Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 21

User:Croquant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawn -- it actually took me only ten minutes to fix -- I'll do the other "Coasts" cats as well.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

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

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

Uncollegial accusations by User:LX

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need admin involvement in user dispute

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

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

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

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

Taking File:TroyParfitt6.JPG as a sample:

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

rather than {{Copyvio}}

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

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

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

Loro 2

Loro 2 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) began their Commons career three days ago by creating a deletion request with the nonsense rationale (quoted in full here) "No dispone de Calidad". Yesterday, they created 17 deletion nominations with nonsense rationales such as "El archivo no sirve para un artículo", "No tiene una descripción fiable", "No contiene descripción" and similar. In spite of an overwhelmingly clear response to several of those nominations from several different users that perhaps reading some policies would be a good idea, they continue today with several equally nonsensical and disruptive nominations. The only non-deletion request related edits by the user were also unconstructive, making incorrect move requests[1][2], changing perfectly good English descriptions to Spanish ones[3], and moving headings to incorrect locations.[4] Judging by their user talk page on the Spanish Wikipedia, they have a history of disruptive editing, ignoring policies, and refusing discussion there as well. I suggest speedily closing their nominations, declining the move requests, and either blocking or warning and closely monitoring the user. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Jaimesaid (talk · contribs)

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

E-mail conversation with Jamiesaid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Down6546464 (talk · contribs)

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

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

User:Captainofhope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will start from first..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Captainofhope's motives and actions are anything but disruptive and unacceptable and strongly warrants a block unless a change of behaviour is agreed upon Tinucherian (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hunter4fun (talk · contribs)

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

• I support the indef-block. --High Contrast (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorsed. --Dferg (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (2)

Fastily (talk · contribs) just deleted and restored Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion merging its edit history with the one of another page. This makes it impossible to read diffs properly on that page.

Given the repeat problems with the use of admin tools by Fastily, I think we should ask them to limit the use of admin tools to deleting duplicates. --  Docu  at 02:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Direct anger toward the individual who split the discussion in the first place. Preserving the history is necessary for assessing whether or not comments that are shown on the page were actually made by the individuals. Ordinarily diffs will be to reference specific changes made to the content page, not the discussion page. Finally, I checked the two diffs I found and they worked fine. – Adrignola talk 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily showed "Direct anger toward the individual who split the discussion in the first place." ? That isn't a good use of admin tools either.

Can you show the diffs ? --  Docu  at 03:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I now? Where? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was implying that you should be frustrated with the person that split the discussion and not with Fastily, who I feel was resolving the situation. The diffs I refer to are the ones people had been using on the talk page to highlight comments others had already made, as in, they worked for me when I clicked them to see if the specific comment still showed that the diffs were meant to highlight. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue if admin tools were used correctly.

In this case, the question is if diffs between any version of the page show the actual text added by participants to the discussion. Could you check if this is the case? --  Docu  at 03:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"It's an issue if admin tools were used correctly. " This sentence refutes your your entire complaint. I always knew you were inexperienced, foolish, and incompetent. Thanks for reaffirming that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It should have read: "The issue is whether admin tools were used correctly."

Adrignola, do diffs still work? --  Docu  at 04:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, please be mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

History merging makes things mucky, yes. But I think Fastily was just trying to help. I agree with Adrignola that it shouldn't have been split originally. But now that we're here, what leads you to believe there are comments on the page that were falsified? Or at least, that's what I understand you are thinking. Note that diffs will show what the page looked like at the time of the comment, regardless of what title it was at. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a question if the diffs are fine or not. If one just copies and pastes the entire text to another page and redirects there, you can easily merge histories. If you have to separate discussions on two different pages, trying to merge them just creates a mess.

I understand that Fastily frequently tries to help, but whether they block users or delete pages, it just doesn't actually help. Give their lack of civility and their way of shrugging of any comments, their admin actions just create more issues than they actually solve. --  Docu  at 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I could go ahead and attack you back but why bother. I'm feeling much too lazy for that today. Besides, I can't even understand what you say half the time. Let's just reconvene another day eh? Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sleep it over and comment on it tomorrow. If you need help, don't hesitate to use the "Help Desk". --  Docu  at 06:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely redundant thread. The splitting wasn't needed in the first place (I've commented on that). And there doesn't seem to be any problem with the diffs. Regardless of whether the histmerge (aka. revert of Mono) was needed or not, it was done just fine, and caused no harm. I suggest Docu stop pricking on Fastily for every small thing every now and then, and to have a private discussion if needed so. Rehman 10:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you provide the relevant diffs so we can make sure that these are ok? Whether or not the discussion on that page should have been split or not isn't relevant to discussion if Fastily uses admin tools correctly.

It's a good thing though you bring up another point about Fastily: given their use of their talk page, it's practically impossible for most users to discuss things with Fastily one-to-one their talk page. Threads are immediately archived whether the topic the discussion came to an end or not. Even if Fastily has a bot to it for them, it's hardly a recommended approach. Despite that we already had threads about such problems with Fastily on COM:AN before, this doesn't seem to have changed since. --  Docu  at 10:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (edited)

"Would you provide the relevant diffs so we can make sure that these are ok?" No lets puts it this way, would you provide the relevant diffs so we can make sure that these are not ok? Rehman 11:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do the problematic merge and you wrote that there doesn't seem to be any problem with the diffs. Did you check it or did you just write this without checking? --  Docu  at 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Fastily did not act here with the very best of intentions -- trying to fix a problem created by another editor. Several of us believe that he actually succeeded in doing what he was trying to do. Docu has not proven that the result was bad. Therefore, I conclude:

• There is no reason to criticize Fastily for anything beyond making a possible mistake, and that mistake is unproven at this point. It certainly does not even approach misuse of the Admin tools. If we had one of these discussions every time I made a mistake, we would do nothing else. Fortunately the system allows us to fix almost all mistakes.

• Rehman, who is the guiding force behind the page under discussion, believes that Fastily did nothing wrong there. There is, therefore, no reason to continue this discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure if you understand what happens if you delete two pages to merge their edit histories. It makes it impossible to do a diff between to versions that gives as anything relevant.
    BTW, Rehman has a rather bad track record in trying to move around things on talk pages. Thus he isn't really an authority on this. We had to remind him that he can't move around comments he doesn't like .. --  Docu  at 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not sure whether Fastily's action was a mistake or not. I think that:

1. Docu hasn't proved that Fastily's action created a problem -- if there is a problem, please give us an example, or better, just forget it.
2. even if it turns out that it was a mistake, it was done with good intentions, and one of us might say, "Hey, Fastily, you messed up. Don't do it again, please." A request for removal of his Admin status is a long way too strong a reaction -- in fact it borders on harassment of an Admin.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, you don't need to comment each time Fastily's actions are being discussed. It just gives the impression you merely comment to defend Fastily.

w:Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Parallel_versions explains why parallel versions shouldn't be history merged.

It seems that each time we discuss admin actions by Fastily this ends with "Fastily, you messed up. Don't do it again" and Fastily writing some incivility. --  Docu  at 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Docu, please take a step back and look at the rhetoric and tone you are using in this thread. You start out by claiming that there is a problem with some diffs. You provide no links to any diffs to demonstrate the problem. When asked, you respond by demanding that others prove a negative instead. (What do you expect? A list of every possible diff for the page?) You assume that Rehman would claim that it works without checking (or else you wouldn't need to ask). You then dismiss Rehman as unfit to comment on the issue altogether. You also dismiss the suggestion to use Fastily's talk page because Fastily archives discussions too quickly for your liking. Which you are hardly in a position to criticise, considering the lack of archiving on your own talk page. Finally, you dismiss Jim's comments as unwelcome as well, because... well, because he doesn't agree with your opinion. Seriously, please find something more useful to do than this. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

LX: If you want to discuss Rehman and his believes or my talk page, maybe you should open a separate threads. This his hardly relevant to the issue at hand: Fastily merging talk pages. --  Docu  at 06:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Docu, kindly drop the issue and stop pestering others in your rampage against Fastily. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bring those topics up within this thread. You did. That's the point. I will not open separate threads, because those topics don't merit an administrators' noticeboard thread. Neither does this. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Jameslwoodard did. This is not the administrators' noticeboard by the way. As for Rehman, just follow Herby's comments over there. --  Docu  at 09:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Complain about behavior of an administrator (User:Jcb)

Hi. I have an problem with behavior of one Commons administrator (User:Jcb) and I want to ask Commons community for opinion about this. If other administrators agree that I am wrong and that behavior of User:Jcb was in accordance with his admin position, I will not raise this question any more.

