbersome and just creates lots of extra work without any real benefit. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless all the DR's you start/comment on involve the same sort of stretched arguments that people are complaining about here, claims of being right most of the time are going to be pretty meaningless as far as this complaint goes. Ultra7 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You have deleted hundreds of my book scans (unchallenged as PD UK). Now, per COM:URAA, Commons is clearly not a useful place for PD UK resources, so you can indeed claim to be "right" for deleting them. However many of these were already in use on en:WP as hard to source images from the 1920s and you were nowhere to be seen when there was any possibility of placing them on en:WP under NFC. As I recall, you were even one of those supporting my ban here as a "serial copyviolator" and demanding the deletion of all of my uploads, citing the "precautionary principle".
You claim that a few errors in deletion aren't a problem, as it's so hard to find the time for admin work otherwise (which conveniently dismisses the work of those contributing such images). Yet lack of effort is no barrier to you in inventing reasons for deletion, such as your claim that engineering drawings are now the same things as maps, if it allows you to delete them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban Denies a problem, so mentoring not a route. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose such a broad topic ban. If we identify problematic incidents and look at the error rate among those, it will be high by definition, so that is a poor argument. If there is a particular area (logos containing handwritten text, say) where Stefan has been out of line with the sustained consensus of the community, then some action focussed on that area would probably be worthwhile. We should attempt other options (e.g. updating COM:TOO, discussing concerns directly with him) before a ban though. --Avenue (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – We shouldn't punish people simply for being wrong, disagreeable, or defensive. Arguing with Stefan4 and not deleting images when Stefan4 is wrong is an adequate enough means of handling this. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • A ban may be overkill now, but simply not deleting images seem not enough. I would like to hear more from Stefan about these complains. Stefan, do you recognize that at least some of them are justified. If yes, how do you intend to deal with these cases in the future? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the point is that the incorrect and contrived nominations, and the manner in which (at least some) images are nominated (whether correctly or incorrectly) is costing Commons and other projects in terms of contributors. Simply not deleting images when nominated incorrectly does not solve the problem caused by the nominations in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • @Michaeldsuarez - No - that's not adequate when most DRs are not even being seen by anyone but the nominator and closer, and when certain closers are more interested in clearing the backlog than actually reading the DR properly, if at all. Maybe it would be different if those closers were being admonished for their lack of care, but sadly, it's quite the opposite. Ultra7 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Alright, but I still don't believe that disenfranchisement should be the solution. People nominating content for deletion have the right to be wrong and to defend their wrongness. This is what freedom and democracy are. The moment we restrict participation to only those who are right is the moment we cease being a democracy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
        • There is a difference between being wrong in good faith occasionally, which everybody is, and being repeatedly egregiously wrong without recognition that this is a problem. Commons is not a democracy, but even if it were the needs of the community outweigh the needs of the individual, and where one individual is causing significant disruption to the community (see above) then restrictions on that individual need to placed. Maybe complete disenfranchisement is not the answer (not that this was quite what I was proposing) but the status quo cannot continue unchanged because it is damaging the community. Requiring all of Stefan4's nominations to be endorsed by at least one other person before deletion (although how this would be enforced I don't know) would reduce the problem caused by bad deletions but it wouldn't solve the problem of the bad nominations. If you have ideas please share them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I accept your remarks about freedom and democracy are meant in good faith Michael, but the thing is we're not a democracy, nor neither a bureaucracy nor an anarchy. We are none of those things. We act by consensus and I would say it's plain, over and above any communication skills he may lack, Stefan has no regard for the consensus. He knows better than us, period. I would say that when Stefan is acting in good faith he sees himself as a bureaucrat, one with the overweening regard for rules and procedures we are all too familiar with in bureaucracy. And that's not actually a problem, it's the function of bureaucracies to curtail power. The problem arise when a bureaucrat abuses the process to garner personal power. What we need is some sort of marker in our discussions with him, a link to a decision recording just how problematic he can be so that we can say to Stefan stuff like "Oh come off it, Stef. That's just you being officious again" and then when an admin closes the discussion she is at least heads-upped on Stefan's problematic behaviour and can be put to task if her decision proves careless. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Avenue's comments best fit my view of this matter. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention needed. We have several people here (including me) who believe action is necessary, yet the proposed solutions have been rejected. Those who oppose them have provided neither alternatives nor arguments why nothing needs to be done. stefan4's actions cause real problems, and real problems require real solutions, not "meh". So we need either consensus that Stefan4 is restricted from deletion nominations as proposed above, or alternative solutions to the problems caused by his deletion nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Stefan4 hasn't made a single edit to Commons since the 19th. There isn't an urgent need to restrict him or her. The witch-hunt needs to end. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
      • While the need might not presently be urgent, it does still exist. I disagree that this is a wtichhunt - evidence has been presented above of the problems Stefan4 has been causing. If you disagree that these are problems, then please explain why you think that. If you agree that they are problems but that the proposals to restrict his nominations will not solve them then explain why you think this, and propose something that you believe would be better. I'm a firm believer in discussions of this sort ending in a consensus for either action or no action. Letting the discussion fizzle out without resolution is bad because it allows any problems that exist to continue, and/or it doesn't clear the name of someone who isn't actually causing problems. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • People should just become more tolerant of people such as Stefan4 nominating their images for deletion. Instead of enabling weakness and vulnerability, we should encourage people to toughen and strengthen themselves. People should learn how to become more tolerant and how to shrug things off. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
          • It's a very long time since I've seen something on a Wikimedia project that so directly contradicts the spirit with which the projects must employ if they want to actually retain contributors. I explicitly and utterly reject the notion that biting, bullying and disrespecting contributors (which is what you are encouraging) is at all acceptable. Being fair, approachable, helpful and assuming good faith are neither weakness nor vulnerabilities, rather they are the exact opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
            • That's not what I said. Nominating images for deletion and arguing aren't "bulling". I didn't say "being fair, approachable, helpful and assuming good faith are weaknesses". I'm saying that taking everything so seriously and personal and not being able to shrug things off or move on are weaknesses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
              • Nominating images for deletion can be bullying, and/or perceived as bullying, depending on the rationale and how it is done. Not everybody has the time, ability, desire, knowledge and confidence to argue for the retention of their image against one or more determined amateur copyright lawyers, regardless of who is right. It is monumentally arrogant to assert that only those people who are able to do this and to shrug off all the hassle and stress that a deletion nomination and discussion can cause are to be valued as contributors. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
                • I didn't say that they shouldn't be valued; I saying that they would learn to become more tolerant. Valuing a person doesn't mean denying their flaws and weaknesses or refusing to ask them to overcome their flaws and weaknesses. Not telling a person about their weaknesses is the same as not telling them that their fly is open or that there's toilet paper trailing from the bottom of their shoe. I'm a part of this discussion in order to help others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
                    • These are stupid arguments, Michael. I did interact with Stefan. In the case of a high resolution detail I made for an article start La_gare_inondée_(The_Flooded_Station), one of da Silva's finest works that had unexpectedly come on to the market (in the event it was withdrawn), Stefan tagged it for reduction, negating the whole point of the upload. I reverted the tag and requested he take his issue to the Talk page. Instead he nominated it for deletion, on the tendentious grounds that it wasn't the object of "critical commentary" (but in the article start edit comment I had made it clear that it was a stub for others to fill, not myself being especially knowwledgeable about abtsract expressionism and knowing there are others in the "Visual Arts" projects who certainly are). I simply provided the necessary critical remarks and his deletion request immediately bombed. He then went into a kind of sulk, immediately tagging any upload of mine that missed a criteria (I mean within minutes), finally searching back through my uploads to nominate my Chilkat blanket (top right in this multiple) on the grounds it was a "sculpture". I complained on his Talk page and he did not respond, nor has he responded here. I suggested that he should be mentored. His response was contempt, so now I do favour a topic ban on Commons. That's not really a big deal is it Michael? I mean you're still here exercising your own democratic freedoms despite your enWiki ban, are you not? Stefan4 would still be free to exercise his dark arts on non-free content in enWiki in his Stefan2 (etc.) emanation, would he not? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • Not being a copyright fanatic is not a weakness. Not being interesting in fighting on discussion pages is not a weakness. If you want contributors to Commons, you need to treat them with respect - it is not a requirement to contribute to a WMF project that you learn to tolerate arrogance, bullying and harassment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The belief that respect is something people are entitled to instead of something to be earned is what's killing freedom on this wiki. People don't want freedom because freedom hurts. Freedom can be mean, rude, blunt, and forceful, so they don't want it around. I'm also tried of speaking to people who consider this, that, and the other thing to be harassment. If you consider Stefan4's actions to be harassment, then there really isn't any way to build consensus with you, since someone who views Stefan4's actions as harassment only desires one thing for Stefan4: a ban or a topic ban. So far, you rejected all the alternatives to a topic ban suggested. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Michaeldsuarez: Yes, all people are entitled to respect by default. I can't accept any other option about that. Freedom is fine, but unconditional freedom, specially on the disrespect of other people, is not. However, I don't consider Stefan's nominations to be harassment, may be only misjudgement. I think that he made them on good faith. BTW, I still would like to hear more from him. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cries for respect are what had an educational video of Pricasso painting deleted. Believing that people are entitled to respect is detrimental to Commons' educational mission. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
But commitments to our values may occasionally override our vision and mission. :) (But I agree with Yann; I see nothing wrong in Stefan's actions here.) Jee 13:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Michaeldsuarez: Hi, A valuable mission never justifies bad means or lack of respect. I expect people to respect each others whatever they do or think about our mission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Michaeldsuarez: Your basic democratic rights appear to include discussing others negatively behind their backs without offering them a chance to respond: this is a March 19 post from you on Wikipediocracy: "Andy Dingley and a few others seem bend on transforming Stefan4 into the next Pieter Kuiper (permalink). Despite more or less donating content to the public via free licenses, Commons users are possessive and become extremely offended when their uploaded content is nominated for deletion. Dingley and "Coat of Many Colours" are clearly taking the proposals for deletion far too personally." What exactly do you mean by "despite more or less donating content to the public via free licenses"? What is your problem, and why are you taking it to Wikipediocracy, a forum I have nothing to do with and normally wouldn't seek to join? Isn't ths exactly the kind of thing that got you into difficulties before? I suspect it's time you recused here, but not before telling me upfront exactly what your problem really is. Please indicate at the same time whether your respect for democratic freedoms would allow me a certain measure of " mean, rude, blunt, and forceful" in my response. You can dish it at a safe distance, can you take it close up? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You may speak to me in whatever manner you wish, and you may do it here or elsewhere. I speak there because people here can't stand freedom of speech. I'm not sure why you're requesting for my recusal. You should try detaching yourself from the files you upload here. You shouldn't take every deletion or deletion attempt as an affront. Relax. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You just don't get it Michael, do you? He totally creeped me out. Plus he's wrong, and so are you. And I don't need lectures from you how to comport myself my age. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Stefan4 again as multiple people have requested his additional input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Future timestamp to avoid archiving before Stefan4 responds. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Drop the stick. You drove Stefan4 away. You won. Go home. Stop it, please. I undid your timestamp. Move on. You're not making things better. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit my comments, even the timestamp of them. Doing so is completely unacceptable. I do not believe that Stefan4 has been driven away, but it is best for everyone concerned that this not be allowed to slip away unresolved. Whether it results in anything or not, it should come to an active conclusion to implement or not implement something. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Michaeldsuarez: No one drove Stefan away. He just won't interact with his peers, and that's bad faith. It's not us, it's him. There's something about Stefan we need to discuss. Only he can make it better. For example, does he intend to continue with his URAA crusade in the light of the recent dispensation at Commons, a pragmatic and nuanced position I'm not sure he's capable of assimilating (he and his admin mentors have deleted entire categories of images, to the despair of at least one contemporary estate I happen to know). You can make your sentences as short as you like in his defense. But it won't do. Go. Come. Whatever. Trust me. Really. Imagine. Give over. Honest. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There isn't any consensus to implement anything. That's not going to change. Just let it go. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I agree with Michael that this discussion isn't going anywhere. There's no need to have this section cluttering up ANU for another two weeks. Do you really want us to have a thread discussing who can make changes to your future timestamp? --Avenue (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't going anywhere until the input request of Stefan4 by several commenters is given. I'd rather this be left here "cluttering up" this section until it is resolved rather than being archived without resolution. You may disagree on that, but editing my comment is not the way to express that. There is no need for a thread to discuss who may edit other people's comments, because the answer is and always will be the same: nodbody. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - quality ratings for all DR closers

I would like to propose non-controversial measurements for DR closers:

  1. Number of DRs closed per month and proportion of keep/delete/other
  2. Number of DRs appealed per month and number successfully appealed or later undeleted without an undelete request (and in ratio to total)
  3. Monthly trends in numbers

This would enable comparisons to see the most active/inactive in DR closures, hopefully encouraging more admins to take part. It would also enable comparison for who are the most controversial in their closures. An admin that has a significant number of DRs successfully appealed, should be obliged to explain how they intend to learn from the appeals, particularly if there is an underpinning trend. At least with trends and comparative measures, the community will be considering best practice and improvement rather than debating individual problematic DRs which are likely to exist for any of the most active admins.

