Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44

Pocketthis

Pocketthis - very strange behavour, reverting good edits (pr. patrolled), making meaningless reverts, calling other users as vandals, posting comments as "Stay out of another man's photo files"... ets... - see latests contributions. Prevously notised [5]. It seems, this user does'nt want that his files were edited by somebody (!). See also Special:Contributions/72.173.96.236 /St1995 18:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Аlso removing comments of another users [6] /St1995 19:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No one belongs in another user's photo files, unless it is an administrator doing his job. My photo files have been raided by anonymous users all month. They change categories, descriptions.,etc. I am getting a bit tired of it. A Photo should not be accessible to anyone but the user whom uploaded it, or an admin doing his job ....PERIOD. You just happened to get caught in the middle of me undoing an anonymous edit.

Also, I have NEVER touched another man's photo file. If I have an issue with a category or other bad up-load issue, I contact the user, and suggest improvements. PLEASE stay out of my photo files. It's just plain courtesy.Pocketthis (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is impossible. Commons - is a free progect, where all users (anon, registered, admins) can edit all pages and make good edits. I check this edits by monitoring Special:RecentChanges and I can't to find vandal or unconsructive edits. Please revert only bad/vandal/test edits and do not to wage edit warrings. /St1995 19:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pocketthis, I'm afraid you are wrong, please read carefully the terms of the licenses of you pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The license agreement says nothing, and has nothing to do with anyone messing with the actual posting of the file here on Commons. The license agreement only addresses issues about what "anyone" can do "after downloading" the photo. So, I'm afraid "you are mistaken". I know that Wiki has an "anyone can edit Wikipedia" policy. However, this privilege should be extended only to an article, not a photo. An article is for educational purposes and the photos help visualize that education. It's just plain courtesy not to mess with ART directly on Commons. Art and education are two separate issues. -Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons is for educational purposes, not artistic. You are correct that image licenses do not determine how images should be posted and curated here on Commons. We have numerous policies and guidelines that specify this instead. There is nothing wrong with any editor changing file description pages to better follow our policies, regardless of whether they were the person who uploaded the file.

More specifically, several of your reverts (e.g. [7], [8], [9]) suggest you do not understand one of the principles underlying our categorisation scheme: namely that files should only be categorised under the most specific category that applies, not in higher level categories as well. For instance, a image categorised under Category:Sunsets of California should not also be placed directly within Category:Sunsets. --Avenue (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 3 days with an option to extend up to indef in case meaningless editwarring and personal attacks will go on. --A.Savin 07:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FakirNL and File:Flag of MLSTP.svg

I am reporting this user for an issue with the above file. It appears that the political party uses two variants of flags, one identical to the national flag of Sao Tome and Principe and one with a unique design. As there is no need to maintain duplicate files on Commons, I've made it rather clear several times why the file should show the flag that is different from the national flag. This user disagrees and refuses to acknowledge this. I believe the file should be reverted and protected, and the user warned. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out at File talk:Flag of MLSTP.svg the files are not identical! Also you are not supposed to upload an entirely different new file over a file that is legitimately in use on Wikipedia, while it's just as easy to just upload the alternative flag as a new file so both versions can be used. Wouldn't it be better to discuss these points first, before running to this noticeboard? - FakirNL (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Wide yellow lane
• 
  Narrow yellow lane, different file

I believe that I have asked Fry to stop running to this noticebord for every little thing. As per com:NPOV FakirNL is entirely correct. It is up to the local projects to decide which flag they want to use and not up to Fry to push his point of view. Instead of discussing it properly he runs to this noticeboard. Those files are not duplicated and imho Fry should be blocked for intimidating behavior, editwarring, avoiding the discussion and misusing this noticeboard for his personal goal. Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I protected the file in the wrong version to prevent further editwarring. Natuur12 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) I have so had it with your pretentious bullshit, I have every right to raise an issue to wider attention if I see one arise and I certainly do here. I'm also tired of your bad faith assumption that I'll keep reverting which is espoused by your effort to protect the file, even though my bringing the issue here should be a clear sign I'm trying to seek a resolution outside of further revision. This has nothing to do with my "POV" and everything to do with duplicate files. I didn't change the flag originally, that was changed by Hallel and they provided a source which FakirNL has not done. Instead of seeing that, you accuse me of POV pushing and show a complete lack of care in trying to understand the issue and instead just throw around misplaced blame. If you can't even put that much effort in before commenting, perhaps you should refrain yourself from other users' disputes.

FakirNL, COM:Overwrite is a guideline, not an absolute rule as some people seem to believe. As for what you claim, you haven't you posted any sources, nor can I find any myself. Do you actually have any sources that the party flag and the national flag are different? If you do, posting them would have been a real easy way to clear this up instead of just reverting and whining "I'm right!". Fry1989 ^eh? 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Fry1989 for one week: Personal attacks , Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Fry is incorrect Hallel reverted himself an day after overwriting the original file. Fry reverted Hallel some hours later. Secondly the flag's are not duplicates, thirdly, Fry's revert ruined at least one article at a local Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm not the one who took to less effort commenting here. Com:NPOV states It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another. Provided that a file falls within Commons scope, and can be legally hosted, we make it available. Whether and under what conditions it is actually used is a matter for the local communities of the individual projects to decide. and deciding which file a local Wikipedia has to use is exactly what Fry did by reverting Hallel who corrected his overwrite. So as you can see, I did look into this carefully when I posted my message. The topic of this board says: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. and imho this didnot require an administrator's intervention and comming here with little disputes that can easely be resolved with talking it over is abusing the noticeboard in my opinion. Tell me, after reading this comment, who is the one assuming bad faith here? Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: , as I stated in my unblock request I would apologize, and I shall. I am sorry for my choice in response.

However, you have accused me of trying to push a POV and abuse this noticeboard to further my "goal", and that it's up to projects to choose which image to use. I have not said anything either personal about the image or political about the image, or anything else that could give indication that I have a particular POV regarding the flag. All I have said is that the other version has a source and that Commons does not like duplicate images. Files get merged or deleted all the time for being duplicates, that's not POV it's fact. So unless you have something to back up your accusation of POV, I believe I also deserve an apology for what I believe is a bad faith accusation. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Point of view doesn't mean a political point of view. I never accused you of political motives beiing involved. It is your point of view that the file should be overwrited regardless how the file is used on the local projects and it is your point of view that those files are duplicates. That it should be overwrited is not standard practice and is your personal opinion. Since you ignore most arguments and avoid the discussion your where pushing it in my opinion. Your "goal" is that you win the dispute with FakirNL and that your version of the file may stay. I already explained why I think you abused this noticeboard. Ignoring most of someone's arguments and when the discussion is still going on and running to this noticeboard is not the way it should be imho. Now for the intimidating behavior. Making posts like this where you ignore all the guys arguments can be quite intimidating to non regulars when you go to this noticeboard shortly after with a short message which nothing explains about the noticeboard. The right thing to do would have been to ask for mediation instead of asking for the file to be reverted and your oponent warned after you have done everything to talk it over. It takes two party's to editwar and if you can't see your own wrongdoing in this discussion besides the nasty comment you made to me, than you are clearly missing the point. Fry, you should really treat people with more respect. Ad nauseam and Ad metum, in terrorem, ad baculum are counterproductive. My "accusation" where not beacuse of a lack of good faith but where simpel observations which I may or may not have interperted correctly. But I got the feeling that you are going to disagree with me. Natuur12 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Respect? You don't have mine, and you won't as long as you continue to push your insensitive and baseless accusations. I apologized for how I responded, but that doesn't make your accusations any more true. I get the point perfectly fine, you on the other hand do not appear to. Files do get overwritten, merged, and deleted for duplication and at the time I considered it to be one. Even if I was mistaken, you instead continue to accuse me of deliberate bad faith intentions rather than a case of being mistaken but acting in good faith. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, the main problem is the way you behave yourself in discussions and that is not okey. That has nothing to do with good faith. Everyone can make mistakes like you did by overwrting the file. Nothing wrong with that but when somebody tells you that you are wrong you could listen instead of ediwarring and ignoring the other party's arguments. Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You have accused me of deliberate malevolent actions that meet definition of "bad faith". I don't care what you think of my "tone", or anything else for that matter, you are accusing me in bad faith and that is what matters to me. I regularly warn users to not continue reverting files or that I will raise the issue with administartors. I can see how my choice of phrasing it can be seen as intimidation so I'm giving you slack on that one. However, your accusation of POV is unacceptable, and I didn't just say political. You clearly didn't read my entire rebuke or chose to ignore the other part of it, because not only did I include political factors, but personal factors as well. I don't care about which one is better, or prettier, or which one should be used on projects, or any other sort of POV. What I cared about was that the file appeared to be a duplicate of the national flag, and instead of deleting/merging it, I thought it was better that it be overwritten with the different flag. You somehow have translated that into a deliberate POV motivation and I'm offended by it because that is not true and I have rejected it several times both to you and to others. Instead of apologizing for your accusation, you ignore half of what I have to say and suggest I deserve your bad faith accusations anyway because of my "tone". Fry1989 ^eh? 19:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Okey. Only the POV-issue remains. Intentional or not, your action altered articles at local Wikipedia's. Normaly we merge duplicates because of this, not overwrite them. FakirNL referred to the overwrite policy and you disagree with that. Your point of view was, if I interpertate it correctly that the file should be overwrited. Statements like . As there is no need to maintain duplicate files on Commons, I've made it rather clear several times why the file should show the flag that is different from the national flag. This user disagrees and refuses to acknowledge this. while your oponent backs up his arguments with a relevant policy is pushing your point of view in my opinion. I explicitly mentioned political motives in my statement above not because I didnot read your statement but because it is a bad thing if there is even the slightest impression that the person you are discussion with accuses you of a political motives being involved and I wanted to make clear that I didnot accused you of that just to be sure. I hope this last comment clears the air? Natuur12 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

While Fry is wrong in several accounts here (including the vexillological aspect), one week seems to be excessive and counterproductive. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The period of the block is moot, as I have unblocked due to the unusual circumstances. Reasons are on Fry1989's talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How so? Hallel may have reverted themselves, but they still posted a source. FakirNL has not done so even after I asked for one saying "oh, it's already in the description so I don't have to". We don't like duplicates on Commons, and without a source otherwise, it is a reasonable assumption that we are better having the file show the other design. Even if I am mistaken, that doesn't garnish me these accusations I've received. Instead I get blocked because I was incensed by them, but nobody has yet called out these accusations as wrong in my defence. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If Fry1989 would have looked at the presented source, he would have noticed that the original flag is 1) not a duplicate, and 2) sourced, while his favorite version is not sourced at all. Please see my arguments at File talk:Flag of MLSTP.svg. - FakirNL (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a favourite version, or even a favoured version. I care about sources and duplication, and you did not provide a source while Hallel did, and that was all that mattered. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But Hallel's source supports the original version! - FakirNL (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And please stop using the word "duplication" for something I have shown five times already is a fundamentally different flag. - FakirNL (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I will use the word "duplication" all I want, because at the time of revision I considered it one. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And do you still think that changing sourced content into non-sourced content while claiming a source (that actually says the opposite) is a good thing? - FakirNL (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me change my impression above: Fry is making a sad spectacle of himself and reading the above my impression of him lowered considerably. IMHO, he needs to take time to get a fresh, more positive perspective. (I confess I’d tolerate some degree of incivility should it be grounded on correct practice and acessment. That is sadly not the case. Meanwhile the subject matter is, I hope, being discussed where it belongs.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And I care so much why? I've already admitted I was mistaken. I've also already apologized for how I responded. Apparently it's a spectacle for me to expect the bare minimum of reciprocation when I was falsely accused in bad faith. I don't care if you think I was right or wrong, my intentions were in good faith and I deserve an apology for the clear-cut accusation of deliberate malevolent intention. If you cared half as much about your colleagues throwing around bad faith accusations as you care about my choice of language in responding to these accusations, you would suggest that Natuur12 should in fact acknowledge their accusations were out of line and in bad faith. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Assume good faith", isn't that what you admins preach all the time? But you never actually call eachother out for it when they do the opposite, because somehow my more colourful response out-shines and therefore magically excuses their original actions. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"I've already admitted I was mistaken." About you claiming the flag being a duplicate yes, but you haven't admitted you were blatantly wrong about the source totally not supporting your reverts yet. Providing a source is one thing, providing a source that actually supports your claims is another. - FakirNL (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Could somebody pls move File:138172.svg to something more expressive like File:AA Anapolina-04.svg or so? Thank you! Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Better to use for such requests COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