Problem is the following issue: I uploaded this file in October 31, 2010 and I posted this list of references as a support for info presented in this file. In June 1, 2011, another user (DIREKTOR) uploaded modified version of my file and also copy-pasted reference list from my file and used this reference list as a support for POV presented in his file. Here is the problem: two maps are presenting two substantially different points of view about name of WW2 Serbia: in my map name "Serbia" is used for it, while in map uploaded by DIREKTOR name "Government of national salvation" is used instead. References that user:DIREKTOR copy-pasted from my map are all using name "Serbia" for that country and no single of them would support name "Government of national salvation". So, if I understand Wikimedia rules correctly, uploader of modified file is obligated to provide references that would support his POV (or in this case, references that using name "Government of national salvation" instead "Serbia"), not references that would contradict to that POV. Part of this problem is the other map that show situation in 1943. User DIREKTOR here again copy-pasted my references that in fact are speaking about situation in 1941. You can just pick first three external links from reference list on this page and you will see that these references are showing that Dalmatia is part of Italy and not part of Independent State of Croatia.[5] [6] [7] Now we come to the problem with administrator (User:Jcb). I notified him about this problem with wrong references and he replied with "stop tiring Wikimedia Commons with this" and when I said that "I might complain about his behavior to other administrators" he replied with "future comments of you at this pages containing this kind of threats will be reverted". I am sorry, but I do not think that one administrator should behave like this. What are opinions of other administrators about this problem? PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept this intimidation. You are wasting hours of time of Commons admins with your useless POV fight about maps and if an admin refuses to judge in favour of one or the other POV you think that that admin is the problem. But the actual problem is your never ending POV fight, that totally doesn't belong to Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not intimidation. And I support Panonian: other users should not upload their own images over his uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is about files that another user uploaded under a different name, not overwriting anything. Jcb (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR was asked not to overwrite your files.

If he uploads a modified version of your map under another name, he needs to attribute you correctly (from a copyright point of view).

Even if he does that, one could consider that it doesn't fall within Commons' scope and could list the file for deletion.

In any case, there is no need to notify specific administrators of this. --  Docu  at 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The problems seems to be the speedy closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43.png. --  Docu  at 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one note: I am not objecting because DIREKTOR uploaded modified version of my file. I am objecting because he copy-pasted my references and used them on page of his modified file (and these references are contradicting to info that his file version show). Question of whether he also uploaded his modified file over my own is another issue. As I understand Wikimedia rules, both of us, me and DIREKTOR should upload our file versions as separate images. My only concern here is about question whether DIREKTOR should use my references for his file or he is obligated to provide his own references for new info that he introduced in his map and that is not supported by references that I provided. PANONIAN (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You could just add {{Fact}} to the file description. If the references have nothing to do with the map, obviously they need to go. --  Docu  at 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my whole point. I removed these references but Jcb reverted my edit and returned them back. That is about what I complain here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter said he is already talking with DIREKTOR about this and he thinks he will come to an agreement, so there is no reason why we couldn't wait for the answer, which I already pointed out two times at my talk page (see here). Jcb (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, I think PANONIAN might just want to add {{Fact}} to the map and move on. No need to bother Jcb with that. --  Docu  at 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, how exactly is that related to reference issue? They talk about which of the maps they will use in which article. That, however, does not solve problem with references. PANONIAN (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very funny. DIREKTOR is using the same thing PANONIAN usully doing - using exaggerated amount of references that garnet the file more professional view. In the most of the files single reference will be o.k. DIREKTOR might need the references only for the borders, not for naming. No reason for deletion.Geagea (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Geagea, do you suggest that I abused references somewhere? If you do, then please say which references I abused and where? I examined all references that I ever posted anywhere and I never simply copy-pasted references from other user. And by the way, in case of 1943-44 map, DIREKTOR does not even have reference for borders. PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced user in Commons ruls you must be know that adding references to files is allowed. "Borders" was only an example. This problem is not for Commns. solve it in the local wikipedia. Geagea (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding references in maps are part of the source we demand for every file. You are right in saying that DIREKTOR may want to use the references to something else in the map which has not to do with the questioned changes. Since PANONIAN demands a source for the changes (and I agree with him), I believe he should do what Docu recommended, and add {{Fact}} to it if no other agreement can be reached.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I hardly believe that this file deleted. See in a simple search: Ivo Tasovac, American foreign policy and Yugoslavia, 1939-1941. P. 153. You can add this as one of the sources. Really wasting of time her. Make the fights in the local wikipedia. Geagea (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That specific source seem to say that the designation was more a nickname than anything else - I wouldn't object for such a thing being used as source for that map, though. We host the stuff, and the wikis fight for the right^TM version of it. :)-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Geagea, there are plenty sources that using term "Government of national salvation", but not as a name of a country. Name of the country was "Serbia" while "Government of national salvation" was simply name of one of its two governments. Problem with this is that user DIREKTOR pushing idea that "Government of national salvation" was in fact name of a country. We had long discussion about this in English Wikipedia where DIREKTOR tried to prevent that name "Serbia" is used in the article title: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedi%C4%87%27s_Serbia (please see the archieved pages of that discussion as well: [8], [9]) Due to the fact that I did not wanted to be involved in revert warring with DIREKTOR (He was blocked as many as 8 times in en Wiki because of revert warring), I asked for third opinion about this, where an uninvolved user examined presented sources and confirmed that terms "Nedić regime" and "Government of national salvation" are not referring to a country, but only to its government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedi%C4%87%27s_Serbia/Archive_2#Third_opinion_request Finally, the dispute was solved in a way that one administrator renamed article from "Nedić regime" to its original title "Nedić's Serbia". Now, despite that third opinion and despite the fact that administrator renamed article to original title, DIREKTOR now trying to introduce his view in commons. I will repeat: there are plenty sources that are using terms "Government of national salvation" or "Nedić regime", but only as a name of a government, not as a name of a country. DIREKTOR is either not able to understand these sources either he have some political agenda that he want to push. In both cases, he abusing sources and making maps without valid referenced background. PANONIAN (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think is legitimate to request the deletion of a map which is thought to be misleading and thus does not serve Wikimedia's educational scope. We had similar situations in the past, and misleading maps have been deleted. I think in this case would have been better to leave open the deletion request until the dispute is conclusively resolved, otherwise the false impression might arise that it has been decided one way or another. @Panonian: while Jcb could have been more courteous, he was right that such disputes are usually sorted out on Wikipedia first. It would actually serve your case if you calm down, conclude the dispute on Wikipedia, and come back here and re-open a deletion request. In the meanwhile use the tag Docu linked to, to warn viewers that the map might be misleading. --ELEKHH^T 22:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to make this clear: I did proposed these maps for deletion and User:Jcb rejected my request and that is OK. I am not proposing these maps for deletion again. I am accepting that these maps are not deleted (there are examples of much worse POV in some other files in commons, so these two maps will not make very large damage to reliability of Wikimedia). However, the issue with abused sources remains and it should be properly resolved without deletion of these maps. I can agree that my references are supporting at least borders and some names from the first map that show situation in 1941-1943, but in the case of the second one that show situation in 1943-1944 (after the capitulation of fascist Italy) even borders are not supported by these references (all my references that were copy-pasted by DIREKTOR are showing political situation in 1941 or 1942 and these references cannot be used as a references for political situation in 1943-1944). So, is there a way that some compromise could be reached about this? For example, I can agree that first map (1941-1943) could keep the reference list due to the fact that these references are supporting borders and general political situation which is presented in that map, but, as was proposed here, I will add "fact" tag to that file until DIREKTOR provide reliable reference that using term "Government of national salvation" as a name of a country. However, in the case of second map that show political situation in 1943-1944 current reference list should be still removed since these references are showing political situation in 1941 or 1942 and not in 1943-1944. "Fact" tag should be also added to that map until DIREKTOR provide references for political situation in 1943-1944 and reference that using term "Government of national salvation" as a name of a country. Is this fair and acceptable compromise? PANONIAN (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the solution you are proposing is very much acceptable, and support it.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