The above suggestions are the minimum type of numbers that would be worth reporting, if the community agrees what it would like to see as tables and charts maintained on a weekly or monthly basis, it should be possible to have a bot-writer put this together fairly easily. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a great idea, and a much needed one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A proposal that makes closers accountable instead of disenfranchising people such as Stefan4 sounds good. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose When you close a lot of difficult DR's of course people disagree since most are borderline cases. So to make them explain some things seems quite pointless since it are always the same admins willing to make the tough discissions. Natuur12 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sceptical these statistics will be meaningful and they are not "non-controversial" for the same reason that hospital death statistics are highly controversial. Trying to use simple maths to describe a complex issue is not the solution. How are block deletions counted, for example? It assumes that uncontested deletions were "good" and successfully contested deletions "bad", which is a simplification. There are too many variables at play to judge "trends", which are probably more likely to be determined by upload activity or simply taking holidays. There seem obvious ways to game the system too. It isn't really addressing the underling issues. For example, that some admins like to specialise in deletions for obscure/borderline legal cases on high-value content rather than obvious legal/scope cases on low-value content. Or that contributors who find their uploads challenged are not directed towards help pages that indicate where they may have gone wrong, but are expected to become a copyright lawyer overnight and do battle with some over-confident amateur. There are systemic issues here of which individual editor behaviour is just a manifestation. I'd rather people ran bots or gathered statistics on controversial/contested/problematic deletions in order to work out which areas need better documentation or need further discussion in order to determine community consensus. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 Support Good idea. Yann (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I agree with Colin and Natuur12. While I don't oppose their collecting, as the statistics might be interesting, I do oppose them being used as you suggest because they are not a reliable measure by which admins can be compared (per Colin). They also do not solve the problem that bad nominations (both incorrect nominations and correct nominations done badly) drive away contributors regardless of how they are closed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I support collecting more statistics, but I agree with Colin, Natuur12, and Thryduulf that they will not be uncontroversial. Colin's idea of investigating contested deletions seems more likely to be helpful than focussing on individual admins. --Avenue (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a user problem, it's a collection of people thinking themselves too good to speak to the rest of the community in the right venue. No surprise that it's Fae, again. Want more wrong venue refs ? Penyulap ☏ 11:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems a bit unnecessary Penyulap. Why would asking on an administrators noticeboard about collation of administrator statistics be the wrong venue ? It strikes me that it's the best venue, at least for initial discussions, the correct place to get feedback from administrators (and interested observers) before deciding on dropping the proposal, making changes or simply putting it out to wider consultation with the wider community. Where would you like the discussion to be held instead, Penyulap ? 87.115.34.168 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Penyulap, I made a suggestion some time ago that you and Fae should steer clear of each other. Do you remember Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_40#User:Penyulap? The only reason this didn't go through is because you disappeared. As you have come back and continue the same things from when before you disappeared, I think it is time that the community decide on proposal as they were in prior discussion and implement them whether you participate or not. I would probably be suggesting an indefinite ban from all COM:AN noticeboards. russavia (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to try reaching out to Penyulap first. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Natuur12 -FASTILY 21:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of the law of unintended consequences, I like User:Colin's analogy, as found in the NHS performance targets, once you favour one measure of performance over others, then that measure receives undue weight, especially against factors that cannot be so easily measured. This has uninteded consequences such as the risk averse cherry picking to keep their stats up.--KTo288 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Arshad Roshan.a.a sockpuppet

It looks as though Viren Vadhera (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Arshad Roshan.a.a (talk · contribs), as it uploaded the same copyright-infringing image here to insert into an English Wikipedia article which the other socks keep creating over and over. The account's latest upload, File:Giaa Manek at the launch of Big Star Entertainment Awards 2013.jpg, has a falsified OTRS tag impersonating User:Stemoc. See also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshad Roshan.a.a. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, locked, and key thrown away. Upload nuked. Sockpuppet or not, faking OTRS-tags equals block. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, this new account is also Confirmed. Trijnsteltalk 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion takes place here: User talk:Jameslwoodward#wrongful allegation of copyright violation and my uploaded pictures still have not been restored. ScotXW (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to request undeletion of certain files, the proper venue is COM:UNDEL. This is a forum for user issues that need an administrator's intervention. What action, precisely, do you desire an adminstrator take related to Jim?
Frankly, if you continue being sarcastic and condesending (an admin has already called your comments an attack, by the way), you may find yourself blocked. COM:MELLOW may assist you. Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Transfer the discussion to a talk page and keep it a discussion. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you call me condescending, but actually there is no basis of the allegations. The whole thing is pretty much ridiculous. Anybody who read the "discussion" should see that. You don't see that? As a matter of fact, there is nothing to discuss. He made a mistake, and is not willing to undo it. I already proved that the copyright is ok. ScotXW (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Policy explained several times. This should suffice. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is REALLY simple. He made a mistake. PLEASE; clean up you sh*t, or at least be consistent! This rather looks like somebody is pikcing on me. Especially with regards to the threat above. In case of an SVG, you can simply look inside the file, and some SVGs tell you the license they are licensed under. In case you do not know, how to do that, just say so. ScotXW (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I can understand ScotXW, thats a bit quibbling of the police. But I would have simply ask another admin/COM:UNDEL. -- Perhelion (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The applicable policy, which Hedwig quoted, in bold, above, has been explained at least three times. All you have to do is provide the source URLS -- without them, we cannot restore the files. This is not a mistake, it is simply following policy. It is not up to anyone but the uploader to do the work that is required to keep a file here, so please, just do as the policy requires and give us the URLS! .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I provided URLs... This is not a list? I beg your pardon? I also gave you a link to file with an even bigger "mistake": file:Ubuntu_Software_Center_icon_v3.svg and it has not been deleted. Why? Isn't it a copyright infringement? It is hard to take you seriously. ScotXW (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Phuongminhminh (talk · contribs)

copyvios after many warnings (since January 2012) /St1995 22:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Alan (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

European Russia laea location map.svg

A consensus was reached at the Discussion page to change the map of the European Russia (European Russia laea location map.svg), with Crimea appearing as gray-coloured instead of the standard yellow-coloured, but an user (Bobek) who is obstinate into reverse arbitrarly against what was agreed. That map should be protected to avoid further arbitrary changes without a previous consensus been reached. Inhakito (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