To correct the name of a file, please use {{Rename}} (Commons:File renaming). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shall try to remember the recommendations. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Hello, After User:FSV (Total editcount: 24,349) was blocked by Magog the Ogre Fastily has created a new Botaccount (Total editcount: 30,166). The bot is running without blotflag an community consensus. I have blocked this bot according to or Blocking policy. See also complains from users about Fastily's bot on his userpage. I appreciate his work, but nevertheless the rules also apply for him. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Info more unapproved bots by Fastily: User:FSII, User:FSIII, User:FSIV and User:FSVI --Didym (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter - User:FastilyClone is an alternate account with which I use to perform semi-automated/tool-assisted, user-supervised edits. I also test my bots/bot library with that account. As you can see, I'm working on a COM:UDR archiving script, since User:DRBot has been MIA since 29 May 2014. Semi-automated edits (e.g. similar tools: HotCat, Cat-a-lot, VicunaUploader) do not require a bot flag, so please undo your block.

@Didym - Correct, User:FSII, User:FSIII, User:FSIV, User:FSVI belong to me. The first three are failed/abandoned bots leftover from my days at enwp. Their passwords have been scrambled, with email disabled, so I no longer have access to them. User:FSVI non-controversially runs the unit tests for my under-construction bot framework -FASTILY 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Note: BRFA filed at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 3 -FASTILY 22:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Yuvaraj Poondiyan

User:Yuvaraj Poondiyan does not understand or ignore copyright policy and he/she continuously uploads copyright violated files again and again with different names even after the speedy deletion. Administrators are requested to take necessary action. --Anton^Talk 09:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for explanation

Certain user has removed from his talk page a system message concerning file deletion. Is it consistent with the principles of Commons? --Robsuper (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Without further information I can only say, that depends from the circumstances. Admins and highly active users will often remove or archive messages after they have read or replied to them, which is fully o.k. On the other hand, if a user repeatedly uploads copyvios and then removes the problem-messages, he may intent to prevent getting blocked, which might more easily happen if the admin sees already a number of copyvio-notes on the talkpage. The latter behaviour is not acceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. --Robsuper (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos: repeatedly vandalisms, trolling, personal attacks, disruptive actions or what else ??

Hi, once more User:Abderitestatos practices imho a destruktive behaviour, repeatedly since imho about 2008, please see User talk:Abderitestatos. User:Abderitestatos's imho disruptive actions shown by his past Edits since yesterday are these times concentrated to category:Turicum. Several deletion requests within the past Minuten imho may also been misread as Personal Attacks ... Please mediate once more and please implent - for User:Abderitestatos' continously practiced disruptive actions and ignorant every arguments by other Wikimedians - restrictions. Thank you and best regards, Roland zh (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating what exactly the problem is? From what I can see the two of you have a dispute about category redirections from Latin names to English names. I must admit I am unaware of the policy regarding these redirects so could you please explain why what he is doing is wrong? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:ChrisiPK, as trying to describe "... or what else ??", i have absolutely no 'explaination' for that 'behaviour' shown repeatedly the past years. Please refer as mentioned to User talk:Abderitestatos and/or User:Abderitestatos's distributions related to Category:Turicum, as you you mentioned. It will be interesting to read User:Abderitestatos's 'reasons', as he again 'interpreted' categorization, did refuse 'discussion' on his talk page, and, btw affected about 75 uploads from my side with that 'bevaviour' again the past days. Please excuse my bad English as not being my mother tonque. Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighed images

There is an user, Jasmine Herrera, that all the image she is uploading seem protected bay copyright. Thanks you in advanced.--Nachosan (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted all their uploads. Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jwaller edit war, personal attacks

Hello, User:Jwaller sorted categories <part of a district> into the category <district of municipality>. I have noted with justification, that this is not right and reverted (Info1, Info2). He started a edit war. I have asked commons administrators (eg User:Marcus Cyron) as they see it, and they were in my opinion (categories <part of a district> are sorted into the category of this district). Then I wrote on User_talk:Jwaller noted And he start personal attacks and reverted without notice. Personal attacks are not okay and should be punished. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: User:Jean11 undermines a reasonable category structure by edits that are only based in ideological narrow-mindedness. And when I see how he as reacting here, I think that such persons don't have a place in Wikimedia projects. --Jwaller (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BookMyForex

User:BookMyForex has been uploading copyvio images, and despite requests to the contrary, has continued to upload such images. They appear to be promoting their business. Green Giant (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dinudid continuing to upload copyvios after "end of warnings" notice

I drew this user's attention to the fact he was uploading copyvios, then gave him an "end of copyvios" warning when he uploaded more after this warning.

Despite this, I notice that he has uploaded more files recently- all marked and deleted as copyvios. *Every* upload this user has made has been a copyvio. I assume that the boilerplate warnings are translated into Romanian (which appears to be the user's native language), so I don't see that as an excuse.

Ubcule (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked 1 month One month only, not too many uploads. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 (talk · contribs)

It seems that this user just made an ad hominem comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Адыгэ нып.jpg. I was trying to make the user understand to provide a proper reason than an ambiguous reason in deletion requests and I got the reply "Or you could just use your eyes". Not sure if it is a proper behaviour. --Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't even have to dignify this with a response, but I have made my response there. I consider your comment "Then you should have mentioned it in the first place" just as ad hominem. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't and I'm sorry if it looked that way. I was just expressing my opinion, which you said, and quoting, "it was unnecessary". I do believe we all have the right to express our opinions, maybe an administrator can tell. Eitherway, it was never my intention to "attack" you with any comment and I'm sorry you saw that way. Regards, Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This borders frivolous abuse of AN/U. Please lets stay mellow and lets not raise storms in teacups. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of DR's speedy closed by Denniss

Can I please have another admin review the speedy close of the following DR's :

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:ARA Belgrano sinking 2.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfredo Zitarrosa 1974.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laura Prepon.jpg

I do not believe that any of them meet any criteria for speedy closing; the ones where Denniss claims that the URAA was not a reason for deletion are not about the URAA but are about the lack of anything demonstrating that the images have ever been PD in the US and thus needed the URAA to have copyright restored, it is especially hard to believe that Press Association did not follow the notice requirements. As for the fickr sourced image I am puzzled as to why the early close and see no good reason why he should have not just expressed his view and let a consensus develop. LGA _talk^edits 03:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laura Prepon.jpg and I would have reached the same decision, but I agree with User:LGA that waiting a bit longer would have been better. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For that given DR, I am not contesting the outcome, just by letting it run the full seven days it would have allowed more input, maybe the guy who took it may have commented and explained why the apparent change in licence, least there would be a record of it, and as I said in the DR, the reason I started the DR was that the person who verified the licence is a confirmed sock'er. This is one of the few cases where in my view the process matters more than the outcome, as, at the moment the licence we have can't be verified against the source, by having a full and proper discussion least we can show we were concerned enough to look into it. LGA _talk^edits 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

@LGA: When will stop trolling admins here when you don't like their decision? This is an abuse of this noticeboard. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Section resolved}}Flooding AN with URAA stuff, pleas go to the URAA talk page to discuss this. Enough is enough. No Admin action needed atm. Mabye someone like to ask meta:LCA about this URAA thing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}}

@Yann: telling me to "stop trolling admins" when he has been asked not to by @Odder: is not resolving this. LGA _talk^edits 23:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from AN to AN/U. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; I read those talk page discussion (there are many such in other places too). I think Steinsplitter's decision above is the best option for now ("ask meta:LCA about this URAA thing"). There is no meaning in discussing this matter here and there again and again; there is no meaning in opening DRs as test cases. I suggest to speedy close any such topics by an uninvolved admin on his first sight. Jee 02:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion here, these are NOT URAA DR's, the problem with the images is that there is nothing at all to indicate they have ever been PD in the US, and if they have never been PD in the US then the URAA did not apply to them. In most cases images created and/or printed in books and newspapers after 1964 will be copyright in the US if the book or newspaper they appeared in had a copyright notice, of the three Denniss closed above citing the URAA vote all of them are from after 1970, two of them are sourced to the Press Association and it is hard to believe they did not follow the correct notice rules, and the other is sourced to a printed magazine with no proof there was no notice, in which case the URAA did not apply to them as they were and still are, copyright in the US. Hope that clears up any confusion. LGA _talk^edits 04:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Probably we're forced to wear the URAA glass while seeing these familiar names in that conflict. Anyway I see two of those DRs are re opened by another involved admin. I still wonder why uninvolved admins neglects these cases; or the involved ones act aggressively without giving enough time for others. I agree with odder on "involved admins should not handle such cases." Jee 05:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos: repeatedly vandalisms, trolling, personal attacks, disruptive actions or what else ??

Hi, once more User:Abderitestatos practices imho a destruktive behaviour, repeatedly since imho about 2008, please see User talk:Abderitestatos. User:Abderitestatos's imho disruptive actions shown by his past Edits since yesterday are these times concentrated to category:Turicum. Several deletion requests within the past Minuten imho may also been misread as Personal Attacks ... Please mediate once more and please implent - for User:Abderitestatos' continously practiced disruptive actions and ignorant every arguments by other Wikimedians - restrictions. Thank you and best regards, Roland zh (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating what exactly the problem is? From what I can see the two of you have a dispute about category redirections from Latin names to English names. I must admit I am unaware of the policy regarding these redirects so could you please explain why what he is doing is wrong? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:ChrisiPK, as trying to describe "... or what else ??", i have absolutely no 'explaination' for that 'behaviour' shown repeatedly the past years. Please refer as mentioned to User talk:Abderitestatos and/or User:Abderitestatos's distributions related to Category:Turicum, as you you mentioned. It will be interesting to read User:Abderitestatos's 'reasons', as he again 'interpreted' categorization, did refuse 'discussion' on his talk page, and, btw affected about 75 uploads from my side with that 'bevaviour' again the past days. Please excuse my bad English as not being my mother tonque. Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

imho unsolved as of May 14, 2014, ref Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 3d) to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44, as of 14. Mai 2014, 15:31), Roland zh (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

to prevent bot-archiv-removal: imho unsolved as of May 17, 2014, ref Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 3d) to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44, as of 14. Mai 2014, 15:31), Roland zh (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Steindy

User:Steindy is edit warring on File:Kirchschlag in der Buckligen Welt - Panorama (01).jpg and File:Kirchschlag in der Buckligen Welt - Burgruine (01).jpg, even after being warned. Apparently, he had some problems on dewiki, where he is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks (and other problems) now, and is now trying to prevent the usage of his files uploaded on commons on dewiki (see Commons:Deletion requests/User:Steindy/not for german WP), using exactly the same behaviour as on dewiki. --Didym (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped yesterday night, let us wait a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

+ Ymblanter -- Bwag (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Boring discussion, <irone begin>block him for one Month and then, she remove the decision on a page and suddenly a administrator block her indefinte <irone end>. Then you're at the same point as in the german ones. I know, she feel really bad and Steindy, think about to create a new account. Try, that nobody see you, try to be a new girl and after you create 10 article with this account and go to NDC (for the others: He is the blocker in the German) per E-Mail and say; you are Steindy and you're going to be an user in the de wikipedia. --89.144.206.44 16:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

recent uploads by Gkulka2

Apologies for the cross-post as I brought this up at the OTRS noticeboard a few days ago, but I thought this might be the more appropriate place.