The user is continuously reverting back his incorrect categorizing in File:Logo of the Prime Minister of Finland.svg and is not open for dialogue. The question is about adding files that are not coat of arms into Category:SVG coats of arms of Finland: after dismissing his initial arguments that this is "his" file and it would be easier for others to find it if the file was improperly categorized, his justification was that emblems and coat of arms are synonymous, which was further denied in Wikiproject Heraldry. While his edit gives false impression that just any drawing could be called as coat of arms in Finland, I would appreciate I could get some admin help on this one. --Care (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Care, first of all do not revert him more, please, so that the file doesn't get protected unnecessarily. I agree that it is not a coat of arms, but I see the advantages of placing SVG stuff related with the coats of arms of Finland inside that category. I believe this is something you should take to VP (or Wikiproject Heraldry), and ask for a broader opinion.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Darwin, I already did (discussion in WikiProject Heraldry linked above), and the conclusion was that this is not a CoA. Based on proposals from two other users the file was categorized as heraldic badge, but it seems not to be enough for this particular user. --Care (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, but usually SVG categories tend to be less strict, and maybe he's trying to put all SVG stuff related to the Finland CoA together. In the non-SVG cat tree it should not be inside the CoAs cats indeed, of course, should be in Symbols of Finland (or somewhere downwards) and in the proper category for what it is (an heraldic badge, as you say). I'm just trying to understand what is his point. As you know, Fry1989 is not someone easy to deal with.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Care -- I really don't understand what the great problem with categorizing heraldic "badges" in the heraldry categories is. They're not "coats of arms" in the strictest sense, but they're indisputably heraldic, and they actually generally have a lot more in common with coats of arms than they do with most modern logos. Fry1989 does some other annoying things (like arbitrarily removing images from categories because he wants the category page to display in a certain way, no matter how many times he has been told that galleries are selective but categories are comprehensive) -- however, this issue is really quite minor... AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. Let us all remember, please, that categories are in place so that anyone -- expert and schoolchild alike -- can easily find images. While a very few of us know that an emblem is not a coat of arms, in cases like this it is important to think not like a specialist in the field, but like the schoolchild, and ask, "Where would I look for this image?" Obviously Category:Coats of arms of Finland has to be one such place even though it is not strictly accurate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ГоранМирчевски

ГоранМирчевски (talk · contribs) insists on uploading his preferred new version of a map over an existing one (File:Macedonia (disambiguation).png). I've been trying to explain to him why he should instead upload it under a new filename, and I even did that for him, but to no avail. I'm not getting through to him at all. He has revert-warred his version back in four times in just over 24hrs now. His new file version is breaking Wikipedia pages on multiple projects, because the original file was used together with a colour legend on several pages, which now no longer fit. The problem may partly be due to very poor English, but it's clearly also a matter of an overall stubborn, hostile and non-collaborative attitude on the part of this user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three days, the edit warring and uncivil comments are uncalled for. I'm thinking its more of a POV rather then a problem with English. I've left a note with the block template, so I hope they read it and do what we have both stated to them. Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Trijnstel

Hello,

I would like to have a administrator take a look at the behavior of Trijnstel for the last couple of days.

Currently is very active importing problems from outside Wikimedia Commons in a kind of harrasing way Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor (de-adminship) and edits like [10].

Currently I don't mind that there is a de-sysop when its played faire, she is currently spamming offtopic stuff that aren't related to Commons at all, this looks like harrasment to me and I feel attacked by her behavior. As far as I know the policy is that its not allowed to import problems from other wiki but I would like opinions or that a administrator can talk to her and make clear that this is Commons and not meta or nl.wiki or IRC. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 16:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a strange move (imo) after she did a mea culpa and said she would refrain from reacting any further. Wkr, Fontes (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

After she dropped a link to the de-sysop in the stewards channel... Thats called canvassing or promoting. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you now importing IRC into this? ;-) Well, it where just my two cents. It seems a bit odd, that's all. Wkr, Fontes (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have not yet stopped importing issues, stop it, if you have, thankyou. Can we all go home now? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...@Huib, what do you think you'll accomplish here? The link you showed [11] shows a reaction to your contribution [12] in which you only told half the story. I think it's very wrong if people are not allowed to react when someone is telling things that are obviously incomplete. Complementing such an incomplete statement to show all the available data should be welcomed and not be viewed as a problem. Silver Spoon (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Abigor (talk · contribs) has had his adminship removed by a steward after resigning on Meta. He has also tried to mislead the community by using open proxies to defend himself on the above-linked deadminship request page, which was verified by a CheckUser, and is currently blocked for one day. I suggest marking this case as  Closed. odder (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Small correction, he's now indefed by his own request. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

categorizing images???

I've uploaded 3 images of my father that belong in History / Canadian History / Biography categories, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to add the categories. Please help? Lilja minou (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See COM:CAT for some help on that. You may wish to activate the HotCat gadget in your preferences as well, it helps a lot.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way: Commons:Help_desk is your contact place for how-to questions. --Schwäbin (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Usuario Neo ender

El usuario User:Neo ender ha dejado el siguiente mensaje en mi página de discusión: [13]. Supongo que es su reacción a mi petición de borrado de File:Shun de Andromeda.png, por ser un trabajo derivado de un manga, sin permiso de los dueños de los derechos.

Anteriormente ya había habido problemas con el usuario por la imagen File:Chris_Colfer_in_the_Teen_Choice_Awards_2010.jpg, que provenía de una base de datos de fotos [14]. Neo ender borró el aviso aquí dos veces [15][16]; la discusión siguió en su página de la Wikipedia en español [[::es:Usuario_Discusión:Neo_ender]], afirmando el usuario que había comprado la foto en la base de datos. El permiso OTRS no llegó nunca y el usuario entró en una guerra de ediciones por la foto de Chris Colfer, por lo que fue bloqueado.

Solicito que un administrador le explique que si no cumple con las reglas de civismo y copyright de Commons, será expulsado. --ecelan (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

P.D. Acabo de comprobar que ha vuelto a subir el fichero «Shun de Andromeda.png» con otro nombre File:Andromeda Shun.jpg. --ecelan (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. Doesn't that count as {{Fan art}}? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Would a drawing of Mickey Mouse be allowed? --ecelan (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I mentioned it because a while ago I was confronted with a question about the copyright status of File:Joker (DC Comics).jpg (which is something I would mark as a copyvio at first sight), and was very surprised to see that it is allowed under {{Fan art}}. If the Joker is allowed, I don't see why "unauthorised artistic representation of elements or characters" of MM made by fans shouldn't be allowed as well.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Even this: File:Stamp of Azerbaijan 530.jpg seems to be allowed (at least it's here since 2008 without being contested), and it doesn't even look like an "unauthorised artistic representation of elements or characters" of MM, but the original itself.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I've nominated this for deletion, there's no way that stamp can have a free license, it's obviously copyrighted.

Both images (the one you showed of the Joker and the one we are talking about) are derivative works of copyrighted works, derivative works done without permission. And any tag should not be a tool to circumvent Commons policy of free content. Anyway, the {{Fan art}} tag should not be included in any of these images, as it is clearly stated in Commons:Fan art: "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement"! There are enough judicial cases in the USA and elsewhere stating it. But this is not the place to discuss it.

My primary point was the attitude of the user Neo ender. Being clearly rude and insulting against another user. Trying blatantly to bypass Commons policy in several occasions. And generally showing a non-collaborative attitude.

About your stamp, maybe it's free in Azerbaijan, but surely not in the US...

--ecelan (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned {{Fan art}} since I thought it could help in this case. Maybe the stuff he is trying to upload here is allowed after all, and he is feeling victim of injustice. It's not an excuse for rudeness, of course.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Fan art}} should only be used if we can be reasonably sure that the drawing is original and not a redrawn version of a copyrighted drawing. It's mainly intended for depictions of literary characters, where a great deal of interpretation is possible. For characters who primarily exist in a visual medium (comics or animation), though, the more the depiction deviates from the standard (for copyright reasons), the less useful the image is to us (for accuracy and educational reasons). Powers (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Getting back to the personal attacks issue this was a gross personal attack and this one, later, was even worse. And it's not the first time he uses strong language agains other users: «listen, you fucking asshole... you're a bad person, as bad as your photos... you're a cruel person, etc.» (translated) I support a block for such a rude and continued harsh behaviour. I'm an es-N admin myself, but as this is being discussed by other fellow administrators, I prefer them to consider the request. --Dferg (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left the user a last civility-warning. Besides, I think I've found the original source of his Chris Colfer "drawing". But that's another story. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If more behaviour like the one presented above came to happen, I'll also support a block. There is no place here for such kind of personal attacks.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll support a block. Personal attacks disrupt Commons. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is bad, and such comments deserves and immediate block...This is a pure personal attack--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As my rather mellow civility warning only led the user to personally attack me at multiple locations, I now support a block of 1-2 weeks, hoping this results in a behavioural change. I would, however, prefer if the block is performed by a colleague who hadn't any earlier direct contact with this user. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. I just hope they take the time reading our policies on copyright, derivative works and assuming good faith. Very likely File:Katy Perry Portrait.png is a derivative work but can't find a photograph on Google Images which closely matches, but my slow internet connection isn't helping. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one month after uploading a blatant copyright violation (unfree artwork/screenshot).--Trixt (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment He's just blocked on eswiki for harassment with his account and with IP addresses. A cross-wiki problematic user I'd say. --Dferg (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

He is. But I'm talking with him and I've some hope of ending all this drama. Please give some chance to dialogue with the user. I asked him to not place the attacks again in his talk page, if he does just remove them and his ability to edit there.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusations by Martin H.