SiBr4 and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg

SiBr4 will not stop altering the Flag of Mann. I have explained to them several times why there is a problem with the change they have made, they will not stop changing it and consider my concerns invalid. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only explanation I've heard is that you think "it doesn't quite look right" and other subjective arguments, while multiple sources support the centering method I used. If you have any concerns other than that you don't like it, I'd like to hear them, but since you didn't seem to have any, I reverted back. SiBr4 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
What is subjective is that you completely ignore the concerns of another user based on your own opinion of the validity in favour of using a construction sheet from FOTW that doesn't have a source. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The FotW page references a book by Graham Bartram, a rather notable British vexillologist. Vexilla Mundi doesn't cite sources but does support the circular centering. I don't "completely ignore" anything, but I do think these sources outweigh one user's personal opinion. SiBr4 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The flag clearly looks improper and off-centre, and instead of acknowledging that, you just think you can change it all you want and ignore what anyone else says. You accuse me of not trying to discuss this with you when I very clearly have and you simply ignore what I have to say. Fry1989 eh? 18:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It's fine if you think it doesn't look right. If I'd try I could name some other files where I'd personally favor an older version that has been replaced to follow the sources, though I don't revert back just because it doesn't look right. As I said on the file talk page, both centering methods are equally valid; the newer version of the Manx flag image centers an imaginary circle around the triskelion, while the older one centers a rectangle. SiBr4 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who made a change, BRD applies and instead of following it you are just hammering through your controversial change. You have accused me at least 4 times of not being willing to discuss this with you. Well what is there to discuss when you ignore what I have to say? Nothing. Fry1989 eh? 18:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
When you don't reply at the talk page for over a week while still actively contributing to Commons, it appears to me as if you just refuse to reply. I've replied to every of your comments within a few hours and don't see any comment that I think may be interpreted as me ignoring your reasoning (just refuting it because it's still just your view). SiBr4 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I did reply, many times! You didn't care what I had to say, so what is the point in continuing to try and tell you the same thing over and over if you will just ignore it? I shouldn't have to waste my time with someone who demands discussion and ignores what the others have to say. You have caused a visual disparity and that is a valid concern, whether you think so or not. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel like you were being ignored, though you never said anything new (just that "it doesn't look right" and "I told you why", basically), so I didn't have to say anything new either. I didn't say you never commented at all, but both of my later reverts were preceded by several days of silence on your part. SiBr4 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You said I refused to reply, but I only stopped replying after you made it clear you had no interest in what I had to say and therefore responding further would be a waste of time! Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why I should be interested in your opinion in order to be able to discuss an image. Up to now you haven't given a single objective argument in any of the recent discussions. Yes, it may look off-centered, but why is that a reason to revert if sources say it should be that way? SiBr4 (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you completely reject what I have to say, why do you want me to waste my time "discussing" something with you that you've already decided in your head you won't give the time of day?! You're not interested in a single word I have to say and then you whine like a child "you're not discussing with me!!!!". Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since this discussion so far hasn't changed that you keep blaming me of ignoring your concerns and I keep blaming you of your only reasoning being your opinion, a third opinion is probably a way better option than an AN thread (I don't know if Commons has anything like that). SiBr4 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You sure were quick on that, I guess my bringing this here wasn't clear enough a signal that I'm seeking a resolution as opposed to continued revision that you still felt it necessary. Fry1989 eh? 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I misunderstood the purpose of this page. "User problems" implies it's just for reporting users that the reporter thinks should be blocked/banned, not for asking advice relating to disputes. SiBr4 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That comment was meant for Hedwig below, I find their swiftness in protecting the file a sign of bad faith in my intentions, but I misplaced my comment. Fry1989 eh? 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then sorry again. I thought it was directed at me and moved it below my post. SiBr4 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File is locked indef (reason: edit war) for now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And user blocked for one day by Natuur12. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A waste I might add, just gives me time to work on other projects. Whether you think my comment went to far or not the fact is that SiBr4 asked me to discuss the matter with them, then resoundingly rejected my comments, and is now complaining that I'm not discussing with them anymore and using my silence as an excuse to revert the image. I'm not going to waste my time talking to you when you do not want to hear what I have to say, it's like talking to a brick wall! Fry1989 eh? 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ignore your comments just because it's your comments; I just think personal opinions are not relevant to discussions like these. If it then appears that all of your arguments are personal opinions, I make clear that I don't consider them relevant if there's sources that support one version. I could have known that you wouldn't have any new arguments and that I didn't have to ask you to discuss further, though I'd still revert. SiBr4 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Pretty ironically, you're now completely ignoring my comments and keep saying that I am ignoring your comments. SiBr4 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You absolutely ignored my comments, Responding to them doesn't mean you paid them any attention. You asked me to discuss and I raised my issues with your using the construction sheet you chose to use, you rejected my concerns, and therefore I had nothing more to say. If I persisted and said the same thing 10 times was that going to change your mind? I doubt it, so why should I have continued? Instead, you pestered my twice demanding I continue to "discuss" (if you call call it that, I call it talking to a wall) with you, and you used my silence to revert the file over three weeks later (March 5th-30th) back to a version which is disputed. You didn't abide by BDR, you uploaded a version that is disputed by another user and edit warred to keep it in place, you accuse me of not discussing when you had no interest in what I had to say in the first place, so why should I pay you any heed now?! Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This comment just proves the comment above it is true. You're still repeating that I ignored all of your comments and then asked you to discuss, while not actually replying to the point of the comment in question. OK, my request to "be willing to discuss" didn't make much sense in retrospect, but please try to forget that and reply to what the rest is actually talking about. SiBr4 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this from the outside, with no knowledge of anything but the user behaviour, it's clear that neither of you are behaving brilliantly but the major barrier to getting this resolved is Fry1989 refusing to listen or engage with SiBr4. Fry1989, you have made your opinions clear, everybody has heard you several times over, however despite repeated requests you have not backed them up with any evidence. To put it bluntly, Fry1989 you need to put up or shut up: answer the questions SiBr4 has asked of you and present the evidence that SiBr4's sources are incorrect and that your opinions are objective and based on correct sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to "put up" when you have an attitude like that, so why don't you shut up! This is a matter of if the flag is actually visually correct or not. I noticed this problem on Wikipedia while going over the article Flag of the Isle of Man and I could clearly see that the triskelion was too low on the flag and it was off to the right of the flag, when it is supposed to be in the centre. You can clearly see this issue by comparing the two at the same resolution (1 and 2). I tried to raise this concern on SiBr4's talk page and they couldn't understand what my issue was. They further didn't care on the file talk page. They twice used my silence as an excuse to revert an image which implies that I have an obligation to keep saying the same thing over and over to a brick wall or I somehow forfeit my concerns. It is SiBr4's conduct which is unacceptable and violates policy. Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that I started the file talk page discussion, just after your re-revert. I've given an explanation for the vertical shift in the discussion on my talk page (there isn't any horizontal shift), which you seem to have ignored. The triskelion in the newer version is still centered, but in a different way; you are not the only one who gets to determine whether an image is "visually correct" or not. SiBr4 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but I get to raise my concerns about an image based on whatever grounds I see fit just like anybody else, and you do not get to just keep reverting to shove your way through. Fry1989 eh? 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion can be summed up as follows: "Fry1989: That flag looks wrong!", SiBr4: "No, it isn't wrong because the centre of the device is the centre of the flag per sources X and Y", Fry1989: "I think the flag looks wrong, so it's wrong!", SiBr4: "According to the sources I've listed it is correct, why do you disagree with them? Have you got any sources that say something different?", Fry1989: "You are wrong because the device looks off-centre to me!", repeat. One of you is following what the sources say, the other is offering an unsupported personal opinion. It's clear to me which side is following policy, and it isn't Fry1989. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What a delightfully ignorant oversimplification of both this situation and the policy. So if there are visual errors in an image that's not a concern? Is that what you're saying? Mind you of course that the construction sheet being used is not even an official document but rather a supposition, and the image as constructed on FOTW does not have the same visual disparity, which means that the flag as constructed by FOTW and the flag as constructed by SiBr4 are not the same. And if you want to discuss policy, let's discuss what BRD actually says: Be bold, change the image if you think it needs to. If you are reverted, discuss the matter and try and gain a consensus, then apply that consensus. It does not say "if there is no fruitful consensus formed from the attempted discussion, just keep reverting to try and shove your change through anyway!". SiBr4 indeed has violated policy regarding this. Fry1989 eh? 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a concern, but it is only your view that it is an error. The FotW image is the same as the current image on Commons; just look at FotW's actual flag image. The construction sheet only looks different because of the added circle that shows how the triskelion is centered. SiBr4 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And by continuing to insist that this is "only my view", you are trying to delegitimize my concern rather than address it. You violated policy, you edit warred, you changed an image without a consensus and still do not have one, your source is not an official one but rather a supposition, you have no grounds to do this. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To address it, it's fine if you think it doesn't look right, but it's still centered, and suppositions are still better than no sources at all. Both consensus and BRD are English WP concepts that don't literally apply at Commons. SiBr4 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just reread the discussions at my user page and the file talk page and would like to make some things clear.

  1. One day before the first revert back (which you re-reverted with the not really helpful summary "no it's not") I specifically asked you whether you would mind if I reverted, though looking back I could have waited some more for you to reply before actually doing so.
  2. With my first demand for further discussion ("If you're not going to reply...") I wanted you to answer the question I asked (whether you have a source), not to just explain your view again. This is probably one of the misunderstandings on which your accusation of ignoring your concerns is based.
  3. When I asked you to "be willing to discuss" in the change summary of my last revert it wasn't clear to me you stopped commenting because you thought I ignored your concerns. I can't read your mind; you didn't reply for over a week and I don't know how I could have known you refused to reply because of my behavior.