Gkulka2@enwiki recently uploaded some copyrighted graphs to the English Wikipedia under fair use. However, this user also submitted them here, claiming they were his or her own work. But considering that he or she uploaded them to Wikipedia under fair use, I am somehow doubtful that Gkulka2 (talk · contribs) really owns the rights to those images. Could someone please look into this?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo

I've had problems for years with Kintetsubuffalo indiscriminately and promiscuously tagging archival and historic JPEG images which happen to be on my watchlist with "remove border" tags and other tags which would require radical lossy JPEG editing which is almost mathematically guaranteed to have overall negative effects which would outweigh the trimming of the last few pixels of border, or whatever, from such an image. All I've asked is that for each image, that he take a little moment to reflect on whether a slight image enhancement (or sometimes a phoney so-called "enhancement"[sic]) would really be worth it, taking all relevant factors into account, or whether it would be better to upload a new image version as a separate file under a new name (rather than overwriting the current image) -- instead of just automatically slapping on the overwrite-requested tags without much thought being visibly involved -- but for some reason Kintetsubuffalo seems to take great umbrage and dudgeon with this rather moderate request. When I just now went to his user talk page to object to his latest round of stupid and unnecessary manipulations of File:Crack for Victory Art.IWMPST15800.jpg‎. I found that he had spattered a bunch of childish insults and taunts against me on that page (User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo). I refuse to touch the page with a ten-foot pole in its current state, but if anyone else wants to notify User:Kintetsubuffalo, by all means feel free... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo blocked for insulting other users (3 months for now, next time I throw the key away). From my POV the border looks like it belongs there. AnonMoss: you shouldn't say stupid when adressing other users. I cleaned the talk page and removed the insulting parts. If anything is still visible, please let me know. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of Michaeldsuarez

Any admin action without explanation is a misuse of tools, and should be overturned. This reminds me how a team dismissed Ottava Rima as they hate him. (See Nemo's grave dance at Michaeldsuarez's talk.) Inviting the attention of people like odder who advised another admin yesterday to avoid taking actions against a user to him he have already conflicts. Jee 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that "grave dancing" over Echo's/Thanks' tomb[10] was considered inappropriate. But you're right, software has feelings too, I'll keep it in mind next time. --Nemo 16:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a block, when this is no warning and no information on the user's talk page. I unblocked him. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored block: Yann is in a conflict with russavia. I have added a block reason (looked into Michaels edits, and looks like long term harassment to me). Maybe someone else like to review the block, i am not familiar enough with the Fae / Michael case. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that blocks are really out of balance on Commons. Michaeldsuarez is blocked indefinitely, while other users with a long history of personal attacks are not blocked at all. --Leyo 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Leyo for commenting. Feel free to change the block parameters. I have restored the block because Yann and Russavia are in a conflict about URAA. (@out of balance: Yes. Agree. We need a new blocking policy imho. Some admins are blocking very short, some admins are blocking very long.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• What on earth is going on here. Suarez was blocked without warning, and had never been blocked before. There was no appropriate reason given, and his email and talk page access were revoked, thus effectively muzzling him. Per block log, I'm seeing no "Long-term harassment" here. Point it out and document it, please. For the moment, I have restored his talk page and email access so the guy at least has the ability to discuss the matter with the community. Seriously - a first, indef, muzzling block-with-extreme-prejudice. Why? I recommend unblock here - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This <redacted (ED smear page)> isn't really a good reason to ban someone. A lot of current and former wikipedia editors have "attack" articles on ED including Alison and myself. If this was the reason, then at least unblock him from using his talk page, Even you Russavia, were accorded that favour on English wikipedia where you are banned ...--Stemoc (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alison, you know quite well where most of the "Long-term harassment" of Fæ happens, as you are an official moderator of that platform. And, yes, sometimes people need to be indef-blocked on the spot, though IMO not in this case. While Michaeldsuarez isn't bad-only (last year he defended the truth about another Wikipedian, who was targetted at WCy, against a full line of resistance), I think he clearly can be considered an adversary of Fæ.

After Fæ's strong reaction, which left me speechless, Michaeldsuarez had ample time to say something nice or toning-down to him, which wouldn't necessarily have required to retract any factual statement. But he didn't, though he actually editedContributions/Michaeldsuarez after the offending post, before being hit by the block.

Eventually, Russavia was similarly shocked by Fæ's extreme reaction and blocked Michaeldsuarez with the intent to prevent him from further hurting (or even endangering) Fæ in his current state. Of course, I'm just guessing; I didn't communicate with Russavia about MS's block.

So, a short block would have been o.k. in this situation, though it should have been possible to obtain a quick consensus among present admins. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Túrelio's proposal. Indef blocked seems to be way over the top - a shorter blocking period should be applied. --High Contrast (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Turelio is right. I didn't react what Fae said appropriately. I should've been more concerned about his safety instead of assuming bad faith. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I consider this block improper both to process and extent, and it it clearly cannot stand in its present form. In the absence of reasons, one can only speculate, but on the basis that it was an immediate reaction to this post, a proportionate response would have been short block and warning to prevent potential side-tracking and disruption of the RFCU discussion. A block of 24 hours or so would have been adequate to that end. Michaeldsuarez's 'time already served' is enough, and on that basis I am now going to remove it to allow him to comment here if he wishes.

Russavia's actions in making the block, and refusing to discuss it, are in my view far below the expected standards of any admin here, and damage his own reputation and that of the admin community on Commons as a whole.

• First, according to our Blocking policy admins are required to provide a reason for any block, which was not done. Compliance with policy when making a block - especially an indef block of someone - is essential. It is not merely a matter of form, but goes to the essence of the community's ability to hold an admin to account.
• Second, requests on Russavia's talk page and also on IRC for reasons to be given have been refused. Neither the Commons community nor our policies on Commons authorise admins to impose swingeing penalties on editors based on secret reasons.
• Third, Russavia has a very long history of extremely bad tempered exchanges with Michaeldsuarez, and although Michaeldsuarez's actions have certainly not been beyond reproach (he has made some pretty unpleasant postings especially off Commons), it was unwise to say the least for Russavia to indef block an editor who has been trying for some time to re-open dialogue with Russavia on his talk page, after being met with met with this (note especially the last sentence). This is not to condone Michaeldsuarez, but simply to point out that Russavia was not the right person to take any action that might have been thought necessary.
• Fourth, the page history strongly suggests that Russavia improperly applied a penalty to Michaeldsuarez on the basis not of what Michaeldsuarez actually did, but of another editor's strong personal reaction to it. That editor is someone that Russavia works with closely and whom I believe he would count as a personal friend. (Note: the edit summary of the response was redacted by Russavia, and is visible to admins only. I believe that the redaction was perfectly correct, and I would ask that editors do not speculate on its contents. Russavia will not want to disclose that edit summary, and he should not be asked to do so. It is in any event irrelevant to the question of whether Michaeldsuarez did something culpable for which he deserved to be blocked).

Long-term editors here will know that I - and very many others - have more than once had occasion to raise the issue of Russavia's conduct and its potential to damage the reputation of Commons as a place where those who have been granted positions of 'authority' use the tools in accordance with policy and due process. Anyone can make mistakes, but an admin who openly flouts policy is a problem for the whole community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes in generally the reputation of Commons in respect to admins is very bad, but indeed unfortunately Commons need many admins. Most are of the opinion it must be in generally change what and when they are paid admins!? It's a hard job here (but anyway I'm not so a long-term editor. It is also more difficult to see a Community here.) -- Perhelion (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am saddened by the fact that wherever power is given to before respected folks the power is abused in a way that the entire project is damaged. I wish russavia to control his temper in future more effectively but ask him to resign volunteerly to benefit the reputation of the team of admins. --Maxxl2 - talk 13:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'm retiring, so people here don't have to worry about me anymore. Goodbye. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're retiring, Michael. But regardless of the level of your activity, this was a misuse of admin tools and blocking based on personal animosity. Uninvolved admins should impose a block, if one is necessary, with a reason provided. Russavia's refusal to even discuss his reason with other administrators is frankly ridiculous. Every editor or admin is accountable to the community for their actions. Liz (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Túrelio and High Contrast; thanks MichaelMaggs for the thoughtful action. Jee 16:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mediatus