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rocks from Red sea.jpg, Martin H. accuses a contributor of shameless lies, and falsely claiming to be the author of File:Beit mamlouka courtyard.jpg. I pointed out that the logs show no such claim. In his reaction, Martin H. does not retract and apologize, but continues questioning the contributor's good faith. This is not how a Commons administrator should act. Martin H. is getting to be like those policemen that assume that every young man on the street is a criminal. In his zeal, he is going way over the line. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The upload contains a {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Mahaodeh|Mahaodeh]]}}, in your word this means, that the uploader emphatically says that he is the author.Later an IP claimed copyright on the image and indeed, it was published on Flickr in December 2006. What else is the {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Mahaodeh|Mahaodeh]]}}?? It is a lie. --Martin H. (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well then, something has changed recently of how much of the history is registered in the log. I had conclude from the initial wording of your response to my observation, that there was no such claim. I misunderstood. Sorry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Assume good faith is not a guideline or a policy, but simply a proposal. Given the number of copyright violations uploaded every day, a bit of paranoia is to be expected and almost necessary. And in this case it was warranted. – Adrignola talk 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is no paranoia, the IP copyright claim was real and it was possible to confirm the claim on flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User with many problematic uploads

User:જીતેન્દ્રસિંહ has uploaded a lot of photos, which seem to be a random mix of own work and things that are obviously not own work. See contributions here. Could someone have a look at this? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I put him a message. I will sort out his images with him. Yann (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Multicirkus (talk · contribs)

I have indef-blocked this account as his first edit was to delete all content of Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and to replace it with an unspecific rant in Danish language against "your service", which included a threat of vandalism "hvis i ikke sletter mit konto totalt vil jeg fra i dag sætter en skod artikel om jeres dårlig service hver dag" (per Google: if i do not delete my account completely, I will from now puts a butt article about your poor service every day). Thereafter he placed the same rant on his user page, already deleted by Herbythyme. User had 18 edits on :da, where he was blocked earlier[17]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

123sarangi (talk · contribs)

This user sends a bunch of copyrighted images. Keep your eye on him. mickit 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; deleted the copyvios. --High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise - Vandalist / Propagandist in balkan topics working in a network of people.

Heavy vandalist mainly in Balkan topics, taking desicions by his self, personal choices, and work for propaganda in a network with some others. You can also find out with a simple research by looking my talk page in commons and check the history of image's related page history, plus you can check the persons history in similar topics.

Example: I update a picture and he revert it all the time, finaly said to not override, but i didn't i update an image and i explained the update process. Then he said that i damage the labels of the images and if i update it has no problem, while i update it, he report here for a block to me and then he change again image plus the page(s). Is that what you call free encyclopedia? For several times i note to him to open a talk page before he act in his own while he offers nothing except propaganda. But i guess the propagandistic network can act faster than the users.

Look at: (and please also read) IMAGE HISTORY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macedonia_%28disambiguation%29.png

My talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ГоранМирчевски

and a undo all the time page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia&action=history

You can check more related topics from the same user and images. Look history and archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГоранМирчевски (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you are breaking the rules, not him. I note that my colleague, User:Bidgee, blocked you for three days for repeatedly making inappropriate changes. This block appears to me to have been entirely correct.

At File:Macedonia (disambiguation).png you have overwritten an existing image six times with a new one that you believe is better, which breaks our proposed policy Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. You may believe that the previous version is wrong, but that is not for you to choose -- it is for the editors who use the file to choose. Commons is a repository for images -- we do not choose sides in political discussions such as the extent of Macedonia.

I have reverted your changes and protected the page. Please do not engage in such actions again.

This is Commons, not WP:EN, so this is not the place to discuss actions taken there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've re-blocked ГоранМирчевски for making uncivil remarks about Future Perfect at Sunrise, calling another editor vandalist/propagandist is completely not on. You made large changes to the image that you're are overwriting, whether you're updating it or not but you refuse to recognise it even though it has been pointed out to you and the fact you can use it under a new file title/name (depending on consensus in the Wiki your editing in). As Jim has pointed out, Wikipedia is not Commons and please do not import issues from Wiki to Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Just to correct one small thing, this conflict is not even about any political/ideological dispute over "the extent of Macedonia". It's a purely technical matter of how best to present a simplified clarifying picture on a disambiguation page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the two version showed different regions in yellow, I suppose we could debate that -- everything about the use of the name "Macedonia" is political these days. However, since it is now moot, we can just disagree.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, Fastily reconsidered his slip with the block button.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See COM:L#License information, let me quote (emphasis by me):

Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: [..] The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided.

I do not say (as indicated above) that we should now go out and tag all candidates with unsufficient source information. However, nobody should be surprised if such a candidate gets actually tagged. This is particularly true if there exists doubts that some reasonable research was performed regarding an uploaded file. And those who object should in my opinion not revert such tags but escalate it to regular deletion requests. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Then The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided. - this might be wrong, taken from COM:L#License_information..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Scanned from a postcard is, in many situations, a complete citation of the source. What more can be said if the postcard has no marks on it?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to see why an image of something which was pretty obviously published before 1923 in the United States should be deleted just because of bureaucratic technicalities. Sometimes you can hold such a pre-1923 postcard physically in your hand and turn it over and over and there's no indication of a date or publishing company. Is the purpose of Wikimedia Commons to host useful images, or to supervise the bureaucratic filling out of forms in goldenrod triplicate? AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible --Tony Wills (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, Darwin, etc. A dated postcard is easily enough info to verify its copyright status, and the if possible is in there for a reason. These tags should be removed. --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Its possible since the image is in PD... Dated postcard is OK on my opinion, currently many images are written with transferred from wikipedia--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that if my comment above is not supported by consensus, then we need to change our policy. Am I splitting hairs if I reject AFBorchert's quote:

"Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not:"

on the grounds that PD-old is not a license, but a status that does not require a license? -- Yes, I was splitting hairs, so withdrawn.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would want to delete an image of a painting from before the 19th century, even if the artist were unknown. The description might say "Author = Unknown 18th century artist, Source = Photograph taken at the Louvre". It seems to me that if PD-1923 is obviously applicable, then "Scanned from a postcard by an unknown photographer" covers everything we need to know. Putting that in the Source line and Author line of the description is just mechanics. Surely we are not proposing deleting images over easily fixed technicalities?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jameslwoodward (and others) that proper source is essential for licenses that require it to verify license validity, but it is not needed if it is not required to verify the license. For files using {{PD-old}} we only need author and his year of death. What website file come from might be useful but is not necessary to verify the license. For files using {{PD-Polish}} we need reference of what book (etc.) image was published in not the website it come from (we even have problems when the source website where on some sort of spammer black-list and could not be included). --Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jarekt, but I think you ask for more than we need. In the USA all we need is evidence of publishing before 1923. In other countries, it's as you say, except that if the work is obviously from more than 190 years ago, then we don't need anything more (even 190 stretches credibility -- it would require a work created at age 15 and a 105 year life, assuming 70 pma as is the case in most countries).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am open to all this but then I ask that we update COM:L accordingly. As this policy currently stands, we should not be surprised when PD files without valid source information get tagged. And if I may join Jameslwoodward in hair splitting: We generally consider {{PD-old}} as license tag and it is also sorted into Category:PD license tags. Anyway, I do not really want to split hairs but just some clarity for everyone involved and this is apparently very much needed given the recent edit wars. But if we relax our policy in this regard we should also take care of not creating a loophole where careless uploads without source information are considered PD where we cannot be sure about this. We should continue to insist on this in all cases of doubt per COM:PRP. And even then we should really encourage everyone to provide source information as this a valuable piece of information independent of the copyright status of a file. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I did ask if I was hair-splitting -- I agree that I was, so I withdraw the comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we agree in this issue. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A clear and varifiable source is require to establish the PD status to the community, or else we will be giving room to get all the copyrighted pictures with false PD claims..and 1000 user's arguing it to be a PD without a varifiable evidence..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need a source for the Mona Lisa to know that it's PD? Is this really any different then all the Own photos that we have?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Own photos might be the next stop. After Mona Lisa, of course. NVO (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Commons does not require photographic reproductions to actually be in the public domain, since non-U.S. copyright laws are ignored in this context. Reusers do need to know the source of photographic reproductions to determine whether or not they actually are in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me again what the "clear and varifiable"[sic] source is supposed to be when you're holding in your hand a postcard which is clearly (to those knowledgeable about the subject) pre-1923, but which has no indication of a date or publishing company printed on it?? If you're lacking in the particular expertise necessary to be able to date images based on their various characteristics, then maybe you should defer to those who know more about the subject than you do... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And how do you propose we determine who knows more? This thread was started when Fastily blocked a user who apparently thought they knew more, but who still claimed that a photo from 2002 was an "old postcard." If it's really that clear based on "various characteristics," a knowledgeable person should be able to explain what those characteristics are – so that others can verify the assertion. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The case of File:Essex High School.jpg is not a good example. Looking at the file history, Pauk added "Source = Scan of Old Postcard" while it had "Date = Circa 2002" -- that's clearly an incorrect action on Pauk's part (I have no opinion on whether it was a mistake or intentionally wrong).