And actually, Thryduulf gives a pretty good summary of how I interpret this whole issue. SiBr4 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I made it clear what my stance on this issue is and you chose to ignore my view, and edit war your way through. I'll say it again, just because you read my view does not mean you gave it any attention. You made it clear from the beginning that you don't think my view on this matter has any weight, you are ignoring it and acting like yours is so superior when it really has little basis. You changed the image, your change was disputed, you kept shoving it through, this is your fault and still is. If it was the other way around, I would be blocked I can guarantee it. Fry1989 eh? 17:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Since repeating my view on the issue again seems pointless to me, I'll leave it up to an admin to give their opinion and conclude this. SiBr4 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion doesn't even matter in this context. You made a change to an image and that change is disputed. You kept shoving it through without any consensus, you should be blocked. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So the purpose of this AN thread is not to genuinely resolve this dispute, but just to get me blocked. Good to know that. SiBr4 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This AN has many purposes. One (which sadly is failing) is to get you to understand that you have violated the policies of Commons and improperly forced your controversial change through. Another is the sheer hypocrisy of the admins, who would have blocked me in a heartbeat were it I instead of you who did it. The third is to get you to understand that I have a valid complaint about your change that you didn't want to give any weight, and that is why I stopped replying, short of sounding like a broken record going round and round again. Now yes, I want this issue resolved, but the only way that is possible is if you acknowledge my grievances against your behaviour. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You're hardly one to comment, LGA, considering how you have acted before too. If you upload a change to an image and it is disputed, you DO NOT keep shoving it through. Fry1989 eh? 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
So why do you keep shoving through a change to an image that is disputed? Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"It takes two to edit war". Bravo, you got me! Let's just ignore that SiBr4 has completely violated policy for disputes of this nature. It is SiBr4 who made the change to the image, it is therefore SiBr4's change which is disputed. When a new change is disputed, the file should be reverted back to the last stable rendition. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet you are the one who has consistently failed to engage in discussion. SiBr4's changes are supported by sources he has cited and explained multiple times, your reverts are supported by nothing more than your subjective opinion repeatedly asserted as correct with no supporting evidence. The correct course of action in the event of a dispute is not to edit war, but to discus calmly with reference to sources to determine which version is correct. SiBr4 should not have edit warred, but neither should you. SiBr4 has cited his sources, you have not. SiBr4 has tried to engage in constructive dialog, you have not. SiBr4 has asked you specific questions, you have not answered them. Quite frankly I'm amazed that after over a week of your complete failure to do anything other than assert you are correct in all regards that you have not been blocked for disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I did engage in discussion and what I had to say was completely ignored. How many times do I have to say that? It's so convenient for you to ignore that I DID state my reasoning for opposing the change to the image, that SiBr4 didn't want to hear it, and therefore there was nothing more to say. It doesn't matter if you have a million sources, if you make a change and it is opposed you are supposed to gain a consensus instead of edit warring to force your change through. That I have to even explain that to you truly amazes me, and yet you think I should be blocked for "disruption" for raising the issue of SiBr4's actions. Incredible. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Fine, close this down! Close it and completely ignore and excuse that SiBr4 made a controversial change to an image and edit warred to force their change through, violating BRD and several other policies in the process. Ignore and excuse that SiBr4 did not try and gain a consensus for their change. Ignore and excuse that SiBr4 themself said that both alternative styles of centering the triskelion are "equally valid" and has therefore failed to provide a burden of proof for changing the image from how it has been for 9 years where the triskelion has been centered as a whole image rather than by an imaginary circle created by the legs. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I said they're "equally valid" because you repeatedly said the newer version is "wrong". I didn't say both are correct; which one is correct is made pretty clear by the sources, which you ignored and rejected even more than I your concerns.
Can you please explain which exact Commons policies I've violated? Consensus is not a Commons policy but an English WP policy. BRD is not a Commons policy but an English WP essay. The only accusation that is even mentioned in Commons:Policies and guidelines and subpages is "edit warring" under Commons:Blocking policy, though unlike on EnWP, there is no hard limit on the number of reverts on Commons, which I think means that it's up to an admin to decide whether I actually edit warred (I still think I didn't).
I see you separately uploaded the older version and replaced the newer one with that on Wikipedia. Note that WP even more than Commons relies on sources, so I should have no problem getting the other one back. SiBr4 (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction, on thousands of pages across all Wikimedia projects. SiBr4 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Fry1989, you're saying I changed the file from how it has been for 9 years, but the triskelion in the revisions between December 2005 and your new version from February 2013 is much closer to the circular than to the rectangular centering. So it's actually you who changed the image from how it had been for more than 7 years, while I basically reverted the change in centering method but kept the colors and triskelion size. I think that way of looking at it is worth mentioning too. SiBr4 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say centering it by the imaginary circle was "wrong", I said it was visually wrong and that is why I am concerned that your source is not correct in it's assessment of how this flag should be constructed. I have every right to upload the alternative file, and since you said that both styles are ok, then you should have no reason to oppose this action. I did it because you have completely superseded any proper discussion or consensus. I also have a right to maintain Wikipedia articles as they have been for a significant amount of time, unless you can also gain a consensus to change the image there. Just because you have a source doesn't make you right, there are processes you have to go through when your change is controversial or disputed. If you want to reconcile this dispute, you need to give my point of view an equal footing in any discussion. If you keep trying to just say "that's only your opinion, it doesn't matter", then we will never reconcile this matter. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind the older version being uploaded as a new file, but I don't particularly like the fact that you replaced a large number of instances of the main file with a new file pending a discussion about the files. The "significant amount of time" the version with rectangular centering has stood is less than eight months, not significantly more than the five months between my initial version and your first revert.
I'd give your view more weight if I'd only know how. What should I do, not plead for a change supported by sources just to please you? Frankly, I think the circular version looks better even if it wasn't for the sources (not that that matters but still). SiBr4 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And also you are mistaken, for 9 years the flag has been centered the other way. From how it was first uploaded on November 24, 2005, the triskelion was centered as an entire element. When the proportions where changed by Reisio on December 21, 2005, the triskelion was lowered on the flag but still horizontally centered as a whole element. It stayed that way until 2013 when I enlarged the overall size of the triskelion and vertically centered it under the same principle. It has never been centered based on the imaginary circle. Fry1989 eh? 17:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
To give some numbers, the difference in vertical position of the triskelion between the latest two versions (yours and mine) is 8.1% of the height of the flag. Looking at Reisio's/Alkari's version, the triskelion is shifted 2.0% from how it would have been if it was circularly centered and 5.4% from how a rectangularly centered version would look. So the 2005 version is not exactly circularly centered, but it is certainly closer to circular than to rectangular centering. SiBr4 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction: the difference between the latest two versions is 5.3%, not 8.1%. SiBr4 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not closer at all. It was horizontally centered as a whole element, and only shifted slightly lower vertically. You can call it a "half and half" blend if that meets your sensitivities better, but it certainly wasn't "closer". It has never been centered in the manner you are insisting, not even partially. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Just looking at the vertical placement, Reisio's version is closer to how my version would look than to how your version would look if the triskelion was equally big. The percentages I gave make that clear. It is also evident from his upload summary and the file talk page that he intended it to be centered the way FotW does, though he didn't know about the imaginary-circle method. SiBr4 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless you're a mind-reader, that's not clear at all. They stated that they had the "triskelion hori centered". And their intentions also don't matter, the fact of how this flag has been for 9 years does as a greater point to the fact that you are changing an image from how it has been for a significantly long time as to be considered stable without a consensus or support. Fry1989 eh? 18:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I've compared the three images in Inkscape and in vertical position Reisio's file is always closer to mine. In horizontal position there is only a negligible difference of 0.5% between his/yours and mine. It's hard to compare with triskelions of different sizes, but it is closer. SiBr4 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not "closer" at all. If all you care about is pointing out how "closer it was to mine" when it clearly was not, then it is obvious we can never reconcile this issue. Fry1989 eh? 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's not clearly closer to mine but it's not clearly closer to yours either. Again, it's hard to compare since the triskelion is bigger in our versions.
To which version Reisio's file is closer was the only thing the post I replied to ("And also you are mistaken...") was about. I don't know whether you noticed that I replied to your earlier post ("I didn't say centering it by the imaginary circle was "wrong"...") separately. SiBr4 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, not exactly about to which version it is closer, but about how it is centered. I don't know why we are now arguing over whether it is closer to yours or to mine, nor why that actually would matter. Horizontally it's rectangularly centered, but vertically it is closer to circular than to rectangular centering. So my point remains that you made a pretty radical change too regarding the centering, and that I basically just reverted that. SiBr4 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Just comparing Reisio's file with rectangularly and circularly centered versions of the same file, the difference in position of the triskelion is 2.2% when compared to circular centering and 5.4% when compared to rectangular centering. This is in absolute distance, including both horizontal and vertical shifts. To which of our versions the file is closer doesn't matter because we're just talking about the centering, not about the change in size of the triskelion. SiBr4 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Now Fry1989 is flooding the English Wikipedia with the file he prefers using GlobalReplace. I don't think the blatantly untrue claim that "it has been that way for 9 years" is anything more than an excuse for replacing the original file with his on 4000 pages. SiBr4 (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That does seem like the act of someone trying to get his own way by making an end-run around consensus. I'm getting increasingly disgusted at both Fry1989's behaviour and the absence of any input from administrators here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have alerted the English Wikipedia WikiProjects Isle of Man and WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology to the replacement, advised them of this dispute and invited the contribution of knowledgeable users here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the image comparisons from the file talk page here for other users who want to comment on the files in question. SiBr4 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm just as disgusted with you and your clear bias in this matter. That you were once an admin shocks me because you are not showing any of the sensibilities of one. You are deliberately describing this dispute in a bad faith manner and lying about the number of sources SiBr4 has, and accusing me in bad faith of just "trying to get my way" when the truth is SiBr4 only has 1 source, has not properly discussed this and gained a consensus for change, I have repeatedly asked them to respect the policies and they are not, and I am trying to maintain Wikipedia under the principle of BRD as there is a lack of consensus for change. As for you, you even play word games here accusing me of really being the one who is trying to force through (via edit warring) a disputed change to the image when it is in fact SiBr4 who changed the image and therefore their change which is in dispute. You are not an unbiased voice here, you can't even pretend to be, so don't even try and act so indignant about my actions when I have just as much to complain about yours. This isn't about getting my way, this is about following the standard practices of Commons and Wikipedia when there is a disputed or controversial change to an image which SiBr4 has completely bypassed and everyone is giving them a free run of it. Fry1989 eh? 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If there was a consensus, I wouldn't be having this issue, but there wasn't and there still fails to be. However, now because of Thryduulf's clear biased "alert" which looks more like canvassing to me, I now question if a fair consensus can even be reached. Fry1989 eh? 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
And it appears I'm not the only one who thinks Thryduulf has violated WP:Canvassing. Fry1989 eh? 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There's VM, FotW and Graham Bartram's book, which are already three sources. Okay, VM is not that reliable, and FotW itself references Bartram's book, but one is still more than zero. Also, it's your supposition that the information from the sources is a supposition. It would help if someone owned Bartram's book and could verify where he got his information from (we don't know whether he based his claims on photographs or asked the government or anyone else).
If you really cared so much about consensus or lack thereof (though, again, Commons has no "consensus" policy), you could have requested a revert of File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg to the status quo version pending this discussion, but globally replacing a file with another looks more like forcing your version through than restoring a status quo. SiBr4 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore I think there are currently two different discussions that should be separated. I propose restricting this AN section to discussing what I did wrong, what you did wrong, my apparent edit warring, your global file replacements, etc. and starting a new section at the file talk page (possibly an RfC) to determine which version of the flag should be kept. This because I think these are different issues that shouldn't affect each other's outcomes. SiBr4 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
While I may not have directly asked that the file be reverted back, I have clearly said several times that "When a new change is disputed, the file should be reverted back to the last stable rendition" which is a pretty clear implication. On the other hand, I see no harm in hosting two files with the two alternative styles of centering the triskelion and I have also stated that. As for my replacing the image across the projects, again I am maintaining Wikipedia under the principle of BRD, whether people think it looks like forcing my way as opposed to maintaining/restoring the status quo is irrelevant to me. Had the original file been reverted to it's last stable rendition, I wouldn't have done this, which clearly shows I am restoring the status quo short of any consensus for change. If I had been replacing it against a formed consensus, then you could accuse me of trying to circumvent it and get my way, but not like this. Thryduulf's bad faith accusations and blustering of "I'm disgusted" is just posturing nonsense.
As for your comment on separating the various issues, I agree. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"I see no harm in hosting two files with the two alternative styles" – I neither, but that wasn't my point. Suppose an RfC or anything comes to the conclusion that the circular version should be used, then that's hundreds of edits across Wikimedia that should be reverted. I didn't even mention the edit summary for these replacements ("Replace file with properly alligned triskleion" (sic)), which is just a push of your view and not a neutral message saying you're reverting to a status quo.
You may not have noticed that I'm not an admin; the first time you mentioned reverting to a stable rendition, the file was already protected. Requesting uploads to protected files is exactly what {{Edit protected}} is for. Surely that would have been a better option than uploading the older revision separately and globally replacing with that file. SiBr4 (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 I do not claim to be neutral on this matter, so even if I were an admin here again I would not act in an admin capacity with regards to this dispute. Despite this my notes on en.wp were factual - SiBr4 has presented sources to back up his opinion, you have not. My disgust is not posturing, but a genuine expression of my opinion of the admins who are not doing anything about this dispute that the two of you have repeatedly failed to resolve and which my attempts to resolve have also failed for the same reason - your refusal to engage with any discussion beyond "I'm right" and "Because I say so". Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Except for maybe the global replacements, everything in the notice seems actually relevant for someone who wants to comment on which file should stay (how both are centered and that one has a source). Though Thryduulf, would you agree that it's best to start a separate discussion at the file talk page about which file should be used and restrict this section to discussing our acting? SiBr4 (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with either splitting or not splitting the discussion, whichever will get the most attention from other users is probably best. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thryduulf, it doesn't matter if you are no longer an admin, or if you would abstain from using your powers if you still were (an accusation I have not hinted to), I have a problem with what you are saying. You are showing a complete lack of good faith and clear bias in this dispute, you manipulated the issue to turn it around towards me and accuse me of being the one edit warring to a controversial change when I was clearly trying to maintain the most stable previous rendition, and you have said very unhelpful things like "I'm disgusted by your actions" and "you're forcing your way", which is why I am shocked you ever were an admin. And once again you ignore that I did try to have a discussion and disengaged for the very fact that what I had to say was being ignored. I never said "because I say so" and "I'm right!" or even anything close to it, what I have I said is I have concerns that the style of centering the triskelion by the imaginary circle method is incorrect. Instead of acknowledging that concern, you are trying to make it look like I'm just saying "I don't like it and I'm right, so there!" which is completely untrue. You're lying and manipulating this on purpose, which is why I will not take part in any discussion of the matter in which you are also involved.
SiBr4, I never suggested you were an admin. I suggested that those watching this AN who are (including the admin who protected the file in the first place) should know that when a file is in dispute, you revert to the last stable version, and one of them should have done so. I shouldn't have to outright ask, it's something that should automatically be done. As for my uploading the file separately, both should have been uploaded anyways so I see no point in your suggesting I shouldn't have but rather formally put in an editprotection request. Fry1989 eh? 18:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


A new discussion at the file talk page has been started. Any new posts in this section should not be about the files, but just about us. SiBr4 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Fry1989, you may not have literally said "because I say so", but many of your comments may be interpreted that way. Multiple times you repeatedly said "you're wrong"/"that's not true" while ignoring my counterproof, most recently the "closer to which" issue above.

One big question in determining whether I "should be blocked" or not that I asked before but didn't get an answer to: which exact policies have I violated? SiBr4 (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly you violated the policy of edit warring. You kept reverting to push your desired change through. Second you violated BRD, which yes is not strictly speaking a Commons policy but it is still often applied here. You made a change and it was disputed, and instead of gaining a consensus for your change you just kept shoving it through. Both of these things are ample reason to have blocked you and protected the file on it's last stable rendition. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no global rule on how many reverts constitute an edit war, but having the EnWP's limit of three reverts in one day in mind, two or three reverts in four weeks clearly doesn't come close at all. Defining an edit war as repeatedly reverting to force a change through without bothering to discuss, then the term is not entirely applicable either, since I did try to discuss the issue, but you refused to give any objective arguments and eventually wouldn't reply anymore at all, which was the reason for my third revert. With the first revert it wasn't clear to me that your apparently new edit was a revert. With the second revert I wrongly assumed the issue was already resolved. My intention was never to "shove my version through".
Regarding BRD, that's an essay and not a rule that directly results in a block if violated. Again, I did try to discuss the issue, but the more we discussed, the less intention to actually resolve the issue you would show. You kept saying "I already told you why" while I pretty clearly asked for better arguments than "it doesn't look right" and "it's off". Summarizing this issue in terms of BRD, it's basically BRDRRDRD, and not anything like BRRRR... like you're implying. SiBr4 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If neither of us has anything else to say, I'll again leave it up to an admin to close. SiBr4 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Therealori (talk · contribs)

copyvios after warnings /St1995 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Yann, 1 week. Special:Contributions/Therealori Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

FlavioThiago

Hi,

FlavioThiago (talk · contribs) is probably a sock of RBCampos (talk · contribs). One uses the copyvios minutes after they were uploaded by the other one. See User talk:Yann#user:FlavioThiago. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Portrait uploads by User:Moaminsco

This user has uploaded several files as "Own work". One of them, File:Thomas Knoll.jpg had a copyright notice in the metadata and has been speedied. I am suspicious of these others, and think they should be looked at by someone more expert than me in image sourcing and copyright issues:

TinEye finds other copies on the web of the first three: Knoll, Yeganeh, Rashid. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The fourth is probably a portrait of the uploader. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • An identical-seeming match of the first image dates from May 2013, but the version here was uploaded in December. The hosting site’s terms do not permit any form of reproduction (other than under fair use, which isn’t relevant here).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Protracted edit war in File:Death Penalty World Map.svg

Resolved

Please, take a look. Russian color is constantly changed to and fro. Maybe some sysop intervention is necessary.--Abiyoyo (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected 1 week.
Ping Frenzie23 and Elmor: I need you give me an explanation urgently. Alan (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Elmor's right; Russia has abolished. What kind of explanation do you have in mind? Frenzie23 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Explanation about edit war, I wanted the version of the 2 parts. But seeing your explanation, I hope you have finished. --Alan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
History cleaned. It seems all in order. I close the case.
To the 2 users that have intervened: Feel warned by the edit war. Regards. --Alan (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by repeated self-promoting uploader "Claudio Alexandre Moreno Alves"

Pretty clear that- in conjunction with en.wikipedia- this user is using multiple accounts to promote himself.