Dieser Benutzer versucht seit Stunden unsinnige und überflüssige Namensänderung von seit Jahren verwendeten Dateien deutscher Verkehrszeichen zu erweitern und Namen gegen die die Dateibeschreibung durchzusetzen. Bei Diskussionen ist er nicht bereit, zuverlässige überprüfbare Quellen obwohl verfügbar zu benennen. Falsche Dateinamen helfen uns hier nicht. Ich bitte um Hilfe, diese Aktionen zu stoppen. --Maxxl2 - talk 12:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ich bitte, die Diskussion auf meiner Nutzerseite zu verfolgen. Da wird die Intention deutlich. Maxxl2 leht es darin unter anderem ab, die einzig reputablen Quellen für die Verkehrszeichen, die Gesetzestexte, als zuverlässig zu erachten. Er wehrt sich dagegen, Dateien mit wissenschaftlich nachvollziehbaren Quellen auszustatten. Möchte dann am Ende aber doch eine Zusammenarbeit und meldet mich gleichzeitig hier. Wir hatten schon den Fall, daß Leute das Verkehrszeichen einer älteren StVO überschrieben haben, nur weil das neue genauso hieß. Siehe hier: Zeichen 438, StVO 1992.svg. Bei einer Benennung von Dateinamen, wie ich dies mache, wäre so etwas nicht passiert. Nur weil etwwas angeblich schon lange bei Maxxl2 usus ist, ist es noch lange nicht perfekt. Jeder kann sehen, daß in all den StVOs so viele – auch im Dateinamen – gleiche Dubletten (oder fast Dubletten) vorkommen, daß eine einheitliche und korrekte Benennung nötig ist. Unterstützung bei der Umbenennung erfahre ich seit langem auch durch User:Marcus Cyron. Meine Arbeit hat die umfassenste Darlegung der VZs in Deutschland seit deren Beginn zum Ziel. Wie weit ich mit dieser Solo-Arbeit schon bin, kann man sich in der deutschen WP ansehen. Was wohl Maxxl2 in diesem Fach dagegen setzen kann? Ist das Vandalismus oder konsequentes Arbeiten nach wissenschaftlichen Standards? Mediatus (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Wer in einem Wikipedia-Text auf meine Verkehrszeichen klickt, kann sich sofort davon überzeugen, daß diesen eine reputable Quelle zugrunde liegt und auch die Farbwahl exakt den Vorgaben entspricht. Maxxl2 lehnt dies ab (sh. wiederum die Disk) und hat entsprechende Änderungen teilw. rückgängig gemacht. Durch seine Rückverschiebungen verusacht er eher Chaos in einem Getriebe, das seit fast einem Jahr in perfekter Harmonie mit den Admins lief. Unwissenschaftlichkeit und der Verzicht auf seriöse Quellen sind kein Ruhmesblatt für eine Enzyklopädie. Er hat – wie man den Disk auf meiner Seite entnehmen kann, noch keine einzige reputable Quelle für seine Arbeiten genannt, fordert dies aber von mir. Nun gut, das war ja kein Problem. Die Dateien mit den Verkehrszeichen waren entsprechend beschriftet – das aber will er ja nicht! Und ach so: Gesetzestexte sind für ihn ja keine zuverlässigen Quellen.Mediatus (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Die extrem schnelle Antwort auf meinen ersten Text in der Diskussion auf meiner Userseite und das, was dort wiedergegeben ist, haben gezeit, daß Maxxl2 nicht einmal bereit war, meine Intentionen aufzunehmen und zu verarbeiten. Er wollte und will hier seinen Willen durchdrücken, wiewohl er – wie eben dargestellt – sehr schlechte und wissenschaftlich noch dazu unqualifizierte – Argumente hat. Denn eine Abbildung, die wissenschaftlichen und enzyklopädischen Standards genügen will, muß eine genaue und richtige Benennung und einen entsprechenden quellengeführten Text besitzen. Alles andere ist Bloggerquatsch. Mediatus (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wir müssen, müssen die Wikipedias stärken und hier auf den Commons – im Hintergrund – für einen wissenschaftlichen Hintergrund sorgen. Gerade bei den Verkehrszeichen - zu der Zeit, als für Maxxl2 noch alles in Ordnung war – gab es viele Hämmer und Unrichtigkeiten, die erst ich behoben habe. Maxxl2 habe ich in der WP jedoch noch nie aktiv in diesen Bereichen gesehen. Geschweige, daß er mit reputablen Quellen in diesem Sektor Artikel erweitert hätte. Mediatus (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maxxl2 behaupten oben schamlos, ich hätte keine "zuverlässigen überprüfbaren Quellen". Und das nur, weil er die Gesetzestexte der StVOs mit den entsprechenden Vorgaben als Quellen ablehnt. Das ist massiv neben der Spur. Der Nutzer hat bisher nur eine Diskussion geführt – nicht viele, wie er behauptet. Ich frage mich, wo all die Verkehrszeichen nach 1900 verfügbar sind, wenn nicht in den gesetzlichen Verordnungen? Er behauptet ja oben diese seinen verfügbar – lehnt aber die Gesetzestexte als Quelle ab? Kann jemand den Irrsinn auflösen? Wo sollen sie in einer Primärquelle denn verfügbar sein, wenn nicht in den Verordnungen? Und die sind auf dem Papier. Da muß man sich hier mal eben vom Rechner erheben und muß Google beiseite lassen. Bibliotheken lassen grüßen. - Mediatus (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mediatus macht seit Monaten in diesem Bereich erstklassige, saubere Arbeit und bringt Ordnung in ein chaotisches System. Statt ihn zu behindern sollte man ihm danken! Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ich bin sicher, Mediatus ist nicht der einzige hier, der sich bemüht erstklassige und saubere Arbeit in einem z. T. chaotischen System zu leisten Wer dann noch viel leistet, dem passieren halt auch Fehler. Sollte ich dann seine schwerwiegenden Fehler und Verschlimmbesserungen geflissentlich übersehen? Wo ist Mediatus von mir behindert worden? --Maxxl2 - talk 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) hat

@Marcus Cyron: - Leider war heute nicht der Tag, an dem Mediatus erstklassige, saubere Arbeit leisten konnte, er hat durch seine Bearbeitungen zur Vergrößerung des Systemchaos beigetragen. Eine genauere Überprüfung seiner Bearbeitungen des heutigen Tages allein haben ergeben, dass mindestens 10 von 15 seiner letzten Bearbeitungen fehlerhaft ausgeführt wurden. Erfreulicherweise hat er die von mir daraufhin gemachten Fehlermeldungen in den Dateibeschreibungen zum Anlass genommen, die offensichtlichen Fehler zu korrigieren. Wegen anderer Prioritäten sehe ich mich aber nicht im Stande, alle Bearbeitungen dieses Kollegen zu überprüfen, halte das aber wegen der heute auffällig gewordenen Fehlerrate von fast 70% bei Dateibenamungen, Dateigrößen (falscher SVG Code upload) und Falschkennzeichnungen (fehlerhaften Code als SVG-valid markiert) für dringend angeraten. Auch sollten seine Rename Wünsche mit äußerster Vorsicht bearbeitet werden, da die Begründungen z.T. falsch oder fragwürdig sind. Leider ist er nicht bereit, seine Umbenennungen zu diskutieren. Daher habe ich die heutigen Anforderungen abgelehnt. --Maxxl2 - talk 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: - Nachdem ich nun weitere 150 SVG Dateien zum Thema Verkehrschilder gesichtet habe, die Mediatus angelegt oder editiert hat, habe ich nicht eine gefunden, die fachlich als SVG akzeptabel war. Leider wird der Inkscape editor von ihm unter Missachtung aller Empfehlungen, die hier in Commons und in der WP-DE zu finden sind, benutzt. Dateien werden dadurch falsch geformt und bei Edits mit völlig nutzlosem Code überfrachtet. Leider wird keine der angebotenen Möglichkeiten zur Bereinigung der Fehler und Reduzierung des Codes genutzt. Auch werden die Empfehlungen zur Dateinamensgestaltung ausser Acht gelassen und Bandwurmnamen überflüssigerweise generiert, die kaum zu verwalten sind. Die Textbeschreibungen werden mit immer wieder gleichen, für das Objekt selbst überflüssigen technisch historischen Details textbausteinartig überfrachtet, die eigentlich sinnvollerweise in einem Artikel erscheinen sollten oder der Kategorie vorausgestellt werden. Vorgeschlagene, hier übliche Hilfen zur Farbbestimmung und Kontrolle, die nicht wie er annimmt Theoriefindung sind, werden barsch zurückgewiesen ohne bei dieser Gelegenheit auf PAs in der Zusammenfassung zu verzichten. Mittlerweile verfüge ich nach Ebaykäufen über die von ihm zitierten Quellen, die zwar Text aber keine Vektordaten enthalten - wie denn auch, da sie aus den 1960er Jahren stammen. Ebenso sind die Schriften der Schilder als DIN 1541 Mittelschrift im TTF-Format verfügbar.

Da er nach meinem Rausschmiss von seiner Talkpage hier, nicht mehr mit mir diskutieren will, sich selbst für den einzigen Fachmann hier hält, sämtliche Ergänzungen, in die ich jetzt schon mehr als 2 Arbeitstage investiert habe, löscht, Körperbehinderung als Problem für den Bibliotheksbesuch für ihn nicht als Erschwernis nicht denkbar ist, und ich befürchte, dass weitere Verbesserungen von ihm wieder sofort revertiert werden, bitte ich dich, diesem selbsternannten Spezialisten von weiteren Bearbeitungen im Themenkreises "Verkehrszeichen", dem ich gerne weiterhelfen möchte, abzuraten. --Maxxl2 - talk 08:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lieber Mediatus, lieber Maxxl2, liebe Admins, ich bin zwar kein Admin, aber die melden sich ja hier sehr spärlich zu Wort - ob aus Ignoranz oder Überlastung sei mal dahin gestellt.

Zunächst möchte ich feststellen, dass sowohl Mediatus als auch Maxxl2 hier sehr gute Arbeit leisten. Maxxl2 ist im Besonderen Spezialist für korrekte (valide) SVG´s -- da ist es gleich ob ein Logo, eine Karte, ein Wappen oder ein Verkehrszeichen gezeichnet wird. Ich erinnere mich an meine ersten svg-Versuche, die noch viel schlechter waren, als deine svg´s, Mediatus. Da war es Maxxl, der mich unterstützt hat, bessere SVG´s zu erstellen und ich bin ihm bis heute dankbar dafür - ab und an gelingt es mir inzwischen sogar bessere Ergebnisse als er zu erzielen. Nur bis es soweit war, verging eine ganze Weile, ganz im Gegensatz zu dir, Mediatus. Deine [11] Uploadliste zeigt ja super Resultate und das in so kurzer Zeit - von über 1 mb Dateigröße auf teilweise unter 10 kb! Wieso braucht es dann solche harte Auseinandersetzung? Das ist doch wunderbar! Mehr wollte Maxxl eigentlich gar nicht. Bei den Dateinamen möchte ich mich etwas zurückhalten - nur soviel - je kürzer desto bessser -- da kämpfe ich auch schon die ganze Zeit bei meinem Spezialgebiet "Wappenbenennungen" drum -- zum Glück hab ich schon einige Mitstreiter gefunden. So jetzt ist genug - das musste ich einfach mal loswerden... Grüße an alle--Juergenk59 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

„Zeige einem schlauen Menschen einen Fehler und er bedankt sich...
Zeige einem dummen Menschen einen Fehler und er beleidigt dich...“

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Perhelion (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Das Hauptproblem hier scheint mir zu sein, dass beide Diskutanten einen eher ruppigen Ton an den Tag legen. Nachdem inzwischen ein paar Tage vergangen sind, haben sich die Gemüter vielleicht wieder etwas beruhigt und wir können die eigentlichen Probleme angehen.
Soweit ich verstanden habe, geht es für Maxxl darum, dass Mediatus ungültige SVGs anlegt und sie mit zu langen Dateinamen versieht. Mediatus stört sich wiederum daran, dass Maxxl keine offiziellen Quellen verwendet, sondern Bilder auf Basis von Internetquellen erstellt. Die einzelnen Punkte klingen für mich jetzt nicht total unvereinbar, daher würde ich folgenden Kompromiss vorschlagen:

• Mediatus lässt Maxxl an seinen Quellen teilhaben. Nachdem das ja alles offizielle Publikationen sind, sind sie gemeinfrei. Es wäre also möglich, Scans oder Fotografien davon anzufertigen und hier hochzuladen, sodass alle Beteiligten Zugriff auf dieselbe Quelle haben.
• Maxxl unterstützt Mediatus dabei, die Angaben aus den offiziellen Dokumenten in valide SVGs zu übertragen. Dabei werden gemeinsam Richtlinien für den Prozess erarbeitet, sodass er auch für Interessierte nachvollziehbar bleibt, die dann ggf. ebenfalls bei der Digitalisierung der amtlichen Vorgaben zu SVGs mithelfen können.
• Gemeinsam wird eine Dateinamenskonvention erarbeitet, die sicherstellt, dass die Dateinamen auf jeden Fall ausreichend Informationen enthalten, um eine Datei eindeutig zu identifizieren. Bestehende Dateien werden, soweit möglich, an diese Konvention angepasst.