In the ordinary case, we ought, as I said above, to be able to give a date by saying something like one of these

"Date = 1915 (from copyright notice on postcard)"

"Date = circa 1912 (busy street scene with no automobiles later than that)"

"Date = 1914 (postmark on postcard)

"Date = before 1918 (building photographed burned down 1917"

"Date = late 18th century (from museum information)"

All of which should be sufficient for our needs for USA items, and the last for any item.

"Author = Unknown" should also be enough, if the date makes it PD-Old.

"Source = Photograph by XXX of Mona Lisa at the Louvre" As LX points out, Reuters would like to know that XXX has licensed the image even if Commons takes the position that Bridgeman covers the whole world. So, if XXX is the uploader, we should probably ask for and use a CC license in addition to PD-Art.

"Source = Scan of postcard" should also be sufficient, since a scan does not acquire a new copyright anywhere.

So, in the three images at the top:

• File:San Bernardino station, 1915.jpg -- OK, although it might add where the "Dated 1915" came from. In cases like this, where the File Description has all the information we need to keep it, I think that anyone objecting to the layout of that information should fix it, not ask for deletion on the grounds that the Date, Source, and Author lines don't have the information that they should have.
• File:Bird's-eye View of Montpelier, VT.jpg -- ?OK? -- We're told that it is a c1912 postcard, but not why. The image probably has internal evidence obvious to someone familiar to historical Montpelier. Again, if we accept the 1912 date, then everything we need is there, albeit in the wrong place.
• File:Pine Grove Springs Hotel, Spofford Lake, Chesterfield, NH.jpg -- ?OK? -- We're given a 1913 date with no reason. The building was there until after 1923 and there's nothing I can see that would date this mass of trees. In this case, if the date is OK, then everything was there from the beginning on Commons:

"Author = Photographer unknown. Original uploader was Hugh Manatee at en.wikipedia"

"Source = Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Pauk using CommonsHelper. (Original text : Reproduced from an original postcard published by The Pine Grove Springs Hotel)"

Bottom line, we need to be willing to rearrange the information that we have, rather than hang a delete tag of one sort or another just because the information isn't in exactly the right place.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your bottom line. I've seen it happen several times that a file was tagged or proposed for deletion for missing source and/or copyright information, when all the information was there, just not in the proper field or as a template. In that case admins and other users should be willing to take a good look at what has been provided (also including edit summaries in the page history for example). Keep in mind that many users from Wikipedia projects may upload free content, but don't check back very often, and so may not immediately notice such easily answered inquiries. --Terfili (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Monolisa does require a source... Its not that Monolisa made before several years, Imagine that commons is an autonomous body and require such things for serving the future generations for an educational purpose...It can be recreated with different set of colors and different styles in painting, even a change in the texture detail also creates another copyright..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the "Mona Lisa" (not "Monolisa"[sic]), and unfortunately your approach seems to suppose that the ultimate goal and purpose of Commons is the bureaucratic filling out of goldenrod forms in triplicate, rather than to make available images suitable for educational use... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree that original source was not good and the new one is much better. Just to make that clear.

I think "No source" should be used when there is no source at all or if it is "Internet" or "Google". If someone desides to use it in other cases and another user removes the tag then admins should not do edit warring but explain why they feel a source is missing. If it is not an obvious case then it is very easy to start a DR or to add {{Disputed}} and start a discussion. Speedy deletions should be reserved for "clear cases". Anyone who reads this thread should agree that it is not a clear case.

I think blocking someone you have a dispute with is not a good idea because you are not likely to be neutral. I mean what are the chances that Fastily will review the dispute and conclude that Fastily should not have reverted and therefore make a self-block? :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

user:Yuri02

• Yuri02

Upload multible copyvios from imageshack.us Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Has been warned. May be blocked if that happens again. --Túrelio (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoowan

• Hoowan (talk · contribs)

Uploading copyvios after warnings. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Denied - Only four uploads, and all of them before any warning.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, he just upload a bunch of them a minute ago while I was writing here. I'll take care of this.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done, blocked for 3 days, all uploads nuked.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

General History of Africa

• General History of Africa (talk · contribs)

(re)uploading files that are fair use after warnings and explanetion. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 15:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done, blocked for 3 days, thanks for reporting.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One man show by User:Captainofhope

This is in regards to the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:FreeBinayak sen board.jpg where User:Captainofhope has raised a DR, argued to his best to prove that the image is a copyright violation and when he saw a proof, closed the DR himself giving the reason as Community censensus. Given the fact that he is not an Admin, I am not sure whether he should be allowed to do this one man show.

The same user in another DR accused me that I am misusing my rights of OTRS permissions to avoid DR discussions and I had to take it to OTRS Noticeboard. This users DRs are becoming counter productive. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

1. DR has been closed as all the evidence were made available to the community by user AniVar, If any one disagree, that the image should be deleted, it can be re listed, Its a non-admin closure for non-controverial reasons.
2. DR was ending with a 'No evidence' status for the PD image, Suddenly OTRS Volunteer tagged the image as OTRS pending, but there is no confirmation that the organisation or the artist send such mails OTRS Volunteer's notes ->(But they are willing to release the license of the image and will be sending an OTRS email after consulting with the responsible persons. I have marked the image as OTRS pending and if we do not get their consent by email, we can delete the image). Without getting a confirmation mail from the organisation, how an OTRS volunteer tag the image as OTRS pending, Use of OTRS powers wrongly and intention to divert the DR discussion--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Captainofhope closed talk page Just after I raised following 2 points . 1) User:Captainofhope does not have any idea of OTRS, and he askes for Internal Contracts of copyright holding Organisation.(Producer of the Image) 2. He was selectively Avoiding Proofs and misguiding others by saying File:FreeBinayak sen board.jpg, is "a piece of art near the road side", and "there is no proof for this artwork associated with ViBGYOR" while it is came from Official Flicker set of ViBGYOR 2011 & OTRS approval was done by the Producer & photographer of artwork. The Picasa Link Provided by User:Captainofhope as a proof of "Tomorow, this user also can claim a copyright" is This image from ml.wikisource bureaucrat User:Manojk's Picasa album titled "a day @ ViBGYOR 2011" . Instead of posting web page he selectively posted image URL to substantiate his argument "it is photo from Road Side" .

It is very difficult to work with such One man show DR nominators, who does not have an idea of how OTRS work and Those who selectively avoiding Proofs to get images deleted.--AniVar (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:FreeBinayak sen board.jpg, Captainofhope seems to have been the only person favoring deletion. Once he changed his mind, there wasn't really any reason to discuss this further. --  Docu  at 06:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The procedure in Commons:Deletion requests/File:FreeBinayak sen board.jpg was certainly well intended, but technically it should have been closed by an administrator, not by Captainofhope himself. This is one not big deal, but I agree that Captainofhope has an historic of issues and problems in DRs. If this was wiki-en, I would suggest that he should be accompanied by a tutor that would review his nominations and procedures and engage on dialogue with the user about possible s, since I do believe he has good intentions here overall. I don't know how those situations are handled here, however, possibly we do not have the structure and manpower for such things.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The non-admin keep was not controversial and perfectly ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that one was not controversial as well. It's only a technical detail, since I understand, from the instructions about DR closures, that they should be done by an admin.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the instructions say. --  Docu  at 09:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Somehow I missed that bit, thank you and 99of9 for correcting me. Nothing wrong with that closure, then.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Captainofhope already has an issue raised against him in this noticeboard in recent past and that is when he was repeatedly nominating images for deletion until it is deleted. Similar issue here, but the other way round when he decided the image should be kept, did not wait for an Admin to intervene. It looks like the user is taking decisions on his own and does not care what other Admins has to say. If he is so capable of deciding things, I suggest him applying for an Administrator privilege.