Following Jespino's comment at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Vip_gajf- which links to another deletion request claiming "Self-portrait by 14-year old Brazilian, blocked on en:wp for persistent self-promotion and sock-puppetry", I discovered en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Claudio_Alexandre_Moreno_Alves/Archive, and found these identically named accounts on Commons:-

User_talk:Moreno_alves
User_talk:Claudio_vip
User_talk:Moreno_alves
User talk:Vip gajf

Appears that user has uploaded images more than once, including previously deleted ones under the same name.

Quite obvious and deliberate abuse of the facilities for narcissistic reasons, will leave it up to you whether to block and label as sockpuppets(!)

Ubcule (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Could have sworn there actually were four (not just the repeated one), but I think I'm subconciously post-rationalising my mistake. :-O
Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppettry from user:rolandodeynigo

I strongly suspect the user rolandodeynigo of using sock puppets :

  • He is simultaneously using another account : MaverickSalta, as can be seen from this edit on commons and this previous version of his es:wiki user page.
  • I also suspect him to be behind the currently active user Retaux, whose first contributions were to ask two different users to create the coat of arms rolandodeynigo has used until a few weeks ago and who has made lots of edits on yñigo.

Three different active accounts for a single person seem to me somehow too much. Kathisma (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I also suspect that quite a few of his coats of arms are fictional. Especially the arms of Yñigo-Genio, their revision history strongly suggests that the user has assumed these by himself. They are added to a few actual Wikipedia pages as well. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Yann

has been edit warring to keep this UD request open (1st revert, 2nd revert, and arranging for his buddy User:Ezarate to make the 3rd revert) following my original close here. I ask that the community do something about his impulsive/childish behavior/lousy unbecoming conduct, and address the edit warring & meatpuppetry over my IMHO legitimate, policy-respecting closure. Thanks, FASTILY 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fastily, stop your bullshit. The decision was validated by 2 bureaucrats. If you have a problem with that, talk to them. In the meanwhile, follow the community decision. And don't put stupid warnings on my talk page. You first reverted me, so your warning about edit war if completely nonsense. POINT. Yann (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you don't agree with Fastily's closing. You are allowed to disagree of course but removing an entire stratement backed up with arguments seems wrong to me. Natuur12 (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Fastily closure was already reopened by someone else, and then he closed it again. Seeing that TWO bureaucrats validated this decision, it seems the minumum to let the requests open until further discussion take place. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care if it is reopened or not but removing the closing statement feels wrong to me. I don't aprove this kind of behaviour either btw. Just stop all this drama, wait untill this discussion is finally over and than, when the policy is or isnot changed than undelete them or not. No need to hurry. Commons isn't build in a day. Natuur12 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This isnot helping either btw. Natuur12 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Right, Russ closed it in the first place, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure why you keep blabbering about the 'TWO bureaucrats' like a broken record, but I neither count two crats in the discussion, nor do I see how it makes a difference. Being a crat does not, in fact give you a super vote. Your recent combative behavior today (i.e. continued edit warring -> 4th revert and ridiculous edits to my talk page: 1, 2, 3) is highly inappropriate, and is grounds for a desysop. While it's not too late to back down and drop the stick, I will say that you're presently digging your own grave. -FASTILY 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Fastily, you go this way ← and Yann, you go that way →. If there is further edit warring by either party, you will be met with a block. Additionally, please stop cussing at each other and generally acting foolish otherwise there will be blocks all around until you can behave like adults. Tiptoety talk 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've protected COM:UDEL for six hours due to the edit war. Please discuss this calmly but do not continue to edit war. We have obviously a serious disagreement here which needs to be resolved. But this is no reason for edit-warring on this project. If edit warring continues after the protection expires, I will start blocking regardless of status. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For a venue for other editors to contest deletions, don't you think protecting COM:UDEL is a bit excessive and blocks those who were not involved. Both Fastily and Yann should've been blocked for six hours for edit warring, not preventing anyone contesting deletions. I'm extremely disappointed. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Unprotected. If edit warring continues i will start blocking users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I brought that issue up here. I was going to give AFBorchert some time to respond. Tiptoety talk 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tiptoety. Why our admins try to override community consensus and decisions (if any) though their cheap tools which can be taken back by the community at any time? I saw the quick closings by Fastily just after MichaelMaggs' long comment at COM:VPC on inviting a discussion on how to proceed with the URAA issue. Why not Fastily can make his/her opinion there than making a disagreement with his tools? Yann's revert note ("at least the very least, I expect you not to close this now. I am waiting for further discussion before deciding.") seems reasonable; but he too can refrain from it as he is highly involved in that matter. Better he can ask help at COM:AN. IMHO, better make a status quo for the deletions and undeletions until the COM:VPC discussion is closed. Jee 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Re Fastily
I think this is like the thief reporting to the police. To me and many others (see archives), he looks like a Rambo who like to shoot on every file he doesn't like. We can see already that he has already won this shooting contest. So put your guns down, and come to discuss. The movie is over. Among other problems, I see:
  1. Failure to accept a community decision, endorsed by 2 bureaucrats;
  2. Using his admin position to close a contested request on COM:UDR;
  3. Edit warring with Ezarate and me on COM:UDR;
  4. Adding nonsense warnings on my talk page;
  5. ....... This list is long enough to get anyone else blocked for some time. Maybe someone who cares more will write down a detailed request about him. I don't. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Whoa there cowboy, get off your high horse; that's quite the pack of lies you got there. Let's get started.
  1. As I stated above, "I'm not sure why you keep blabbering about the 'TWO bureaucrats' like a broken record, but I neither count two crats in the discussion, nor do I see how it makes a difference. Being a crat does not, in fact give you a super vote."
  2. Correct, admins close UDRs. That's part of the job description.
  3. You initially reverted me here, then here, and then arranged for your buddy Ezarate to make the third revert to avoid 3RR. Not like it makes a difference though, since you broke 3RR when you abused rollback to revert a legitimate edit by SamB. Since you're obviously ignorant of our rules and/or too simple-minded to understand them, allow me to reiterate that this is block-worthy violation of our rules.
  4. I believe my warnings criticizing your poor behavior were legitimate. These retaliatory, childish 'warnings' you left for me (1, 2, 3) are the real nonsense here.
  5. The offenses you have committed today and in the past are more than grounds for a desysop. I would be glad to dig though the years of poor conduct and damage caused to the project at the utterly incompetent hands of Yann, and compile it into a nifty desysop request (e.g. a few such incidents I can think of off the top of my head: 1, 2, 3, 4) but for the sake of consistency, I feel I'm too involved in the current proceedings to immediately initiate such a discussion. At a later date perhaps.
-FASTILY 08:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do. Yann (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fastily: Hmm, I'm not sure I would call that particular change just "a legitimate edit by SamB", seeing as that particular change was just me reverting the third revert of your closure of those UDRs, so it was actually authored by you. So while I did make the change, I did not author it. Maybe you meant to link to this change instead, where Yann actually does revert a change I authored, and like the reverts of your closure, improperly removes a statement I made, as I said here. (Is there a rule against that sort of statement removal? There should be.)
@Yann: Please refrain from removing statements in this manner, whatever you may feel about anything else done in the same edit. This might require that you move the statements a bit when you revert the other changes, but please try to keep them in context.
@Yann and Fastily: Presumably the policy discussion should be handled at COM:VPC? —SamB (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Now at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. Jee 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyrights violation

These files looks like copyright violation as it has low resolution, found in so many websites, etc. Could you take necessary steps? --AntonTalk 08:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time just nominate for deletion or speedy deletion in case of (c) violations. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, noted. --AntonTalk 02:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi we have the rights to use this picture thumb|Zombie Walk Montreal 2013 it is obviously not a selfie. It's just that there was no option saying: Do you have permission from Photographer to use this image. We purposely left his name in. So what can we do to fix the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whebley (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Who are "we"? Is your account used by more than one person? I find it a bit odd that instead of asking someone when you didn't find a truthful option, you decided to commit copyright infringement by falsely claiming that "This file is my own work" and "I, the copyright holder irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work". The option you should have chosen in the Upload Wizard was "This file is not my own work." That would have given you the option of entering truthful source and authorship information and to select the copyright license under which the photographer gave you permission to publish the photo (assuming he did). But anyway...
If you have permission from the legitimate author and copyright holder to publish the photo under a license which allows anyone to use the photo in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes, then what you need to do to fix the issue is to follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If you patrol some of the flood of Special:NewFiles, you'll find that much of the copyright violations uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons are often falsely claimed as "own work", and I suspect that it is because uploaders, especially those who don't speak English well, do not know how to properly provide licensing information or know what "own work" actually entails. I've proposed some changes at Commons talk:Upload aimed at addressing this issue slightly, for those still using the old Special:Upload form, but sadly no one seems interested in carrying it through. I've also got other ideas, including putting bigger warning signs into UploadWizard to try and tell people to verify the work is truly their creation, or at least theirs to license. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

106.69.139.31

106.69.139.31 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - obvious sock of Jermboy27, same behaviour, edits, region ets. See also category:sockpuppets of Jermboy27 /St1995 14:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Is this where I would bring an allegation of sockpuppetry and/or charges of willful and malicious copyright violation by a Commons user? We have been dealing with Lloydbaltazar (talk · contribs) on en.wiki for several years now, and he has never been blocked that I can see on Commons, but frequently abuses this project to upload copyrighted images for use mainly on en.wiki but also other language Wikis, and then abandons his account when it's blocked on en.wiki and creates a fresh one to start over with the same behavior. Please see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar/Archive for all the gory details. His other major accounts include LoveforMary (talk · contribs) and LimosaCorel (talk · contribs), the latest blocked one. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So I suppose I can take it that there is nothing actionable here? Perhaps you should consider the contribs of this copyright violator that are still not deleted yet. I don't want the project to be liable for the infringement. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is Stale. Problematic uploads can be addressed with normal deletion requests. Please use COM:RFCU if new accounts are suspected. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hypergio (talk · contribs) mass-creating deletion discussions

Today, Hypergio made 130 edits nominating 32 [now seems to be 52-53] image files for deletion, alleging "self promotion." That deletion reason requires, to make sense, a preliminary finding that the users uploading the files are the photographer or sock puppets of the photographer or subject.

These would be JhonBarlow, Chiara Di Luce, Natalia Dumcheva, GIUNCO. They have not been notified that they are suspected of being sock puppets. Indeed, nobody in this entire affair has been notified of suspicion. One user was, almost three years ago, warned about behavior and stopped.

If not sock puppetry, it might be some kind of promotion, but not "self-promotion."

I am the author of the research project, in progress, cited by Hypergio. I originally focused only on the created user pages for User:Augusto De Luca (which should be an entirely distinct issue).

I have not concluded what Hypergio asserts, and I have seen Hypergio and others, elsewhere, make false or misleading claims about this case. I have not made a final conclusion (and it may not be possible), but, in process, I've seen more policy violations and disruption in "fighting spam" here, than were involved in the original alleged "spamming."

(Two days ago, GIUNCO was globally locked by the steward behind this massive "fight against spam," having edited as a single-purpose account from November 2011 to July 2013. Except for Commons, GIUNCO stopped all editing in 2012. I've never before seen a global lock for inactive users, absent a global ban discussion, even blatant vandals and true commercial spammers. The steward has done this with at least six users now. There was possible legitimate basis for one of them. (Accounts are locked, not users. Users may be globally banned, and global policy requires a ban discussion, with notice, etc.)