Habe ich das soweit richtig zusammengefasst und wäre das eine mögliche Lösung für alle Beteiligten? Grüße, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989, edit wars, and trademark

Fry1989 has continued to revert my addition of a trademark template (and the source links to the actual trademarks themselves) from this file here. After two reverts by the user, I discussed the matter on his talkpage to see what the problem was and how we could fix it in order to avoid any edit warring. After having no further reply for several days on the talk page, I added the Trademark information back in 6 days later, but removed some portions of it to try and incorporate some of Fry's concerns of redundancy, to which he simply removed the trademark tag and sources for a third time. To avoid any further back and forth, I thought I should post here. I'm at a loss to see what the problem is, as there are multiple files with trademark tags with additional information, such as here, or here, or here for example. And since Commons Policy supports the addition of trademark templates "as a public good", and I've added the evidence/links to the trademarks themselves as proof, I still can't tell what the issue here is. trackratte (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And as I told you two admins have also reverted you for messing around with file descriptions. A standard trademark template (of which we have two) is sufficient, but instead you insist on adding very specific trademark info relating to each image. Instead it is you who is causing problems, as by the fact I am not the only user who has reverted you for this. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Except, admins have not reverted my addition of any trademark templates. The 'very specific trademark info' you refer to are simply the links to the trademarks, as the template only says that the file may be trademarked. I don't see how adding a trademark template is 'messing around with file descriptions'. trackratte (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, we have two templates for possible trademarks. As trademarks are completely irrelevant to Commons' requirements for eligibility to be hosted here, there is no need for specific trademark info. I see you continuously trying to add this as a continuation of your attempt to assert these images are protected in a manner that would require us to delete them from Commons, not as a simple attempt to be thorough. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection. Trademark and copyright are two different concepts, and trademark has no bearing on whether or not images may be hosted here. When I first added the trademark template I even put in a statement ("Trademark protection of a work is independent of the work's copyright status") in the Permissions spot to make this abundantly clear to any user. Trademark does affect reuse though, which is why they're still part of Commons. The links provide access to the user and eliminate any 'this image may or may not be be subject to some sort of trademark somewhere' ambiguity. And again, you haven't had any problems with my adding trademark templates to other files, or with other users adding trademark templates, only with me with this specific file. trackratte (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have difficulty trusting you. You nominated files for deletion within an hour & a half of me being blocked, files that you knew I would defend as I had them restored after you had them speedily deleted, which suggests to me you were looking for a window to get your way. You created an essay on Canadian Crown Copyright not as a user subpage but as what appeared to be passing it off as official policy. You make arguments in the DRs you participate in which I find to, at minimum, err on the side of extreme and unnecessary caution depriving us of images which really should not be of concern, especially your assertion of perpetual copyright which is banned under international treaty so that even after an image is unquestionably too old under the normal term we still have to delete it because of questionably-legal prerogative. You show disregard of a guideline that has steered Commons well for years and instead suggest a much higher standard of defence than has previously been expected under my years here. You may be doing what you believe is right, but to me you are a threat to images which I see as extremely valuable and difficult to replace. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I think you just brought up 6 different unrelated arguments/accusations there, which I've already responded to at length elsewhere (along with backing sources). A new one I will respond to though, I had no idea you were blocked. I don't have some sort of alert system that pings me whenever you get blocked, for whatever reason. The initial speedy deletes from months ago (COA of Canada) was made in good-faith (Government of Canada says the 1957 Arms are copyrighted on their website) before you got blocked (unless you were blocked then as well?). In any event, I didn't know you existed at that time so I fail to see your point. The DR for the Canadian Army badge (which was in DR for 18 days), and the Canadian Force badge (still pending) are both good faith since once again, multiple sources state that 'all CF badges are copyrighted'. I dislike the constant deflection from the subject at hand, and the accusations of bad-faith. I don't hold any grudge against you, I've even supported your position on DRs when warranted such as here for example. I've also held everything you've done to be in good-faith, despite your attacks and swearing. trackratte (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you are doing these things maliciously, I am saying how it appears to me. I could be completely wrong but as an answer to your question of why I oppose you adding the specific trademarks information to these images, this is a factor. However, strictly speaking about copyright and the images hosted here on Commons, we have vastly different approaches and interpretations of the same issue. I'm sure you think I'm too lenient but I believe you are too strict. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Trackratte -- Indications of trademark status are added to Commons image description pages as a courtesy to third-party individuals who might want to re-use Commons images outside of a Wikimedia context. Therefore it's generally considered a good thing to include some kind of trademark warning template, but trademark information does NOT have the same obligatory status as copyright information on Commons, and information beyond what would be practically useful to a third-party image re-user (i.e. "Trademarked in Canada") can be considered rather irrelevant. Trademark status should also almost never be relevant to whether or not to delete an image... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. trackratte (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan VA

Resolved

This user has except for one POTY vote and one automatical bug report no contributions that are not related to the Serbia–Kosovo dispute (there, all non-talkspace edits have already been reverted as far as I can see). Both the POTY vote and the contributions in a major honeypot make him unlikely to be a new account, and I would like to propose blocking him if there is community consensus for it.    FDMS  4    17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, im a dedicated wikipedia reader and a serbian wikipedia author, which also involves using files from this project (and i think i have the right to criticise them if i find smth. wrong or have smth to discuss) and also contribute to commons ( other ppl from sr. wiki removed my files here from sr. wiki to commons)...

Secondly, the dispute im involved in now is not a Kosovo-Serbia dispute, but a politics-law dispute about a, im my opinion, wrong made map and i made my arguments on the adequate discuss pages... Other edits here before, have been about some ppl who were reverting maps without the communities consensus and that made me angry (they began 1st...i know its childish ;( ).... Im not here to make any trouble, but to correct things and make them better, and i dont think that trying to block ppl. who have some other opinions is the right way here or elsewhere...--Ivan VA (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a need for a block right now, since the maps in question have been protected. Further, no evidence of vandalism, the edit war about the maps can't be used anymore. Voicing an opinion, even against common sense, doesn't allow for a block either. As soon as being difficult becomes a reason for a block, we can cancel the project. If a user decides to only use a certain namespace here - perfectly fine and very much within scope. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are not blocking "difficult users", who else (besides from obvious vandals) are we blocking then? In my opinion most blocks even users with a lot of experience receive are for being difficult in a certain way … This time I just cannot find any benefits in having this user editing on the project, he is not contribution any (live) media files and his contributing in discussions were not of a helpful kind either. I did not suggest blocking him for vandalism, but rather in a BSV way.    FDMS  4    18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FDMS4 Blocks on Commons are given when a user violates the Commons blocking policy on Commons. Other project's blocking policies have absolutely no bearing on this project, and users' conduct on other projects, except for in limited circumstances where global action is taken, has no bearing on this project. As Hedwig said above here, there is nothing actionable, so this is resolved. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather referring to my BSV statement than this thread in general: I was not referring to the policy itself; it is just as far as I know a basic principle on every Wikimedia project to take actions if there is consensus to do so. I never said this user had to be blocked, but that he should get blocked if there was consensus to do so, because what I said was convincing or for any other reason.    FDMS  4    19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploads with unclear copyright status by Zwll12 (talk · contribs)

I just deleted an image uploaded by Zwll12 (talk · contribs) because they claimed that it was not their own (Commons:Deletion requests/File:BFO Luchtfoto.jpg) because the file contained meta data from a photographer. After further investigation I found some more strange behavior by this user. First of all, they were renamed from Rickvdgronde (talk · contribs) which matches the meta data in the image I deleted. They have also nominated several images for deletion with different rationales, for some claiming that they are not the actual photographer (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luchtballon Wijtmen.jpg) and for some because they want to upload them with a different account (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geert Wilders Zwolle 012.jpg) and some of them because they are a collage of stuff they did not create (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lockie Leonard Picture.png). The images are also of very varying quality and contain meta data from different cameras (deleted one was a Canon EOS 5D, there are some taken with a Samsung S5230 and one with a Sony DSC-W85). It seems this persons is trying to do the right thing but is struggling with Commons policies and/or copyright. It also seems that they have very little knowledge of English.
So how do you think we should proceed with this? My proposal would be to have a Dutch speaker talk to him and ask him whether those remaining images are really all his own work, why they are differing in quality so much and why he only uncovers slowly that some of the images were not own work. Any other suggestions or comments? Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@1Veertje: Can you please help out? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I opened a topic at their talk page. I hope they would reply before Saturday evening, when I will be leaving for ten days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not get any response, meaning if the problems reemerge someone else will have to take care of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam uploads

Someone is needed to review the uploads of the new user DANA KUSHEN (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dana_kushen). Their uploads are screenshots of Wikipedia tables and text parts. In my view not valuable for Commons.

There is already a deletion request filed for them Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dana kushen. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried letting Kazakh Wikipedia know about this, but every time I tried to post a message, I got picked up by the abuse filter and prevented from doing so (message was "Талқылау бетіне мақала жазу"). The online translator I found didn't make it any clearer, so I guess someone who speaks Kazakh will have to let them know. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Abusive editor

User:178.7.237.121 has been using the Commons for 1 week, and has already become abusive [[12]]. Any help would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "abusive" as much as "doesn't understand the finer points of licensing". Some of his deletion nominations were good (and have been processed). Some were clearly off the mark (and have been processed as well), and some are not very clear cut. The IP is claiming that some photos licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 (via Flickr) can't be licensed as such because CC licenses didn't exist when the works were created. While his reasoning is wrong (because works can be re-licensed), it is worth examining whether PD-art applies in the ones he spotted. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the part where this editor said "your way of argumentation is stupid and shows that you do not have some basic understanding of Wikimedia. Your great knowledge might be needed for the photographs in this category: Category:Penis"? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned him. If he continues, then he can be blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "him", Taivo. And: you may teach magnolia 667 what nonsense DRs are and why it would be better that others start DRs instead of magnolia 6677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs)

 Info IP blocked for 3 days to cool off. (Intimidation/harassment: [13] and [14]) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war with admin

W038 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user has been over-categorized his files and Túrelio left a message in his talkpage with a link to the guideline. Since then, the user has been replacing all categories in his files with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I suggest someone to keep an eye on him, maybe he need to cool off. --Btmpnr01 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Info IP blocked for 3 days to cool off. (unrelated to this case, made nonsense comments here) (Intimidation/harassment: [15] and [16]) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

The files have been deleted by Taivo as requested by uploader. I don't think we'll see the user in question again here. Thanks for notifying! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

new sockpupet of user:rolandodeynigo

I think we have a new sockpupet of user:rolandodeynigo, who had been blocked per Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Retaux: user:Fleurdelysees. The new account has been created two days after the blocking of rolandodeynigo and has only made contributions on the same subjects as rolandodeynigo:

• all edit are related with heraldry, almost exclusively spanish and latinoamerican
• file:Great Coat of Arms of the Marquess of La Floresta.svg => rolandodeynigo had uploaded a portrait of this man and a depiction of his arms in 2011 (removed as copyvio).
• file:Coat of Arms of Marquise of Mirabal.svg => rolandodeynigo had uploaded a raster version of the same arms in 2012
• still on file:Coat of Arms of Marquise of Mirabal.svg, the source is the "Registro Internacional de Armas Gentilicias", a body rolandodeynigo used in several of his files as source. The arms uploaded by rolandodeynigo for this body are, in addition, inserted in the filedesc.
• File:Arms of North Central Athletic Club of Salta.svg => one of rolandodeynigo was named user:MaverickSalta (same argentinian town) and rolandodeynigo had published several ecclesiastical heraldry files related with this town.
• on the spanish wiki, Fleurdelysees has made several edits related with Güermes => rolandodeynigo had published three different coat of arms and a banner related with this location and his sock MaverickSalta had published another version
• both users have a strong inclination to over-categorise their uploads.
• both users name their files "great coat of arms" (= a coat of arms which is cool) instead of "greater coat of arms" (=the most solemn expression of a coat of arms)

Kathisma (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Info Moved to CU: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/rolandodeynigo --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Here done. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

impostor of Conchita Wurst

Resolved

The new account ConchitaWurst (talk · contribs) is very likely an impostor (or just a fan) of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 winner Conchita Wurst. At the only other project, where the SUL account is active, the text on his user page en:User:ConchitaWurst is completely in croatian language. I propose to block the account for violation of username policy. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, message left on talk page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism

The following note was posted at the en:wp admin noticeboard with the same section title. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi admins, I just blocked a slew of editors (socks and maybe meats) on Casablanca. One of them (or one incarnation) is Totoytr, now indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account; they've also messed around on Commons a bit. Maybe someone who's also a Commons admin can have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Totoytr blocked & vandalism reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both! Drmies (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos: repeatedly vandalisms, trolling, personal attacks, disruptive actions or what else ??

dispute with User:Orgio89

Could someone please mediate a dispute with User:Orgio89?