He made a personal attack here that I am 'using OTRS powers wrongly but I wish not to comment on that. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

But you should. That personal attack is dissemination of mistrust, and personally I find it far more concerning than his behaviour in DRs. This is something I believe has to be addressed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. from Commons:Deletion_requests#Instructions_for_administrators. --99of9 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Argh, missed that bit, my deepest apologies. :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If good understanding of the process means how to use Delreqhandler.js, then I guess Captainofhope qualifies. But the point here is him taking decisions on all the DRs himself. See this diff where the user told admin Yann on his face that if you keep this image I will renominate it because there are other admins who can take a wise decision. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case there was nothing wrong with the closure. It often happens that a nominator cancels a nomination after reading the reactions. Linking to older cases doesn't make this case better of worse. I think there was no need to take this case to this noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The DR cases possibly not, but the grievous accusations against Sreejith K should be addressed, in my understanding. Dissemination of mistrust is poisonous.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:FreeBinayak sen board.jpg, I see:

1. An entirely correct Deletion Request -- I might have raised the same question about the image myself. Given the circumstances of the creation of the poster that should not surprise any of us.
2. A spirited discussion. It might have been a little more mellow, but certainly well within bounds.
3. A question about the way the OTRS was handled -- not a personal attack. It was certainly appropriate. Telephone calls are not, after all, the usual way we do things.
4. After discussion, the nom changed his mind about the DR. Since there were no other voices arguing for deletion, he is to be commended for withdrawing it himself, rather than keeping it open to waste more editor time.

All of which is entirely within policy and acceptable behavior.

I do not see any "grievous accusations against Sreejith", but perhaps I missed something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not in that one, but here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, last ruling maharaja of Travancore.jpg, and to me they look as very grievous accusations and dissemination of mistrust about Sreejith K and, inherently, the rest of the OTRS staff.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I agree although the discussion was certainly not mellow on either side, Captainofhope went too far there.

Perhaps Captainofhope would express regret for his words there?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As i clearly stated there itself, I don't have a concern over the OTRS system or 'other' OTRS Staff, but i do have a doubt regarding the way the OTRS was handled and i have pointed out the unusual way of handling such copyrighted images, Where which i feel that he was mis using the OTRS powers assigned to him, as a non-OTRS member i will not be able see such permission details and will not be able to discuss the contents and thus the DR will be end-up.It looks un natural. Please advice me where i need to have review of my 'statements', So that i can review it.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here the discussion regarding OTRS continues..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I understood of this situation, Sreejith K never reviewed that OTRS ticket. He arranged for it in his quality of Commons user, as anyone else can do, but never reviewed it. You accused him of something he could have done, but had not done, actually. It looks to me as if you were in distrust of the whole OTRS system, like if it was some sort of secret society. I understand that such moves may look suspicious. I had once a similar problem with some images that were in the middle of a large interwiki conflict about an alleged "king" of Portugal. The images had been deleted many times before as copyvios. Since they looked useful, I was bold and wrote the "king" himself asking for permission to use those images, and to my surprise he actually wrote back and granted it. When I uploaded them and they were tagged with OTRS it inspired immediate distrust and people tried to delete them again, but all the process was legitimate, though obviously not in the public record. We have to believe in the OTRS system, unless there is a good reason to suspect there was an error, but in that case there is a proper forum for such appeals, dissemination of mistrust is always wrong and poisonous.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See the template description itself Users who have sent a permission to OTRS but haven't received confirmation yet can use {{OTRS pending}} to tell others that it's in progress. - This is applicable only to the uploader who already sent and email to OTRS system, here no email received, it was just a one side communication by the user and the hall (Where the picture is placed). If an OTRS user is saying that an email is received to the system or saying its send to OTRS that looks suspicious, If the up loader add this tag, I can agree very well and even check with an OTRS user for that and the tag will be valid, orelse its just for manipulating the interest of other's. --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I've understood he got an oral confirmation from the copyright holder, and following that placed the OP tag there. He shouldn't have done it, should have tagged with no permission instead (as he has done afterwards) but I believe it is not such a big deal, and is done quite often by many people who are sure enough that a confirmation email will be coming in to spare the bureaucracy of changing tags, even if they have not sent the mail to OTRS yet. In any case, it does not imply in any way a misdoing as an OTRS reviewer, at least in my view, and your accusations were unfair.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a big deal on my POV, Since he shown progressive involvement in the discussion and such major changes will mislead the other's that the user is coming with the extra powers granted on them, If he never involved in DR discussion and place a tag and put a comment in the DR that OTRS permission received but not confirmed, it will be well accepted...My assumption is the following (Once its communicated it changed as accusations)

1. He was arguing that the image is in PD, and failed to get adequate evidences, So he used his OTRS powers to bypass such problems and commented that he talked to them (over phone or email..??) and a permission will send. Suddenly he placed the tag, as he was waiting for the mail to approve it. He should have commented in the following way
2. This image is not in PD and he contacted the staff of the hall and got information that Artist will send an email to OTRS and a different OTRS volunteer will approve the tag for avoiding any question regarding his involvement in the OTRS approval process as he was claiming to keep the non-PD image and to protect the conflict of interest among the community.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I also find the behaviour of Captainofhope disturbing. His insistance on deleting images is similar to harassment. Yann (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs) again, again

Again Fastily (talk · contribs) begin tagging in public domain images with a "no source" tag (nsd):

• File:NIEdot304.jpg - 1902 image from Old Encyclopedia (please click image and see 100% resolution, below - COPYRIGHT 1902 By Dodd, Mead & Company)
• File:Brisbane NASA.png - made be NASA World Wind (programm)

One time Fastily even blocked me for it. I don't know and understand where "normal" (per Fastily) source. It is a trolling or a vandalism.

Please, administrator talk him and do something (warning, block or other). His actions are absurd. --Pauk (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

O.k. for the NIE image; but for the alleged NASA image we have simply to believe it's from NASA, just because the uploader said so? Even the initial upload on :en has no verifiable source information. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A DR should be opened then, explaining those doubts, or if the data is blatantly faked, it should be removed to make the file really unsourced before applying the tag. I really don't see any advantage in careless tagging as no source, but the problems with that are very obvious.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I can do file of Brisbane in NASA-WW and upload it in few minutes. But how other users checked? --Pauk (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

D.W.

• User: D.W. (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: see below.

This user exhibits his disruptive behaviour already shown on DE-WP now here by a DR. I would like to call him a wikihound as he persistently stalks members of the portals for arms and military on DE-WP for more than a year in a row, now. There are a failed mediation attempt and uncounted vandalism reports about his disruptive behaviour on his tally (block log showing several blocks after edit warring and infringements to "No personal attack" (KPA)). I request at least a strong warning that he is not to carry over the conflict from DE-WP to Commons. A block of noticeable length of D.W. here on Commons is naturally also welcome. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is ridiculous. If you have no arguments for the discussion, you have to work against the opponent in this way..--D.W. (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not have to work against you as an opponent, because work is something a lot more demanding than such a dispute is. This - until now - never-ending story is only similar to a little splinter in the skin, a sometimes bothering feeling. I wrote you some times ago on you DE-WP talk page that I was enclined to a philosophy of live and let live, but repeated "pokings" akin of those of a little boy saying "hey, I'm here, and see what I can do" are not of any help there and that's why I'll try to remove said bothering splinter. If you're not interfering in any way with the Wiki activities of MittlererWeg and other of your "known opponents", we won't get in touch again and we won't fence again. If you persist on this way to disrupt the enjoying of the participation on Wikimedia projects, then I am pretty confident that I 'll have the whip hand at the end. Ah, you've called for arguments on the DR, I almost forgot it. You'll find soon some, there. Thank you for your attention. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell us, providing diff-links, what this user did wrong at this projects. Jcb (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my point of view. This problem report originates in my assumption that D.W. tried to stalk, to hound MittlererWeg's (MW for short) activities on Commons. He did this previously on DE-WP with a certain persistence, with MW being not the sole editor affected: some months ago, the German weapons portal made a IRC conference for coordinating its activities, D.W. was attending. The topic was a list about German submarines, and while we were talking about it, D.W. found nothing better to make a deletion request on said list and to submit some (declined) vandalism reports about other people attending the chat. He got finally banned from the IRC for this behaviour (chat protocols in German). The linked DR about a drawing of MW is really similar. MW just asked a question about those drawings on the German copyrights question board, a few hours later, D.W. nominated one of his drawings for deletion here, disregarding the fact that the consensus among posters was that these drawings cannot constitute a copyright infringement. At this moment, D.W. is not really acting against Common's rules, but I view this case as a kind of transwiki stalking or vandalism, so I preferred to bring in a problem report early in the hope that an admin may give D.W. a clear signal that he is not to continue his disrupting and somewhat childish attention-seeking behaviour here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any diff link to something at Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand why we should give somebody a "clear signal", without first seeing any reason for such a "clear signal". Jcb (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give Grand-Duc a clear signal, that this kind of defamation is childish attention-seeking behaviour?--D.W. (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jcb: that's what I meant in my last sentence in my previous posting - at this moment, the DR by D.W. is in my opinion a suspicious fact for that he is about to reiterate on Commons a disruptive behaviour already shown on DE-WP. But as it is the first occurrence here that I am aware of, there is no record of previous wrongdoing on Commons. @D.W.: I do not need additional attention, I can get sufficient of it by simply doing some encyclopaedic Wikipedia work and taking photographs. But I do not know why it must be you that brought an already solved issue in the discussion about the drawings by MW. There are sufficient Commons admins reading on de:WP:URF, there is no need to take an action that is easily understandable as provocation. Not everything that is legal to do is wise to be done, so, if the files of MW were indeed encumbered with copyright issues, then another Wikipedian would have filled a DR, there's no need that it's to be done by you, especially not the same day where MW asked for a clarification by himself! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I write here again. What D.W. is trying here on Commons is to destroy my Work. I upload near 600 drawings that i need for my work at Wikipedia. The difficult forms and constructions of blade weapons and armors from all times and all country's needs the pictures because the only describing is not to understand if there is no picture of the described weapon. If commons or Wikipedia seems that my picture work is an URV and delete all drawings than D.W get this what he likes, and this is to bring me out of WP. If there is no way to get photos of the describes weapons than i can stop may work from alone. Greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Very poor block by user:Jcb