While it's possible there was sock puppetry, this is not clear, and it's stale.

However, adding evidence for deletion discussions here, with 32 separate pages, would be tedious, and requiring 32 different reviews for what is really a single asserted reason for deletion, is massively inefficient. There are also 188 images in Category:Photographs by Augusto De Luca.

If deletion on this basis is to be considered, there either should be a single discussion, or individual discussions based on a common characteristic, such as "Files uploaded by User X." I recommend the single discussion to establish the principle, because the several or many discussions may not be necessary. If "self promotion" is not, in these cases, an adequate reason for deletion, then many separate discussions and closes can be avoided, and if it is a valid reason, the closer of the single discussion can apply it as needed. --Abd (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this promptly. Comment has started to appear in these discussions. I would like to know if I should comment in each of 52 or so discussions, or wait for a single discussion. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can consider it promotion and not self-promotion. Sorry if I used Abd study as support for my proposal without asking him in advance. The fact is that I proposed to delete the pictures I believe are promotion or self-promotion of Augusto de Luca, not all of them. There are more than 230 pictures available of Augusto de Luca and not of all are promotional and I did not propose for deletion all of them. It seems that I did something blasphemous, but whatever I did it was with the respect and in the appropriate way towards the community and mainly because I strongly believe that this was an improper use of Wikipedia and all its related projects. My only goal is to protect Wikipedia and all related projects, if somebody else has different ideas I did not impose anything and I was looking for a discussion. --Hypergio (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not the place to argue the deletions, as such. The good faith of Hypergio is not in question. The only issue was the filing of 52 requests for deletion all with the same reason, and with no addressing of Commons deletion policy. All but 4 of the requests have been speedy closed, now, by a user who supported the article deletion on en.wikipedia. I agree with that closure, for, given that the pages were opened, speedy closure will avoid the need to respond to 52 requests! For the future, I request that Hypergio receive authoritative guidance, here, on how to proceed, if he still thinks that a set of files violates commons policies. I am not a Commons expert, I'm becoming an expert, through study, on the User:Augusto De Luca case, and I'd be happy to answer questions about it. It is unique, and that's commonly stated, though with varying impressions. When we try to fit unique situations into prior models of reality, we often err.
  • I had no problem with Hypergio citing my en.wikiversity study, as he did. It was actually useful. The study is a work in progress, and not a promotion of some particular point of view. I'm simply seeking to understand what happened, and only slowly moving into recommended actions. --Abd (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Of course the RfD proposed by Hypergio are inconsistent and have no rationale, though there is something that must be said: Hypergio simply is not aware that criteria for being here on Commons are different than the ones required for an article to stay on Wikipedia. One can agree to delete the article on Wikipedia but nonetheless keep their media on Commons, because scopes are different. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sergio. While you are correct, the problem reported here was the filing of 52 requests over a single issue, when one or a few requests would have been adequate to resolve the issue. This would be true even if policy supported deletion. In this case, the request more or less assumed sock puppetry, so organization by uploading user would have made sense. Of course, that would have opened another can of worms. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with creating mass deletion nominations, except perhaps they'll all be closed very shortly with the same conclusion once even one of them reaches some outcome, and it's something seen on Commons nearly every day. The nominations have all been produced by script and none of them appear to have basis in Commons policy anyway; all this simply means Hypergio is new to Commons. It's certainly not something to warrant a frivolous filing on ANU for, see some of the more serious requests above. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This was not a "frivolous filing." It's correct that the matter was only an indication of someone being new. However, the newcomer was not bitten, the newcomer was not threatened. He was worried, but still complimented me on my Talk page. I explained that "user problems" doesn't mean "problem users." Was this correct?
Is it okay to produce 52 separate nominations by script or manually, all for the same reason? Is there a better way? I'm still asking for authoritative guidance on the matter.
If there was a better place to raise the issue, to quickly prevent unneeded comment in unnecessary DRs, I'd appreciate knowing. I thought speedy close was the most likely solution, and it happened.
Then TeleCom complained about my two cleanup closes, which were apparently fine with the admin who closed the rest. (closure by non-admin has broken the template layout for DRs (and why closes should be left to administrators)). I've done lots of non-admin closes on other wikis, and the vast majority have stood, and a few have been reverted and then my close was independently confirmed, I can't think of a clear exception. If Commons requires admin closes, I'd want to know so I don't waste my time.
In the page diff'd, there was a double close, because the admin, finishing his work at the same time as I was, accidentally added his close to mine. No "template" was actually harmed in the filming of this episode.

I had also used a bullet to set off the closing comment, based on other wiki practice, instead of a rule (which I like, thanks, TeleCom, I may use it elsewhere). TeleCom's fixes were cleanups for the sake of cleanup, not actual function. Harmless in themselves, but not so harmless when sweeping claims about "non-admins" are derived from them.

  • Except for the guidance I've been asking for, if anyone is kind enough to provide it, we are done here. That guidance could be on my Talk page, but if it's here, it might help more than one user. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you even observe the nature of the reports in the sections above this one before filing this report here? "User problems" vs "problem users" is a semantic switch game of the English language with little difference (but I acknowledge there is one) users on a multilingual hub are not readily apt to understand easily. In the long term, when future users refer to this report it is likely to stain Hypergio's good name; c.f. the observed social consequences of being reported to en:WP:ANI. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Эрманарих

User continues to revert files without proper reasonings, most recently File:Flagge Herzogtum Nassau (1806-1866).svg and File:Naval Jack of Ireland.svg (that file was merged with another and it's history cleaned up shortly afterwards). User has been blocked and warned for this behaviour in the past. Fry1989 eh? 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ blocked 3 months User has a three month spring break to come up with a proper solution. Next editwar = full block. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please also clean up the history of File:Flagge Herzogtum Nassau (1806-1866).svg back to the version by F. F. Fjodor which it had been stable as since 2011 until Эрманарих started reverting? Fry1989 eh? 20:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Better? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Fry1989 eh? 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pocketthis

Can someone warn this user about his reverts of other users edits and warnings to other users. --Smooth_O (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Yann by Eleassar

Hi, does anyone else besides User:Yann consider this sculptural work "too simple to get a copyright"? Yann concluded for a number of files that they're too simple to be copyrighted in the past, but it was later proven that they're not. I think this casts serious doubt on his judgement about what is simple and what not. It's not the first time that he acts provocatively in regard to the DRs that I open (see e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) And he seems to be very persistent about the grudge that he keeps against me.[13] I don't understand why and I also don't understand why he likes it so much to be discussed at this page. In my opinion, if he is not capable to close DRs impartially, he should refrain from closing them. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And if you are not capable to open only DR with clear issues then you should probably refrain from openning them. Especially your whining afterwards if the closing admin had a view different from yours is unacceptable. --Denniss (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
In this section, we're discussing Yann's behaviour. If you want to discuss my behaviour, please open a new section. By the way, it doesn't really surprise me that Yann has been reported as a problematic user already two sections higher. However, it does surprise me that you still see his views that always go against the opinion of the rest of administrators (and even art historians, like here - nothing is sacred to him, he always knows the best) as legitimate. --Eleassar (t/p) 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That sculpture is nowhere even close to below the TOO. This was a terrible close by Yann. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the first time Yann has demonstrated a clear inability to apply Commons policy. IMO a desysop request may be in order soon. -FASTILY 01:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fastily: You are such an arrogent ...[censured]! I seldom see you giving a competent opinion or advice on copyright issues. Your competence here is reduced to big talks and empty threads... and a pissing contest on deletions! Yann (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Mind your language. Discuss the actions, not the person, and please stay away from words you wouldn't use in front of your children, your mother, or whoever else you might have some respect for. Keep in mind that you and the person you're upset with are not the only ones reading this. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you afraid when I say the truth? Yann (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's the truth indeed. But nonetheless I have to agree with LX. --A.Savin 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So, if this is the truth, why you let him run wild? What did I say wrong? Frankly, Fastily talking about competence on copyright to me, it is the pot calling the kettle black. Yann (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't let anyone. Surely none of you will be 100% right or wrong in this issue. I just meant that I second the comment with "mind your language". Because "arrogent ...[censured]" isn't really helpful answer. --A.Savin 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What would I be afraid of, and what makes you think that? People who have the truth on their side tend not to need to resort to vulgarities and argumentum ad hominem. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The irony levels on this board are incredible. Seriously, how do any of you keep a straight face when you see Fastily of all people threatening to opening a desysop request on someone for repeatedly showing a "clear inability to apply Commons policy"? Ultra7 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I don't need to say anything more. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Andy king50 and watermark 'policy'