User is re-creating categories such as Category:Solar cell, Category:Solar car, Category:Technology development etc. after they have just been deleted, and overcategorizing files (such as File:Flea Hop HB-SIA - Solar Impulse.jpg‎ and File:Sunswift eVe 1.jpg).

My attempt at talking the problem through at User_talk:Orgio89 and my own talk page are not working and now I just see my edits reverted. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of naive to make media files less categorized and less accessible to the public reach rather than sufficient usage of these crucial educational files. I am especially trying to add more categories on solar power related files/photos to promote green/renewable technology. But Ariadcapo was trying to limit the categories so consequently making those solar technology related files less accessible to people. I am assuming in WP the key condition is that more sharing is better than less sharing. Orgio89 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As I noted in your talk page it is a commons rule. And changing it is not to be an administrator decission, rather a comunity decission. So if you want the rule changed, ask the community. Before it is changed, you should respect it. I suggest, you revert your edits. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And could Ariadacapo please explain why you deleted my created categories of Category:Solar cell, Category:Solar car, Category:Technological development, Category:Solar technology that why these categories breaching WP policies or possibly disturbing public educational values?! Orgio89 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied in your talk page. This is out of scope here. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As I tried to explain in your talk page,

• a category such as Category:Technological development, without a meaningful definition, has no practical difference with Category:Technology.
• Category:Green car and Category:Green technology were empty once the overcategorization was removed.
• Category:Solar cell already exists as Category:Solar cells, Category:Solar car as Category:Solar-powered automobiles and so on and so forth.

I did not delete these categories. I proposed them for deletion without discussion because they obviously meet criteria for deletion and they were deleted by an admin almost immediately. An explanation for the deletion is left each time in a red frame on the page (such as on Category:Solar power plant that you also created).

I understand your frustration with the category system (I feel the same, and it is nowhere as flexible as a tag-based system). Nevertheless, please read about the way this project works, its history, its processes, before you go against other users. Refraining from lecturing contributors about sharing(!) or about their English level would also be good idea. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ankry and Ariadacapo. Overcategorization is bad. And deletion of empty categories does not need any discussion. Please revert your overcategorization. If not, somebody else will do that. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

+1. I have removed all invalid categories by this user and cleaned some worst overcat mess from their uploads; recreation or further editwarring will lead to a block. --A.Savin 10:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring with user:YLSS

Dear friends, I do not like to enter into editwarring with anyone but somehow YLSS is compelling me. Take a look @ Revision history of "File:BSicon ugSTRq.svg". In the case of this file as well as many other files, (s)he has requested renaming where files with the requested names are already there for other files. When I turn down the requests on this ground, he undoes my action. Plus, I guess (s)he is a filemover and should act judiciously - if there is a genuine reason for renaming he can go ahead and do it self rather than placing dubious rename requests. --Muzammil (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

These templates are not dubious, nor are they for you. You guessed right that I am a filemover myself, so I only use those templates when only an administrator can move a file. So if you see a file in Category:Media requiring renaming that you can't move because you're only a filemover and not an admin, take a deep breath and realise that you don't have to do anything – someone else will do that for you. YLSS (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy for both. Files moved over redirects. @YLSS: hoping your requests were correct, they will not break anything and you will fix manually the remaining references to old names.

BTW, I think this case shows that it is useful to have info about user filemover rights on his/her homepage. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ankry! I'll deal with the old names. YLSS (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lx 121

The recent conduct of Lx 121 came to my attention while I was looking through the undeletion requests page. Lx 121's conduct at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward-furlong-mugshot-01.jpg was unacceptable, and so I went to his talk page with the intent of leaving a warning. At the talk page, however, I found a history of warnings for throwing around insults stretching back to 2009, indicating that Lx 121 has not heeded any of them. My first instinct was to tell him, in no uncertain terms, that if he made any further personal attacks, he would be blocked for no less than a month. I'm not sure if a final warning is a good idea though; this might have already passed the point where a block is warranted. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Lx 121 has a long history of poor behavior/conduct and is clearly disinterested in heeding both talk page warnings and our rules. Not acceptable. -FASTILY 10:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(for the record, & wuth all due respect Fasilty & i have had "disagreements" in the past (links can be provided, upon request); we are on opposite sides of a number of policy issues. so bear that in mind, when considering their comments)Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently warnings don't help So I would agree with a block. I probably would have blocked him on the spot if I would have seen this comments earlier. If Lx 121 doesn't respond here I would see that as a act of bad faith. Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be minded to agree with Natuur12. The ball is in his court, if he does not respond here then a block may be the only way forward. LGA _talk^edits 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

+1, if he does not respond here then we should block him. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

ALRIGHT; now the first thing that strike me here is how the conversation (here & elsewhere) is completely ignoring the original question of where the file in question SHOULD have been deleted, or NOT.

& whether the admin in question made a BAD CALL.

is it really more important to critique my style of commentary, than to consider whether i actually have a case?

because, unless the pd-government of california template is faulty, the photo was an obvious  Keep.

the user Binksternet, who nominated the above-mentioned file for deletion on spurious grounds, did so as a tactic to remove it from use on a wp/en blp. again, on the record @ commons & wp/en.

the person has been "camped out" on the Edward Furlong article for month, & has been systematically removing "unfavourable" material.

that point is not in serious dispute. i can throw up half a dozen links to the user's edit-history there, if anyone wants to debate it.

MOVING ON,

now, as regards the "case" against me;

please indicate which statements i have made that are untrue, unfounded, unreasonable, or in violation of commmons' policy?

& please provide citations to the relevant commons' policies?

i may not be "nice", but i stick to the facts of a case. if you can fault me on the substance of my comments (not "style", not formatting, not "i don't like it"), then i'll acknowledge my mistakes & retract any erroneous comments.

otherwise this is just more of the usual back & forth blockwars that happen @ commons; "i don't like you/don't agree with you/you insulted my friend, so you're blocked ha-ha"

& if you are going to block me, then make it a permanent ban & make it a SOLID case that will stand up on appeal all the way through the WM process.

if you dislike my style & formatting, in comments, then you have every right to do so. you write your comments your way & i'll write my comments my way.

&, as far as i can see from the complaints as presented thus far, this is largely a matter of STYLE; i don't use obscenities, i don't "call anyone names"; i present the facts & my analysis/opinion of them. nothing personal about any users, JUST their actions & their edit-history.

& if i'm going to be banned for violation mos-user comments, with my rogue use of formatting, & capitalization (in behind-the-scenes comments, NOT in "article-space"), then this is beyond a joke.

slap-on-the-wrist bans are pointless & petty; unless someone has a REAL CASE, it's not about the facts, or "justice", it's actually not even about making users "be nice" to each other, it's about who is "offended" & how well-connected they are.

among the many "commons-is-not" used in rule-spew, commons IS NOT a social network. judge users on their work, not on who you're friends with & like/dislike.

IF you can get a ban through the FULL WM procedure, with the case presented so far, then i'm done here.

i've contributed a hell of a lot here & to other WM project(s) [17], & if keeping productive editors isn't more important than petty fights over comment-style (& this is a matter of STYLE; i didn't use obscenities, i didn't "call anyone names"; i presented the facts & my analysis/opinion of them. nothing personal about any users, JUST their edit-history.)

if we're not allowed to point out when another user is making BAD DECISIONS, then the project & community is a FAIL.

open peer-review is one of the fundamentals of the wiki-process; without it, the quality of the work goes to crap.

meanwhile the number of usefully contributing editors @ WM continues to fall; & this petty crap, is exactly what's killing the wm projects.

the WM projects are losing contributors because the rules are hopelessly over-complex & the "procedures" for applying them are hopelessly inconsistent, & frequently mis-used.

NOT because people are "mean" to each other, in user comments.

it's also a waste of everybody's time; in the time it has taken me to compose this, i could have hot-cattd at couple of dozen items.

now, instead, i've wasted my time writing this, & i'm leaving commons with a negative opionion of the project, to do work elsewhere for the day.

ALSO; if we are discussing blocks for bad manners and/or personal attacks, i invite you to consider the case of User:Yikrazuul [18], who has a far longer & more "productive" history of acidulous comments directed @ other users.

i did in fact post any anu about him some time (several years?) ago.

in that case, the complaint was simply laughed off; "yikrazuul makes rude comments, no way!?"

if i'm due for a ban here, then this user is long OVERDUE.

if he's immune, then is should be as well.

either we use the same rules & standards for EVERYBODY, or we're just playing "clubhouse".

i look forward to a substantive discussion on these matters.

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s.: since i have invoked his name, yikrazuul is almost certainly going to show up & (tl;dr) demand my immediate & permanent banishment. that's not a prediction, it's a weather forecast. hi yik. Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to invoke his name in the way you just did, at least do it properly: ping for @Yikrazuul -FASTILY 19:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW; just for reference-comparison, over @ wp/en where the "real" fight is on, over binksternet, me, & the edward furlong bio, banning me isn't even "on the table".

on the facts of the case "against me", presented here, thus far, ani (wp/en) wouldn't touch it.

in the discussions there, ban-threats were made, as always happens in heated user-disputes there & here, & when the rubber-hits-the-road nobody has a case.

if you're going to "nail" me here, make sure you have the policy to back it up? because i will appeal a petty, unjustified action ALL the way through the WM decision-review process, & i'll make sure to drag the deciding admin along with me.

& that's not a threat, legal or otherwise, that's how the procedure works @ WM.

again, i look forward to substantive discussion of this matter, & await the presentation of a proper case, with citiation to both my alleged violations, & relevant commons' policies.

again, with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anywhere in that comment anything that would indicate that you believe comments like "i do not know if this person is a 'paid' PR-hack, or just a deranged fan" were a mistake, or that you would refrain from making such comments again. I saw a lot of straw man arguments and attempts at deflection, but nothing that would indicate that you are not going to continue to make personal attacks. Just to be clear, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the comment, if you make another comment like that one on this project, you will be blocked for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, from that ridiculous essay above, it's pretty obvious Lx 121 is not interested in changing his/her behavior. I have blocked him indefinitely until he decides he is prepared to contribute in a way that is not rude/abrasive to those he disagrees with. -FASTILY 19:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone that far myself, but I don't think that it's uncalled for either. Lx 121 can appeal the block, although I would urge the responding admin to make any unblock conditional on a pledge to avoid personal attacks. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what other option there was, least this way the block can be as short or as long as Lx 121 wants it to be. LGA _talk^edits 21:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

While I would probably not have blocked the user right away I'm afraid I can see where this thread was headed anyway. FWIW I support a block until the user pledges to review and change their hostile communication with other contributors. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Info As I was mentioned above: I have nearly forgotten User Lx121. We had problems some years ago with impo out-of-scope images (compare this or that). Impo User Lx121 sticked up for let's say "porn" images which are impo violating Commons' principles and used an aggressive language towards persons not sharing his opinion.