I consider the block referred to here very wrong indeed. There was no discussion with Abigor merely a block. He was an admin here so I see no reason why stating that should be seen as a blockable offence with no discussion. Given the fact that Jcb was instrumental in the de-admiship request on Abigor I think he is quite the wrong person to deal with issues with Abigor and certainly in this fashion. I have unblocked Abigor and if an uninvolved admin feel a block is appropriate and explains it and to Abigor here I will not object. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I also consider Jcb's comment which I assume refers to me highly offensive. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Abigor insisted on putting an adminbox on his talk page. What would you do with me if I did that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Read it carefully - it says "I used to be an admin" which is true. It might be that the community would prefer it not to be used like that but it does not warrant a block without warning. I would say exactly the same if you "used to be an admin" or if anyone tried to stop me saying I "used to be a 'crat". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Check the history carefully instead, you must have missed this edit. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A.Savin proposed a reasonable compromise and the edit war between you and Abigor was finished, but then two hours later you've blocked Abigor for some unexplainable reason without any warning or any discussion. Yes, I must have missed something, because otherwise this course of action looks too strange for me. Trycatch (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trycatch. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to say that "he used to be an administrator", but that is no reason to be blocked, IMO. mickit 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has a long history of abusive use of inappropriate user boxes, in which several users requested him to stop that behaviour. He can be considered well informed about that. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no comments relating to user boxes in Abigor's archives for the past year that I can see. So to validate your action a link to such warnings on Commons is essential. This would not address the delay in blocking however as blocks are only to prevent on going disruption usually. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See for example here - Jcb (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A dialogue with a user starts on their talk page. You refer to a long history of abusive use of inappropriate user boxes. Where is this long history and where is any contact with the user over this matter? And you are not addressing the fact that the behaviour had stopped for sometime before you placed the block. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't actually follow the diff link, did you? The linked edit contains a diff link at the user talk page as well. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Contact on Commons about a Meta matter does not constitute a "long history" of anything at all relating to Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a Commons matter, for it took place at Commons (where the user box was located), but if I have to address your errors all the time, this talk is useless. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, why you have blocked the user when the issue was already resolved? Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a spontaneous block without warning, and not required for that..if he put such userboxes; give him time to change the userbox...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The block was far too quick and unwarranted at this time. Powers (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "I used to be" shows he wasn't trying to mislead anyone. Unnecessary block. Wknight94 ^talk 21:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Herby, Trycatch and others here: There was no warning on the talk page and the block came at a time when the conflict was already solved as A.Savin fixed the problem. Finally, this comment by Jcb to Herbythyme was uncalled for. In my opinion, it was not really helpful to start the conflict by editing the template. Abigor is active, it would have been no problem to ask him to adjust his template. He was apparently not aware that this template also put the page into a category and none of the reverts told this. Avoiding communication, running into an edit conflict, and finishing the conflict by a block (which also suppressed the use of the talk page and email without having abused any of this) does not appear to be helpful. Given this, I think that it was perfectly justified to lift this block. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jcb, you rarely disable talk or email for blatant vandals and copyright violators. Why did you feel Abigor deserved even harsher treatment than them? Wknight94 ^talk 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The logic was that Abigor was trying to get that admin box on his user talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it technically necessary to block talk page to stop editing at a user talk subpage, User talk:Abigor/header? Even if so, that doesn't explain blocking e-mail too. Wknight94 ^talk 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems as though Jcb is emotionally involved. It would be prudent to step back and avoid the use of admin tools in any confrontations with Huib/Abigor. An uninvolved admin can take any necessary actions should they become necessary in the future. – Adrignola talk 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be just another episode of some issue on Dutch Wikipedia people keep carrying over here. Jcb revert warred with Abigor earlier [18] [19] [20]. Other former administrators have such userboxes on their user pages (User:Lar) and I don't see how it could be problematic. It seems rather poor judgement to proceed to block a user over this matter in such a context.

Given that Jcb was already warned when the earlier revert war was discussed, it doubt he should be trusted with admin tools. --  Docu  at 05:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)

We already discussed many times regarding the improper use of admin tools..hope that will not be a major problem over here, As jcb is not doing the same action..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lar does not have misleading user boxes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To follow the procedure I started this discussion. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Abigor, I find it unusual and rather inappropriate that you advertised your COM:AN complaint about Jcb additionally at VP. --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio and suggest that it should be removed from there, preferably by Abigor himself. There is already a lot of drama around this whole issue without the need to forum-shopping for more.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that should be removed from AN, It should be removed from VP only..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was only about VP.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 11:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Abigor.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a pity that Jcb has not actually addressed the concerns here in almost 24 hours now. It seems possible that language may be an issue so I'll try and keep this summary simple.

1. He has not commented at all on the delay in the block. Abigor had taken no action for some time before the block was placed and so the block was out of policy in that there was no current disruption.
2. Only one link to behaviour on Meta has been offered to justify the comment about "long history" of such behaviour. No attempt seems to have been made to discuss the issue with Abigor. I would stress I am not saying that stating "I used to be an admin" with a user box is acceptable however it was a correct statement and so hardly a blockable offence without warning/discussion.
3. Most sadly Jcb seems uninterested in the views of the community which, in my opinion, is quite wrong in an admin.

All in all this behaviour seems to fall short of what I have come to expect in an admin here on Commons. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

He is probably not in the mood. Herbythyme's summary is not fair, I think. Jcb was asked about Abigor's status. Jcb removed the box, Abigor put that box back in. With a text outside the box, but the box still said: "This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Language is not an issue (my user page clearly states: NL-N / EN-3 / ES-3, also comments in DE, FR and PT will be clearly understood, although I may not be able to respond comprehensively in those languages). About your three points:

1. The delay was because I was offline in the meantime. I estimated he would revert again if he came back online (he didn't edit in the meantime) and after what I've seen in the past years I'm still convinced he would have done if nothing had happened in the meantime. Of course you're free to have a different view on this.
2. "Only one link to behaviour on Meta has been offered" - This statement is not factual as I already pointed out.
3. "Jcb seems uninterested in the views of the community" - I try to respond to every serious comment/question at my user talk page, as you can verify easily. Also from time to time I reconsider deletions or keep closures after somebody comments on it at my user talk page and I'm quite open to the possibility that another admin takes a different decission in a second DR. Also please understand that given the quite large amount of work I do at Wikimedia Commons, it's inevitable people will find decisions they don't like. It's just impossible always to know what exactly the mayority of the admins would do. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - I appreciate your views and explanations here - it helps a lot that you have taken the time to explain this.

I still do not understand the issue of the "long history" of such behaviour as I have still not seen anything suggesting such behaviour on Commons with any warnings on Commons. Communication on Commons about issues on Meta are not the same in my view nor is there a "long history" from that.