I'd like some admin feedback to be directed to Andy king50 (talk · contribs), please. As you can see from his user page and contribs, he seems to be very interested in watermark removal. He came to my attention through Commons:Village pump#Copyright watermarks, which I followed up with User talk:Andy king50#Watermarks. His rather bizarre reply is what brings me here. What is concerning me is, he seems to believe that it is Commons policy that watermarks of any kind are prohibited, and he is entitled to remove them against other people's wishes. However, as can be seen from Commons:Watermarks, there is no such policy yet, it's just a proposal, and in that proposal, for the particular case of non-destructive, non-promotional, marks, such as the very common '© name' style placed on the edge of the image, his view goes well beyond what it says. DemandingAdvising uploaders to do anything that is not policy is obviously counter-productive to Commons - so can he please be reminded what the difference is between a proposal that merely discourages something, and a policy which prohibits it. I suspect the issue here is complicated by language, so I think it might be best if a fluent English and German speaker takes the lead on this. Ultra7 (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin anymore, but I hope I am still allowed to comment...) {{Watermark}} has existed since 2006, and removing visible watermarks is an established and perfectly legitimate maintenance activity, which anyone may undertake and which should be commended rather than criticised. If "other people"[who?] wish to retain full ownership of their works and don't want them to be modified, they should not publish them under licenses permitting modification. That said, demanding that someone else remove a watermark would not be a very nice thing to do, considering everyone here is a volunteer. Could you please provide diffs showing Andy king50 demanding things of other users, to support that allegation? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, common practice is normally reflected in policy, so what's gone wrong in this case case, if indeed it's as normal and legitimate as you claim? {{Watermark}} is not a policy, it's a template. Sure, it says 'per policy', linking to COM:EXIF, but that's not a policy either. Commons:Ownership of pages and files is a guideline which appears to support over-writing of all visible marks, but I wouldn't like to be the admin blocking anyone for ignoring it, not when it appears the only reason the proposal Commons:Watermarks allows for discrete © style marks as legitimate alternate/original versions is because that page appears to be completely devoid of any legal/licensing/moral case for their removal via over-writing. Ultra7 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We have lots of common practices which are not elevated to the level of policy (license review, talk page conduct, usernames and pretty much anything to do with categories, for example). That aside, you seem to have overlooked my request for you to provide diffs as evidence of the allegation that Andy king50 is making demands of other users. Would you please do that, or if you're unable to do that, strike out the allegation? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, since it's clearly a very serious thing to be accused of demanding others follow policy, and on the AN/U board of all places: Demanding -> Advising. Practical difference to the effect such behaviour has on Commons? Zero. Now, fun and games over, let's get back to the serious issue. I'm sure even you can spot the flaw in claiming that Commons:Talk page guidelines and Commons:Username policy is evidence Commons doesn't document common practice in policy (and obviously I am referring to the broad family of policy/guideline/process - which also includes License Review as a process page of COM:L). Why Commons:Categories is not a policy, I don't know, but I do know that parts of it are. None of this really explains how it can be remotely possible that a narrow, practically standalone subject, like watermarks, has never become policy, if it is indeed the case that for 12 years now, people have been removing simple © notices in images as forbidden expressions of 'ownership' (while being perfectly happy with the exact same information being included in the description, because it's a "legal requirement"). I just had a quick look through the archives, and the reason seems clear - while many people seem to be quite sure that CC allows watermark removal, when push comes to shove, they can't prove it, not with any legal cases or any links to any CC resources. You especially seemed to be very sure that, because of what can only be described as your own synthesis, this must be what the license allows, as if it wasn't, the other parts must be wrong. So, if that's all that underpins this common practice, it's obvious why nobody has the courage to actually call this a policy - it would degrade the policies we have which are actually based on legal findings and external resources. I suspect this is one of those issues where most people are simply praying that no official judgement ever comes through - much like the confusion over whether or not you can have different licenses for different resolutions (plenty of people claimed that's obviously what the CC license meant using similar arguments about interpretation etc, and it turns out they didn't know shit). Ultra7 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to comment further on removal of watermarks in adaptations as it already in the consideration of the legal. But I'm against overwriting original source files against the will of the original author as it is not a recommended practice. IMHO, it breaks CC's new requirements like "URI required" and "Modifications and adaptations must be indicated". Feel free to upload the modified version separately with a link to the source, mentionig all the modifications made so far. Jee 16:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
indeed it is a good and firmly established practive here to remove any visible watermark. There are even "Barstars" for doing this ; -) It has to be differenciated between "uploading watermarked content" and removing such watermarks later. Uploading watermarked images is "strongly discouraged" which means "absolutely not wanted". But we (and I) do NOT force someone not to upload watermarked images (we do not delete them e.g.) But for example uploads from Flicr or "quasi-donations" as the many images from fotoposka.org had watermarks before importing them into commons. So we will have imported watermarked images too, additionally some new (or even experienced) users do not know or do not respect our rules concerning non-watermarking. So someone has to remove them. As the removal of watermarks normally does not change the image itself, such changes are seen as "minor edits" which do not call for new versions. This my opinion is firmly backed by Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Minor_improvements. All licenses accepted by Commons clearly allow for modification of all kind. So it is no licence problem either. The modification is normaly statet in the edit commentary. So I must state that the allegations of Ultra7 seem not to be supported by any policiy or rule of commons but rather are his own opinion (and for sure of some other users too). I do not think i have any language difficulty to understand his opinion: I do simply not accept a personal opinion as a rule for other users (ecpecially because there quite many official pages in commons which state "watermarks not welcome"). And I think its even worse: he suggests inexperienced users (at the village pump page), that watermarks were absolutely ok. Which they are defitively not, because even removing them later is unneccesary work which will bind work force. So you should come to a decision if your own rules are valide or not. If they are - ok, if they are not, it's ok too. But then i will stop any maintenance work at commons immediately, because I have enough other things to do and i do not want to work in a environment dominated by opinions of single users - even explicitely against written rules of Commons.- Andy king50 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is obviously a language issue, otherwise by now you would have provided a link to the actual 'rule' that you think explicitly says that non-destructive/non-promotional marks should be over-written. The only document on Commons that is explicit on this issue is Commons:Watermarks, so obviously, you don't prove it's OK by linking to Commons:Overwriting existing files, as that simply links back to Commons:Watermarks. Ultra7 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
See COM:UPLOADWAR. It is foolish to believe the original author has no problem in removing the watermark if he intentionally added it. Jee 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
the personal wishes of an uploader not shown by an adequate licence are basicly of no importance. It is simply not the question if he/she "has a problem with something": he/she uploaded an image with an clear license definetely and unrevokabely defining what can be legally done with this image and what not. The upoader must simply not expect his watermarks are kept if he publishes under a license expicitely allowing any change (including watermark removal) of his image. If he/she does not - simply use a corresponding license (which would mean: no upload to commons at all, because those licenses are defintely not accepted here). - Andy king50 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not "personal matter" or something Commons can decide as it is a legal matter. You can see several flaws in your argument.
1. "he/she uploaded an image with an clear license definetely and unrevokabely defining what can be legally done with this image and what not." -Not all images here are uploaded by their authors.
2. All the images here allows adaptations. But adaptations != overwriting. COM:UPLOADWAR is very clear in this regard. (It is an official policy; not a proposed one like COM:Watermark.) "Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion." There are several possibilities of "copyright infringements" if we overwrite a file against the will of the original author.
A. It will break attributions. What if the original author no t happy with the modification and don't want to be attributed for this new work; but still want to be attributed for his original work? Most CC licenses have this "no attribution" clause. In such cases original author can ask to remove the attribution and link to source in any reuse or adaptation still maintaining his rights for the original works and other reuses.
COM:UPLOADWAR is a bold policy. "Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. Upload wars (a form of edit war in which contributors repeatedly upload different versions of a file in an effort to have their version be the visible one) are always undesirable. As with other forms of edit warring, users who engage in upload wars may be blocked from editing." Jee 02:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, a user who is engaged in an upload war in order to restore a version with a watermark may be blocked. I many cases it is better to protect the file from new uploads (in the version without a watermark). --Leyo 07:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes; we may block a user to prevent further uploads if we don't want pictures with watermarks. But we can't keep a file overwritten against his will. We have many such "best practices" that will not survive on legal grounds. (Unable to participate further as I will be on vacation for a week.) Jee 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The question has been put to the WMF's legal team and they are still preparing for a response, so further debate on this might be moot. Although I am not a lawyer, and even if I were there would probably be a fine print in contract somewhere saying I can't advise anyone but my client, so take this with a grain of salt, but this is my interpretation of the treatment of watermarks in the legal code of Creative Commons (as example, a BY-SA-3.0 license):

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work

Yet also one might consider a watermark to be both a copyright notice and a technological measure (an imprint) on the creative work designed to prevent modification of a certain region of the work, the part that contains the watermark. Insofar as we would like to respect the wishes of our three main clients while simultaneously in pursuit of our mission 1) copyright holders donating their works to Wikimedia Commons, 2) WMF and its wikis, 3) other interested third-party reusers; and we agree visible watermarks might degrade image quality for the latter two parties. I think these are the steps that should be laid down:
  1. Upload the original file as it is, containing the watermark.
  2. Under the terms of the CC-BY-SA we would be allowed to modify the original work, including the watermarked part insofar as it is a "part" of the original work, and upload it as a derivative work over the original. However, the watermarked version should still remain as a hyperlink available for download from the file history, to keep the attribution of changes as Jkadavoor notes.
  3. If a copyright holder expressly wishes to keep the watermark as copyright notice, pursuant to the legal code above DO NOT upload the new version. Do we want to discourage potential donors from contributing works their under free licenses? And especially, if a content creator wants to open a DR about it, we risk alienating their entire pool of works for only the small fraction uploaded to Commons under a free license.
--TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the problem - search the archives, and you'll find hundreds of examples of people trying to interpret what the CC means regarding watermarks, interspersed with a few people pointing out the obvious - pissing off people who merely want to to visually credit their perfectly legal status as the copyright holder is likely to cost Commons images, and potentially open it up to legal challenge. Personally, I think it's beyond obvious that it's not only the legal position, but also the moral position, not to overwrite watermarks that are simply discreet copyright notices. The uploader cannot control how others use their image, which includes obviously making a separate derivative without a watermark, but we should not seek to control how they choose to interpret the CC license, not when the only reason we would so is because we think we have a different interpretation. I would have thought this was obvious, but LX is right in that sadly, the vast majority here seem to think that IDONTLIKEIT is a robust way of creating a policy to deal with watermarks - that and actually never bothering to declare it a policy at all, instead leaving it languishing as a proposal which contains information that actually contradicts what the supposed current practice is. The archives are full of experienced Commons people describing the approach to watermarks as inconsistent, ambiguous and on dubious legal grounds, but clearly nobody is willing to firm it up by promoting it to policy. I suspect this is because nobody here has anything to add beyond the various versions of 'I think CC means this' that has gone before. Ultra7 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For me the conclusion of the discussion above is: Wikimedia Commons does no have any valid regulations, because even existing written rules and official pages are not respected as such but they are declared void as soon as they do not correspond with the own point view and interpretation. This is not the way such a project can be run, because in this case, there will be anarchy. I am not quite happy with this discussion and the way I am treated. I am not ready anymore to spend my time under such conditions. So, as said above i will stop all maintenance work here from now on and will use wikipedia only to store images I need for my work in other projects. Some time the last months I wondered, why so few users are engaged in maintenance work. No i know... - Andy king50 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had provided any evidence at all that it's an official rule (which is not the same as a guideline which merely says its discouraged), I would be perfectly happy to respect it. I am not going to respect your own personal interpretation, not when the the proposed watermark policy has, for a long time, said that not all visible watermarks should be over-written. I'm certainly not going to respect anyone who claims that templates and information pages are policy, or that people can do what they like here because Commons doesn't have any written rules - only common practices, which may or may not be tagged/titled/believed to be guidelines or policy. Ultra7 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Question Another user lost, can we close this discussion now? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

this discussion should definitvely not be closed, because the problem behind it must be solved, otherwise more users will be lost too. You should think about how to communicate with users as admins. The main problem for me is not the extreme POV of Ultra7 - such people are a usual nuisance, but no reason to leave. But you cannot put som e 65.000 maintenance tags into files, give quite strong rules/advice/recommendation (or whatever) not to use watermarks and tags to remove them on the one hand, on the other hand you allow this discussion to get out of control like this. If something is "recommended" them all corresponding edits are ok. Or "recommendations" are not worth the bits on the server they take and have to be removed if there were a consenus of most users. No active admin can deny having knowledge of my some 13000 edits. Someone had to discuss the question at a neutral level much earlier or else had to support me. From my point ov view action should be taken against Ultra7 because his behaviour opposing the "recommendations" clearly given (which represent the will of the users even if they are not issued by some high court....) - Andy king50 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you said you want to retire from Commons. Clarifying: There is no reason to not have watermarks. (Unless spam, etc pp.) There is no reason not to remove watermarks. It is very simple. You can have watermarks, you can remove watermarks. Everything goes on Commons ;) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say to retire from commons, but not to do any maintenance work - which is a difference. I still may dump some images I use in othr projects... There are reasons not to have watermarks: often they are quite ugly and in many cases blantant advertisement, they will prevent 1:1 reuse in most cases (or i had to remove them before reuse). For example if I wanted to publish a book with commons images, I would clearly state the source, but remove all watermarks a the licence allows it. Again: as long you clearly state you do not want watermarks, and some 65ooo images have tags calling for watermark removal, you simply cannot claim "keeping the watermark is equal to leaving it". Andy king50 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
and some service for those who do not even know i their own native language what a "recommedation" is: some definition of the term in [Merriam-Webster online dictionary]. - Andy king50 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:LTPhotoforWebsite.jpg (en) deleted by Fastily

In order to restore the photograph of Larry A. Thompson that was deleted on March 24, 2014, I sent an e-mail to Permissions-Commons with two attachments on March 26, 2014. The first attachment was a letter from Larry A. Thompson (the photo copyright holder) granting me permission to use the photo for his article. The second was the photo itself. The text from the letter and the original e-mail is below. I have not heard any response back and am eager to get the photo reinstated. Please advise.

Thank you,

ProductionFan

Dear Permissions-Commons: I hereby affirm that I, Larry A. Thompson, am President and Owner of the Larry A. Thompson Organization, Inc., which is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of my Official Photo (file name: LTPhotoforWebsite.jpg). The Wikipedia member, ProductionFan, contacted me about posting the photo on the Larry A. Thompson Wikipedia Article, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrv A. Thompson), and I granted permission to use it. The official photo may be found on my website at the following address: http://www.larrythompsonorg.com/#!larcy/clenr. I agree to have the photo published under the free license "Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the photo in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my photo, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the photo will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Text of e-mail sent on March 26 (resent on March 31 and April 16, 2014):

Dear Permissions-Commons:

I am writing to you regarding the deletion of the Larry A. Thompson photo from the Larry A. Thompson Wikipedia Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_A._Thompson

(cur | prev) 09:57, 24 March 2014‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,423 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:LTPhotoforWebsite.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Fastily (No permission since 13 March 2014).) (undo)

In 2012, I submitted the photo after receiving permission from Larry A. Thompson, whose company, Larry A. Thompson Organization, Inc., is the copyright holder of the deleted photo, LTPhotoforWebsite.jpg. After the photo deletion, I contacted Mr. Thompson, who was kind enough to provide the attached letter confirming ownership of the photo's copyright as well as permission to use it on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I have also attached the photo in question.