However, if I wrote "acidulous comments directed @ other users" where is the proof (diff links examples) and why wasn't I noticed about that (no chance for self-reflection or apology)? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Yikrazuul, if accusations are made, a series of "diff links examples" must appear, for the accused to respond to, and for independent reviewers to adjudicate the matter. But note, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, see below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose disciplinary action, block or ban, based on case made in this thread. I do not have time to fully immerse myself in this issue, but here is an outsider's preliminary review: I find Lx 121's style of communication annoying, as, it seems, do many commenting above. However, I feel the same about ee cummings' poetry, and would not deny him access (were he still with us), or others access to him. The question must be, what specific communication or communications from Lx 121 amount to a significant degree of editor disrespect, such that a block or ban is justified? If his "i do not know if this person is a 'paid' PR-hack, or just a deranged fan" is as bad as the communications get, I cannot support anything more than a firm, friendly encouragement to be more careful in self-editing before posting. (There are editors and admins with patterns of disrespect far more egregious at WP; this example is child's play.) If this is a serious effort to discipline, best to follow him and firmly explain and encourage how particular comments will be received, and in so doing, accumulate a recent, ongoing, sufficient, and documented series of linked examples to lay out in a formal disciplinary case here. Bottom line, this accusation and call for strong punishment, as it stands, is insufficiently substantiated and/or organized in presentation, and so comes across as a "trust me, he's bad" approach (alternatively, catering cliquishly to those already knowing the matter, or inviting entry of those without time pressures willing to meander about it on their own). Hence, strongly oppose, at present. But for goodness sake, Lx 121, grow up. We write for others, not for our own consumption. You are generating fare that only you yourself can stomach. A chef with no following is no chef at all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Leprof 7272; but have to agree with him. This case reminds me of Penyulap. One difference is Lx 121's comments looks poetic, well formatted and eye catching even tough lengthy and boring. And it is a bad practice an involved admin jump in to take punitive actions, even if the action can be well justifiable. I can understand their enthusiasm; but remember, we have 100+ active admins. It is wise to wait till an uninvolved one find time to review the case and take a decision unless there is an emergency. Jee 03:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't understand the severity of the block here. We have put up with aggressive people and rarely been that far for a first block. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

+1 per "As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behavior." and (though a link was given to one example of disruptive comments) "The rationale should preferably use links to relevant policies to help the blocked user understand why they have been blocked. Where appropriate, diffs or permanent links documenting the reason for the block are also helpful.". This sysop action does not appear to comply with Blocking policy. I note that Russavia is reviewing the reasons behind this block with the blockee, hopefully that may reach a positive outcome and this indef block can be amended or lifted based on a clearer rationale than that given at the outset. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin with technical background in Search at Wikimedia Commons

…requested to address search issue that strongly negatively impacts search tool use in scientific editing efforts. See [19]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done via help desk. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"RobbyDavarashvili" uploading copyvios

Resolved

About 30 or so warnings on the user's talk page, User talk:RobbyDavarashvili, and I even issued a final warning. A few hours after that warning the user uploaded two more violations, though. Nymf (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done 1 month break. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect filing of photos from College of Southern Nevada

Resolved

Bot assigned College of Southern Nevada - Charleston Campus photos to Charleston, Nevada. Charleston, Nevada is a ghost town in far northern Nevada, while the College of Southern Nevada is entirely located within Las Vegas. Famartin (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It's not a bot error. The uploader used the wrong category. The bot just does what the uploader wanted it to do. Poor little bot... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:SANTABABES

I'm requesting a block on SANTABABES. This user is not just uploading a large amount of copyright violations, but:

• Creating nonsensical undeletion requests on rightfully deleted copyright violations[20][21]
• Attempting to avoid DRs on their uploads by removing templates and adding {{kept}} tags[22][23]
• Malforming deletion requests[24]

This user blatantly has no regard for the policies of commons and all they want is for their stolen images to be uploaded here. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any attempts to discuss with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There have been messages on their talk page but I'll strike this out for now and leave another message. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The warnings now there, including your warning, are more than adequate, and so far there has been no constructive engagement whatsoever. I have reviewed every edit made by this editor and there is virtually nothing that can be counted a useful contribution to the project. Let's see what happens next; if there is any repetition I will have no hesitation in blocking immediately. Feel free to ping me if need be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The behaviour has continued unabated, and I have now indef blocked this user. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the quickest way to delete all the flag and coat of arms uploads, most all of which are almost certainly copyvios? (note that some are amended re-upoads of other people's pre-existing files) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted them, special:nuke is the fasted method. Natuur12 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten where that page was. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ealmagro

I am cleaning out the 2010 category for discussion requests (because why the hell do we have so many open 2010 category for discussion requests?), and I came across the uploads of Ealmagro.

Most of the images are probably PD-old, but Ealmagro had a habit of not giving authorship information, as well as a habit of putting works that were clearly not his under {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} licenses. I should note that they've been like this for a while, and the uploader hasn't uploaded anything new in years.

If someone could go through them and clean them all up (deleting when necessary), that would be great. I would do it myself, but I don't want to get pulled off of the 2010 category for discussion requests.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:PhilippineRevolution

PhilippineRevolution (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Edit-warring after warnings: Please tell this user to stop editwarring about rename requests of this kind, he has already been warned …    FDMS  4    01:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

FDMS4 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I basically have argued that User:FDMS4 to talk about it and let other admins decide but unfortunately he still insists on removing the rename template by his own bias and refuses to participate in the talks thus he is the one causing an edit war. He was the one warned but still exhibits such flex due to him being an "administrator" which he should not abuse. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is meant to happen before a huge number of controversial edits is made, not afterwards. I do not object performing your rename requests if there is clear consensus supporting them, but so far you almost only tried to reach your goals via editwarring, which is not acceptable in my opinion.    FDMS  4    01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, im not the one who is edit warring, basically my argument is that the rename template should just be retained until different administrators come in and hear our sides before a decision, but you insisted on removing the rename template by yourself. There has not been a real edit either as it is just still a template and not a true rename yet so its not yet counted. So in my opinion, you are the one that is causing an edit war, which is not acceptable especially if you have been given the privilege to become an "administrator" which you should not abuse. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

PhilippineRevolution, FDMS4 is right, you are edit warring. Please dont' continue reverting before having found a consensus on the file naming, otherwise I have to block you. --Didym (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then I apologize, but just let the template stay and let others determine it first at least?PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

PhilippineRevolution - It's worth noting that file names don't have to be perfect. It is more important that the details are in the {{Information}} template than that they are reflect in the name. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I know they do not need to be perfect, but that does not mean they cannot be renamed to a editor-friendly namings. I myself is having a hard time editing articles due to the big difference in namings despite being the same or related in content. That is why im pushing for a unified naming scheme for images under the same category that would benefit editors like me working on pages that require huge amount of images from the commons.

P.S. I opened a discussion on the "Others" administrator's noticeboard, Please feel free to put in your inputs.PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Pleas keep the Discussion here, no need for forum-shopping. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ejensyd

This user renames in all categories Kiev to Kyiv, against consensus, and provides explanations that Kiev is "a name given by occupants". (Note that it is w:en:Kiev, not Kyiv). He already accused me in being a Russian occupant. Could someone urgently block them before they renamed too many categories. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter lie: I did not call him Russian occupant.--Ejensyd (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the user leaves Ukrainian messages at my talk page, which I am unable to understand, and refuses to switch to any of the five languages I speak.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they stopped creating and renaming categories, and an immediate block is not anymore needed, but if someone can provide some education for this user in the Commons policies, this would be very much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and Antanana--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4 and questionable deletion nominations

It seems clear that there is no concern amongst the wider community here, so we can safely close this off. If editors have concerns in the future, then bring it back here, but now it is time to slowly walk away from the horse carcass. russavia (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Note: I have revived (but collapsed) the discussion herein. Stefan4 is back. As noted therein: Multiple people have requested his additional input. They deserve to get it.

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 [25]), 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) See also Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Regarding the above note my edit here (and especially my concluding remark). I have elsewhere described this theory of Stefan's that SVG scripts might be copyrightable (in the context of rendering logos) as one of his bossy little bees in the bonnet and was taken to task by User:Werieth for indulging a personal attack. Well all right, I have no reason nor profit from wanting to put the boot in when he's down, but I do think it's important to stress that this a theory dreamt up by him without any sourced basis whatsoever (nix about it anywhere that I can find on internet searches) and flies in the face of existing case history, which moreover he must be aware of. Not only is that OR, it's also very bad OR and one can only speculate on the motivation. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Another bizarre cite of NFCC#8 to justify deletion. en:WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Crowned_Portcullis.svg 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) See my Wikipedia Talk page (top) regarding this user in his Wikipedia incarnation as Wikipedia: User Stefan2 where I express my frustration and a sense of stalking and harassment to the point I became nervous and lost confidence. For an on topic example of a Commons file of mine he tagged for deletion see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary_Ebbets_Hunt_-_Chilkat_blanket.jpg. This was a file I was proud of and mention on my Talk page here. In the early hours of 18 February 2014, editing late after what had begun as some late evening relaxed editing of Wikipedia trying to find a Fair Use image of the work of Janine Antoni which was being impeded by Stefan2, I was suddenly templated as well for the Chilkat blanket image I had uploaded weeks before. The ground for deletion was absurd - that it was a "sculpture". I felt violated and retired to bed defeated, but couldn't really sleep and got up early the next morning to note on my Talk page my frustrations and my intention to retire from editing for a while. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 17 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) Yes, agree wholeheartedly with Thryduulf. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:25, 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)  Oppose per all others. As far as I know Stefan4 is/was a good contributor here. Jee 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4/Stefan2 is back

Note: I have revived the above discussion. Stefan4 is back. As noted above: Multiple people have requested his additional input. They deserve to get it.

I would also like to note that when I caught Stefan flagrantly (and I don't use that term lightly) violating policy related to deletions, and called him on it, he disappeared then as well. ... and is back. I see no signs of recent problems. --Elvey (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close – This discussion is over (it ended months ago), and it should remain that way. Move on already, please. Stefan4's present contributions to deletion discussions are not a cause of concern. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: I've alerted Stefan4 to this discussion's return. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• • No, there's been NO discussion here whatsoever about Stefan flagrantly (and I don't use that term lightly) violating policy related to deletions, and disappearing after I called him on it. Why have policies, and allow flagrant consequence-free violations? Better to enforce some sort of consequence, say, with a brief topic ban like that under consideration when Stefan disappeared.--Elvey (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. Multiple people have requested his additional input. They deserve to get it, but it has not been given, despite your alerting. --Elvey (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep open & resolve, one way or the other. The discussion wasn't over, it petered out because Stefan took this little holiday, thereby removing any pressing need to conclude it. Now he is back, based on the questionable rationale he offered up here, and the long comment here, the problems people talked about above still exist - a focus on edge cases and novel interpretation of the law, rather than putting his obvious passion for deletion to good use in clearing the backlog of clear cut cases. Rather than being swept under the carpet, this discussion needs to be concluded one way or the other - either it's a good thing to have Stefan involved in deletion on Commons, with all that entails, or it isn't. Ultra7 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at Stefan's contributions since his return, but I endorse Ultra7's view that this need a resolution one way or the other. Deletion is a field that is very important which has the potential to cause great harm if done incorrectly (either way), it is not at all appropriate for accusations of significant misconduct in that area to be ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ultra7: That first DR that you linked to is from March, before Stefan4's break away from Commons, and that was a extremely tamed discussion. In addition, the image wasn't deleted, so there wasn't any harm done. The second discussion concerns a template, not an image, and there seems to be some consensus that the template isn't entirely worded properly. In addition, Stefan4's comments there haven't led to heated arguing, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with a comment being too long. Stefan4 has concerns, and he or she has the right to share them openly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • My mistake on the DR date, but on the other comment - I never said there was an argument, and I never even said it was an image. But there is a problem not only with the length, but also what he is trying to argue in it. He still clearly thinks Commons is some kind of free law school, a venue for formulating and advancing his own personal interpretations, to fill in apparent gaps or contradictions in the actual law. Nobody has any rights on Commons - and the community can and should decide here once and for all whether it makes any sense to continue to allow Stefan to share his concerns with the rest of the community, or whether it's time to invite him to find another more appropriate venue for it, if indeed as it seems, it's the only thing he's interested in doing here. Ultra7 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Stefan4 has the right to share his opinion on the law, and people should respond by engaging him or her in a discussion and refuting his or her claims, not by advocating disenfranchisement or ostracization. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
        • He doesn't have any rights here. That's a simple fact. And nobody is obliged to respond to him either, especially not when it becomes an onerous, repetitive or frustrating task. In that situation, contributors are more likely to just leave Commons and find something more worthwhile to spend their time on. Ultra7 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Stefan4's presence in debates annoys / frustrates you and others. That isn't a reason to oust a person from a wiki. You aren't any different from the people who banned Abd from enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Wow. Well, for one, I don't think Stefan is anything like Abd, so if, as I suspect, he's incredibly insulted by that comparison, let me distance myself from that view right now. That said, it's pretty obvious that, on sites which operate exclusively through the good will of volunteer contributors, not only is being repeatedly annoying and frustrating a very good reason to ultimately oust someone from a wiki, it's actually official policy to do so on many WMF wikis. That is after all why Abd was eventually banned from not just en.wiki, but a bunch of others too, is it not? I'll say it one last time, Stefan has no rights here. Not a single one. So that quite obviously includes any rights or entitlements or freedoms you think he has to annoy or frustrate me, or anyone else. If he does that repeatedly, he will face consequences, whether you like it or not (and you clearly don't). That's not to say I think Stefan is deliberately trying to annoy people, I just think he has misunderstood the basic purpose of the site. Ultra7 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have a difficulty to understand what is discussing here. "Overall, I am concerned about Stefan4's honesty in nominating images for deletion." was the complaint raised here. But it is not backed with any diffs that prove he is consciously targeting any user or topic of interest. He may not be well versed in a particular topic; but it is not a matter to topic ban him unless he aggressively acting against community consensus. (I think his comments in topics like this are very useful.) Jee 07:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would expect anyone who wants to be highly active in deletion on Commons on an ongoing basis (in fact it appears to be his sole interest), should be well versed in it by now (he has been on Commons since 2011). The OP gave plenty of diffs that appear to show he is not, both in a particular topic (Austrian TOO), and in general, and that he is acting against consensus. Others have also said the same. It doesn't need to be shown to be 'aggressive' for it to be a problem. And I don't think you help the case for him being useful, by linking to a section where he is claiming a DMCA takedown request, which has already been acted on by the WMF, was "invalid" (unless you're planning to act on his legal advice, and reverse the deletion?). If anything, it shows what a total time sink he is - if he really thinks the takedown request was invalid (which has nothing to do with whether or not the claim is valid), why is he even wasting the time of Commons volunteers by saying it here? Why didn't he go directly to the WMF counsel and tell him he just made a mistake and ask him to rectify it? There's nobody on Commons who can undo an office action. Ultra7 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you, everything is said when you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leif Erikson 1968 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. I've been to Reykjavik on monday this week, so I can see which statue we are speaking of. The stamp is a clear derivative works of it (without any doubt), hence the DR was rightfully filled and wrongly closed. The problem is more lack of understanding of issue raised by Stefan4 than Stefan4 being dangerous for this project. Please read COM:L, COM:FOP, and COM:DW before --PierreSelim (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What's your solution then? Desysop every admin who regularly disagrees with Stefan in a DR? That's a lot of admins, including the deletion overlord Fastily himself. If Stefan is the only one who understands our policies, and of course the law (due to his ability to conclusively interpret in ways judges and legal analysts never have), then why not just desysop them all, and give Stefan sole responsibility over DR? Ultra7 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No I'm clearly not for desysoping everyone I disagree with. I can live with Fastily being sysop and knowing he does obvious mistakes because I believe the ratio of positive actions are great. It goes the same with Stefan4, he may err from time to time as we all do, but in my opinion he is a positive assest to this project. Now you try to convince us by showing a very nice derivative work of a statue from a country where there is no exception such as freedom of panorama as an evidence that Stefan4 needs to be banned (topic banned) or whatever, when I believe he at least raised a legitimate concern (even if we may decide he is wrong). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I highlighted that DR (in error, as it's not new), because it was no different to any of the others mentioned above - so either Stefan's "legitimate concerns" are being routinely ignored by several admins, or he is just making error after error in judging how certain DRs are likely to go, even though he's been on the project for years. Either way, a solution is needed, because ignoring either of those things is not good for a project with all the flaws and features of Commons. That's true no matter how many times he might get more obvious cases right - I've never thought it was acceptable that Fastily gets away with making hundreds of bad decisions, just because he makes several thousand good ones. It defies all logic. You only need to make one bad decision to potentially cost Commons large amounts of images or future contributions. I should know - if I'd encountered either Stefan (or Fastily) in my early days here, I definitely wouldn't have stayed. Ultra7 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • As someone else said above, in the previous discussion, which I have re-unarchived and collapsed, it "is best for everyone concerned that this not be allowed to slip away unresolved".--Elvey (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
          • "[I believe that] it is best for everyone concerned that this not be allowed to slip away unresolved" = "I can't let this go, ever". Get over it already, and move on. en:WP:STICK. Continuing to hunt your white whale isn't helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Not at all. If Stefan is a "white whale" then he should have no problem explaining his actions, as repeatedly requested, in a way that demonstrates he is acting in accordance with both Commons policy and the best interests of the community. Once he has done this, then these accusations will be shown to be unfounded and he can carry on as a user in good standing. The accusations presented here are not frivolous or in bad faith and they can not just be swept under the carpet. Accountability is not optional and the continued treatment of it as an irritating and inconvenient annoyance that gets in the way makes it increasingly look like the allegations are correct and that Stefan2/Stefan4 cannot be trusted with the admin bit to close deletion requests. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
              • As far as I know Stefan4 is not an admin; nor wish to be. Jee 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
                • My apologies, I have amended my statement above so that the actual issues can be responded to without further distraction. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
                • And we are still waiting for Stefan4 to give his long-requested input here. At what point does a refusal to reply to good-faith enquiries into one's actions become an actionable offence in and of itself? Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • Most of the concerns raised here are not very relevant to him as he is an ordinary user. All he can do is to make some DRs to make them under the attention of admins. The rest is up to the closing admins. Unless somebody give diffs to prove he is repeatedly reopening closed DRs or any similar concerns, we have nothing more to do now. Jee 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Fifaworldcup1

User has uploaded a couple of dozen images of British celebrities as "own work" overnight; most recent photo was a blatant copyvio of a Press Association image, I assume the rest have just been lifted from Google in the same way. --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Piasoft's uploads

I have suspicions that most of the uploaded images by user:Piasoft aren't authored by him, although he has licensed them with {{self}}. I tagged them with {{No source since}}, but the uploader requested the removal of tags from his images. Most of his uploads are logos for various entities; I suspect he is not the creator and doesn't have permission to use them. I am not an experienced user in Commons, so I am requesting assistance in this case. Thank you. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Readdressing my complaint here as per User:Aeternus request. I noticed you have marked all of my work (uploaded pictures) for deletion. You have not explained why have you marked my work that has been for years on commons for deletion. The infobox marking my work for deletion says 'is missing information about where it comes from or who created it'. As I pointed out in your talk page,all my uploads have clearly stated that Source is Own work and I have given permission to anybody to use my work under appropriate licensing, thus I request the removal of deletion tags from my work. Thank you. Piasoft (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

According to 100th Anniversary of the Independence of Albania article in Wikipedia, the author of this logo uploaded by Piasoft is Zeni Ballazhi (this source from the Albanian presidency confirms it). I don't know if Zeni Bellashi is Piasoft, but I have reason to believe he is not. All other logos uploaded by Piasoft represent some branches/divisions of Albanian Army, so I'm guessing the authorship belongs to those institutions, not to a single user. Furthermore, in 2010 user:High Contrast asked Piasoft if he had better versions of File:Adelina Ismajli KM2009.jpg and File:RoselaGjylbeguKM2009.jpg, to which Piasoft did not respond (at least not publicly). There is a similiar case with user:AceDouble, who seems to have followed a similar behavior. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The logo of Albanian 100th anniversary is a public symbol, and just like the national flag or other state symbols and it is not subject to copyright restrictions (rather it's use was obligatory by law in all public institutions until 31-dec-2012 on any official paper for all public/state organizations). There is e difference between the vector representation and the a logo (design), despite who was the artist awarded from the government to create the logo of the 100th anniversary for official celebrations. I've not stated that I am the designer of the logo, I only made the vector file and published it here at the time where there was no vectorized version available on wikipedia, so yes, that vector file is my own work made in Inkscape.

2. as per the question of user:High Contrast regarding File:Adelina Ismajli KM2009.jpg, the lack of response from my side, does not make it a valid reason for nominating my work for deletion. In fact, most of the time I am not much active in wikipedia and so usually I can't keep all the time watching who writes on my page. By the way User:Aeternus, I see you have at least spared my eggs File:Brown_chicken_eggs.jpg from deletion! :) Piasoft (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems that the logos that you uploaded were in public domain, so I fixed their licenses accordingly. However, the issue with other images remains the same. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's by no means outlandish to think that the visual image generated by an SVG file could be copyright-exempt as an official symbol, yet the computer code inside the SVG file could be copyrighted and released under a specific license... AnonMoos (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already stated that none of the work I have digitized is subject to copyright restriction so I don't see a point in your arguments; I am being specific in this case: copyright-exempt is granted by law.

On the other side Λeternus I would kindly request to revert editing of the pictures. They are my own work, pictures taken with my camera so I don't feel I have to produce any other source other than own work. Thank you. Piasoft (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed warning tags from your images. However, you have to send an e-mail to Commons:OTRS in order to confirm your authorship. I will be watching this case closely, and will take further steps if I don't see an OTRS confirmation. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the Commons:OTRS notes. It is clearly states that when "I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published" I do not have to contact OTRS. See section "When contacting OTRS is unnecessary". Basically I don't need to prove my own work is mine (when unpublished elsewhere) unless there a good reason to do so (i.e. somebody has a Reasonable suspicion for any particular image). I see from the notes I have used the correct template "It is entirely my own work" in Commons:Upload to upload the images and I have included the necessary copyright attribution. Piasoft (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Review it carefully. It states: ... unless the image is of outstanding quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted. This might be your case. You were asked to do it. Any author of any image may be asked to send a written permission to OTRS. Ankry (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactaly, in general you need some other reason to doubt the authorship. Please try to get my point here. If I give myself the right to get suspicious of any 'own' content on wikipedia that is uploaded by every author just because I have a 'feeling' of suspicion (but just that) and if this 'feeling' is automatically accepted as a valid reason, I can trigger a whole wave of activity forcing any contributor to contact OTRS to send a 'proof' of they're work otherwise the content gets deleted. I know that the original intent in this case was for a "good cause" but any body could make fun of it! I've not been so much active on wikipedia the last couple of years until I got an email last week telling me that my images where going to be deleted. That didn't seem right, although I have more important stuff to do than trying to save images I uploaded 4 years ago! Anyway, sorry for making this so long, I am just trying to make a point. cheers! Piasoft (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Λeternus thank you for removing the warning tags. I just took an image for you on my screen and uploaded temporary here: [[26]] Piasoft (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia the sockpuppeteer

User:Yann