Please let me know if the attached information is sufficient to reinstate the photo in the article.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

ProductionFan -- 22:06, 16 April 2014‎ User:ProductionFan


You need to go through the Commons:OTRS process (which can take a while), not submit here... AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it's unfair that we are sending ProductionFan through another bureaucratic hoop like this, after they've already been through English Wikipedia's cumbersome noticeboard for discussing images in this thread and have, rather fortunately, stumbled their way onto Wikimedia Commons. And not only that but also managed to obtain permission from the original copyright holders and convince them to fill out all the necessary forms for it. I hope the OTRS agent on permissions-commons attending to this request will be swift in their reply back to us. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The reference is Ticket:2014032610021932. It is a bit late for me to handle this in the UK, I may take it tomorrow if another OTRS volunteer does not handle it first. Note, there is some history to look at, dating back to 2010 and earlier. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TeleComNasSprVen and Fæ.

Sincerely,

ProductionFan

Türk Süvarisi

This user is brand new and has made some very troublesome edits. They inexplicably edited one of my personal user pages, as well as those of two other users ([14], [15]). They also have nominated several images for deletion because they are "disused", even reverting a closed kept DR. They have also tagged multiple images for speedy deletion under the same invalid reasoning that the file is not currently being used. I also believe there is some personal POV factor to these edits.

I do not know how to respond to this behaviour but believe it requires intervention. Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This user is continuing to nominate otherwise valid images for deletion because they are "Unused and implausible, or broken redirects. Also, This file has same file". These DRs are invalid and clearly abusive. Will an admin please deal with this issue? Fry1989 eh? 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for a response. Fry1989 eh? 00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
User warned. Edits reverted by others. Yann (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Vizu

Edit war in File:2014. Харьков 041.jpg. Vizu adds a strong PoV and OrRes description. Literally 'down with EU, down with pederasty, down with Stepan Bandera, down with fashism' and a politically biased charachteristic of the poster as 'antinationalistic'. My neutral and minimalistic non-OR description was reverted. I hereby apply for sysop intervention.--Abiyoyo (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the "icons" on the poster are pretty disgusting, yes. But what's the problem to write in the file description what they actually mean. Also, there was only one revert so far. --A.Savin 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok now, thanx. 'pederasty' is a quite derogative term, though. But maybe it is really aproppriate in this particular context as a live speach example after all. --Abiyoyo (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Вы там были? Нет. Хоть раз в городе были? Нет. Что там происходило, видели? Нет. Какой именно митинг там, оборона чего, знаете? Нет. Против кого? Нет. Давать подписи к чужим фото, изменять их смысл (непонятно какой протест, против чего?) - это викисутяжничество. "Пророссийский" при 12 флагах Украины..? Здесь же - только хранилище файлов, просто хранилище, не более того. Всего лишь. С уважением, --Vizu (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the description to "anti-Maidan demonstration". I'm not willing to accept "anti-nationalist": there's enough nationalism both in UA and in RU, and surely not all Ukrainian people who support the EU are nationalists, nor are Ukrainian homosexuals; so that a description of a rather Putin-loyal protest as anti-nationalist is in contrary to the political neutrality of wikimedia projects. --A.Savin 13:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:IPhonehurricane95

Please indef block his newest sockpuppet on Wikimedia Commons, User:IPhonehurricane93 (with talk page access revoked, since his is notorious for attacking other users via his talk page after being blocked). After some of his IP Ranges were rangeblocked on Wikipedia for a month, he decided to come here and attack me on my talk page. This is the 3rd time he decided to harass me on Commons. Can you please also run a sleeper check for any possible hidden accounts on Commons as well? Thanks. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss. Yann (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys so much. :) BlueHypercane761 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Johansson

This user has made a series of enigmatic contributions to Commons. I think that his uploads should be speedy deleted as a precautionary measure. Jespinos (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jespinos: I have mass-nominated his uploads for deletion, the nomination page is here.--Underlying lk (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rubiahot

Can an admin have a look at this editors uploads they appear to be copyvios. LGA talkedits 07:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done all deleted, user warned. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like he may need another one. LGA talkedits 01:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Yann (again)

Two more cases of Yann's incompetent judgement:

--Eleassar (t/p) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Eleassar, I can't follow you here. The prominent house in File:Stanovanjske vile za Bežigradom 1929.jpg looks not that original that copyrightability is likely. I have seen a number of older houses of such appearance. With the images in Category:Radeče train station it's similar in regard to threshold of originality, IMO.
Besides, evaluating the originality is always a bit subjective, as you well know. So, calling a dissenting opinion "incompetent judgement" is highly inappropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Eleassar, if you disagree with an admin's judgement you should discuss it with him on his talk page, not jump immediately here. This is not an appropriate venue to complain about individual admin judgement clls, which is what you are doing even though you use the words 'again' and 'more'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
He already shunned me once from his talk page, so the appropriate page can be only here. As to 'highly inappropriate', it may be impolite, but not at all inappropriate. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Your judgement isn't particularly good with DRS like [16] or [17] either. --Sporti (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I was just gonna say that too, Eleassar has hardly given reason for confidence in their DRs. Pot calling the kettle black. Fry1989 eh? 17:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the community has vested its trust into Yann (by electing him as an administrator), not me. With his incorrect closures, which to me even seem deliberate, such as [18], [19], [20], [21], and now these two, he is failing this trust. I'd expect an apology or at least an explanation from his part for this, but he is unwilling to give it. This makes him seem arrogant and immature in my eyes. In addition, in my opinion, administrators should take responsibility for their work and we should demand it from them, instead of fighting each other. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eleassar: You have been told countless time that many of your DRs are wrong. Adding personal attacks here won't change that. When will you stop creating useless DRs and whining, when you don't know what you are talking about? If you can't restraint yourself, someone else will have to do it. So, I give you a last friendly advice: try to be more creative, and a bit less destructive. Yann (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
And you, Yann, have been shown countless times that your closures are more often than not offbeat and incorrect. You should really try better to do your work as an administrator conscientiously and professionally. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eleassar: I have been admin for about 9 years, and I have more than 80,000 deletions on my side. Why don't you close your mouth and look at yourself? Yann (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I really do not care for how long you have been admin and how many deletion you have. All I see is a pervasive pattern of (probably deliberate) incorrect closures. Best, --Eleassar (t/p) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
probably deliberate? There are two options, or you find some evidence for that, or you apologize to Yann. This kind of accusations are a violation of com:AGF. Natuur12 (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yann's decisions regarding Slovenian FOP cases have often been proven to be correct even at the second glance: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:France Prešeren bust.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Solkan bridge, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pustni karneval v Celju 1962 (4).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Celje. Eleassar has no right to call him "incompetent", "arrogant" and "immature" admin with "offbeat" and "(probably deliberate) incorrect closures". How could one describe Eleassar's reopenings of DRs (he has already been banned for this once) and constant whining if admins decision is different from expected? ℳ₪Zaplotnikcontribs 09:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yann, experience does not reliably correlate with quality and one cannot be used to predict or demonstrate the other - one good deletion is better than 1000 bad ones for example. You have not been asked how experienced you are, you have been asked to explain why these specific deletions were correct. I have not looked at them yet myself, but your refusal to answer the questions does not inspire confidence that I will see examples of quality administratorship when I do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because he isn't afraid of closing the more difficult and more controversial requests. Borderline cases are difficult and all this cases are a bit subjective and more a matter of opinion than hard facts. Unless someone writes a section on com:TOO about the Slovenian threashold it is nothing more than an educated guess what we are doing here. Or do I say something strange now? Yann is a good admin imho. Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly in the case mentioned above we have more than enough information to delete the two files, for the following reasons: 1) There is a forum on trains in Slovenia where this stop is described as 'unique', 'architecturally modern' and has in general been very much praised; 2) At Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Threshold of originality, we have an example of a couch and a simple selling stand recognised as copyrighted in the Slovene courts; and 3) we have also a precedent from the past where bus stops have been recognised as copyrightable and thus deleted.[22] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Those points are irrelevant to my comment. I'm not saying this closure was bad (or good), just that the number of deletions you have made is no indicator of the quality of those deletions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It was a reply to Natuur12's comment. You probably meant 'Yann has made' ... --Eleassar (t/p) 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Simpel? Sounds like a matter of opinion to me. I can't read Slovenian but I don't see the word simpel in Copyright rules by territory. A forum? Are they copyrightlawyers or what? Or are they just amateurs like us? And what about this? Is a simpel busstop not street furniture as well? could be, could be not but I haven't found any hard evidence in the DR's nor in our policy's. Sorry, but since you misinterperted this copyrightact before doesn't give me much confident. Still I see much subjectivity and no hard facts. I'm curious btw, was the couch set a desinger set or a 50 dollar couch set? Natuur12 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
They certainly are knowledgeable enough about the Slovene train stops to say for sure whether it's unique and architecturally exceptional in the country or not. In general, bus stops and train stops are regarded as architecture, just as much as gazebos and pavilions, because they are "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary."[23] As to the TOO, the court stated about the selling stand the following:[24] "It is true that the plaintiff's stand is recognisable as a stand, but it also has some individual characteristics, due to which it is distinct from what has already been seen... objective novelty is not required." Per the above, the same applies here. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can't live in a buss stop can you? And still, I don't know what creative elements are considered creative when you are talking about a selling stand. Does it look like this or like this? Does the couchset look like this or more like this? Again, this still looks subjective to me. Would the stand be copyrigted without the extra creative elements? And what where those elements who makes it a creative work? Natuur12 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is required that one can live there. One (normally) also can't live in a gazebo or in a pavilion. I can't provide you with exact information about the selling stand, but the court stated "the stand is a selling article that does not stand out... known elements are interpreted in an individual way." --Eleassar (t/p) 11:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Raboona

Can someone have a look at this users uploads, they all appear to be copyvios. LGA talkedits 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. All files deleted by Magog. Yann (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Harshal091

Can someone also have a looks at this users uploads, they look like copyvios as well. LGA talkedits 05:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 06:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Medhurst

Phillip Medhurst has been uploading hundreds of files in the last few days, without providing essential information but rather implausibly claiming all the works as his own. I left a message on his talk page 5 days ago asking that he provide similar information in the future, but he refused because it would "take too long to research" and he could not find time for adding date, source and author because he's not the British Museum. Given that he continued to upload erroneous data with his prints, today I left him another message reminding him that adding essential information is mandatory, and pointing him to tools he could use for mass uploads. As a result, he let me know that he doesn't have the information to "meet (my) ex cathedra demands" and has been spamming my talk page ever since I suggested it would be "lazy" of him to expect that others will do the research for him. The latest of his rants include demands for an official apology and accusations of "‎Bringing Wikimedia into Disrepute".--Underlying lk (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This person seems to have some kind of problem with regard to my ownership rights over my collection of antique prints. I can't fathom his objections to my uploading via the Wikimedia Android app. Time to get rid of a loose cannon? Phillip Medhurst (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the fact that you own a physical print does not automatically mean that you own the copyright to that print. Your most recently uploaded files look quite old, and so unlikely to raise copyright concerns, but the basis for this should be explicitly expressed on each image's file description page... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: if those files are in public domain because of their age the uploader should provide some kind of evidence of that, like the date of publication and the author, and they should be tagged with {{Pd-old}}, so Phillip's practice of tagging everything with {{Own}} is still wrong. Someone should make him understand that.--Underlying lk (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_43&oldid=123062209"