The rest of your comments I do understand. I certainly would not block any established user who had ceased to behave in a way I found unacceptable and I would not place any such block without real warning. However we obviously differ in our views of what is "correct". Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If he is not in a mood, He shouldn't be admin then..Its not the right way of removing userbox.

1. Warn the user that he is not allowed to put such userbox in his page
2. If he is not listening, block him for some days or consult with other admins

But this behavior from Jcb is not good, action by a crat is required, or else it will be repeated again..and such actions will destroy the community. If its from a user, there are ways to control like warning & block, If the user is an admin no action..????--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated recently somewhere else on commons, I am a close and usually silent follower of Abigor, so I have also noticed this discussion(s). I can not really comment on JCB's behaviour because I am not such a close follower of him, this is why I was a silent observer in this discussion until now. My comment is for Captainofhope: If your only input in a discussion is a repeated statement that JCB should lose his adminbit, maybe it is wise to follow my example of a non participating reader. It has no added value to repeat your opinion of what should happen next without really discussing the issues like the rest of the participants is somewhat trying to do. Wkr, Fontes (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are a silent follwer of Abigor, that doesn't make any difference unless you state some views over here (And that too bad in pointing out with your 75 edits and experience) For the message to me, Read all my 4 message once again in first 3, i never tell Jcb should removed from admin position, But the behaviour is too bad for an admin and it need to change properly.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets not start with editcounterites... Fontes is a high respected users globally, not all users have lots of edits on Wikimedia Commons but that doesn't say a thing about expierance. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Huib. I was just stating an observation and a advice, you don't have to do anything with it dear Captain. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intend, now lets get back OT! ;-) Wkr, 18:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem Fontes..Jcb clarified his comments.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship) Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Shizhao and his no-source tagging

See the June 28 and 29 categories in Category:Media without a source. There is a sudden outburst of hundreds of files tagged for "no source" by Shizhao (talk · contribs). Most of these are obviously free. I tried to contact this admin on his talk page (as have other users), but there has been no reaction. Can someone rollback his edits? Such behaviour is disruptive to the project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This problem is not new, I commented already several times on it at his user talk page, but never saw any response. I think this is quite problematic for an administrator. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a big problem to me. Let's have a look at File:Juan Esteban Cordero.jpg: "source=internet, author=internet". What's wrong with tagging it no-source? Or File:65632.jpg: "source=own work". Suuuure. Copyvio from http://www.baylor.edu/lib/poage/bullock/index.php?id=55330. --Túrelio (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I had reverted a bunch. There were ridiculous tags on digital copies of antique books, like File:Discourse Concerning the Natation of Bodies.djvu. It shows that this admin does not know what he is doing. It is making a mess, which he leaves for others to clean up. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still unsourced. Where did it come from, precisely? NVO (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's a 17th century publication and should never have been tagged with no source. A lot of good material without any licensing problem has already been lost due to erroneous use of the no source tag and subsequent lack of verification when deleting the files. If the "no source" tag is to be used in the same sense it is used in the Wikipedias then those files marked as "no source" should not be deleted anymore. Given the damage that is being done with the misuse of that tag by some people (again, not only Shizhao), I would prefer if they stopped being deleted at all, indeed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are two problematic issues here:

• Even if some are correct, many files are tagged mistakenly (e.g. File:Blakelock,_Ralph_Albert_-_Bloomingdale_Road.jpg, just one of many I saw).
• The user has not responded to our queries on his talk page, even though he has been active enough since.

--99of9 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Many good and correctly licensed images are being deleted as no source. I've restored some of them when I detected it, though I didn't went looking for them specifically. And it's not only Shizao. Obviously PD-Old, cases of no permission, cases where the files are correctly licensed but the permission field has something as "--" (the license is below, though), they all get deleted as no source. It's really worrying. :\ -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I also restored several, which were wrongly tagged again by him, without any response to my comments at his talk page. His last edit at his user talk page was when he archived it six months ago. If Shizhao doesn't start responding now, we may need to reconsider his administratorship. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the communication issue is due to a language barrier. He lists his English as en-1. I wonder if a bilingual zh speaker could help open the lines of communication? --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Communication is an issue...hope somebody else can resolve this..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, If the source mentioned is Google/Yahoo/Internet, it should be tagged as {{Copyvio}}, not as "no source" or "no permission". Yann (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

hi, there all images with no-source tagging is "source=internet" or "source=google images".--shizhao (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but with images that are PD due to age, a missing source entry is not a reason for deletion. Therefore, asking the source from the uploader would be better than tagging no-source. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And Shizhao is just acting like a bot. Even tagging files where the source is given as Internet archive. Completely clueless. I suggest that he limits himself to Chinese files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

没有来源的图像无法验证该图像是否真的是PD的图像，这可能存在潜在的版权风险。--shizhao (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Google translation: "No image can not verify the source of the image really is the PD images, which may be a potential risk of copyright." --Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the rational typical of Wikipedias, but it can't be used here. There are many material that can be visually identified as PD-Old or otherwise freely licensed, such as textlogos, shapes, etc. Marking them as "no source" for not having a source is wrong (despite the apparent contradiction).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

see File:屈原.jpg，这个图像画的是一个中国古人Qu Yuan，采用的是中国画的技法绘画，但是如果没有来源，我们无法确定这幅画是古人画的，还是现代人画的。这幅画可能是PD，也可能不是PD--shizhao (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Translation: see File: Qu Yuan. jpg, the image is a painting of ancient Chinese Qu Yuan, using the techniques of Chinese painting is painting, but without the source, we can not determine which is the ancient art of painting, or modern painting. The painting may be PD, or may not be PD-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

thx DarwIn. My translation: See File:屈原.jpg: This image is an ancient Chinese Qu Yuan，using the techniques of Chinese painting，but if no source, We can't verify which is the ancient art of painting, or modern painting. The image maybe is PD, or maybe not--shizhao (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case you correctly tagged the image as no source, it is exactly as you say. But in cases which I described above (obvious PD-OLD, textlogos, shapes, etc, it should not be used. It should not be used as well in cases which have a source which is suspected to be fraudulent. Those cases should either be sent to DR or the fraudulent info removed prior to tagging it as no source, if it is obviously false.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

have rollback some images with athour info--shizhao (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A small part. There are still hundreds of free images in the June 28 and 29 categories in Category:Media without a source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, the first artwork I looked at File:Alconiere, Tivadar - Allegoric Riding Portrait (1831 or 37).jpg. Again the author is both in the filename, the category, and the en-wiki usage! --99of9 (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that one. I really hope nobody starts cleaning that category before this mess is sorted out.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear a part images without author info--shizhao (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So you did a few more. There are plenty left. It is understandable if you are not familiar with history of Western art, but please recognize your limits. Tagging images like File:Psautier-de-Théodore.jpg for deletion is absurd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And another one File:Cleves-web.jpg, circa 1440, I think the missing ingredient here is "significant doubt". But if these images are being deleted the fault not only lies with the robot like nature of the tagging, but if such images are being deleted, the person who deletes them must take responsibility otherwise we might as well just have a bot do the deletions. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Some images, other user have add source, so I no remove nosource tag--shizhao (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean someone added a source after you added your nosource tag, but neither they nor you have removed the nosource tag?

Some people remove the no source tag when adding a source, some people assume the tagger will verify and remove the tag if satisfied. It shouldn't matter which is done, so long as the person deleting checks to see whether a "no source" tag is valid before deleting. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely share Tony Wills comment above. Bot-like deletions are even worse than bot-like tagging. Shizhao mistakes (and others as well, he's not the only one doing that, again) would not be so dangerous if there was some screening of what is tagged as no source, instead of recklessly deleting all that is in the category without the least check, as I've been seeing for some time.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Shizhao's no-source transfers

Is not it strange that the same person transfers images like File:Homosex.jpg to commons? Without any information at all! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bonjour LaLaLa

This user uploads a lot of images dated from 1900 to 1930, all sourced to various websites and almost always the authors are claimed to be anonymous. License is often given as pd-old or pd-old-100. Both licenses are invalid because it's not possible to verify the real source, some may fall under PD-US though. User seems resistant to arguments, see his actions here (see page history). --Denniss (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring, you risk getting blocked for that. Make a regular DR instead of coming here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, your alreade made Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artists impression of the Grand Staircase of the RMS Gigantic (HMHS Britannic).gif. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about this single image (not uploaded by this user in question), every single image uploaded by this user is a possible problem. --Denniss (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. And some are obvious problems: the signed images where uploader claims that the author is unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Denniss, you should know better than to get into a revert war with User:Bonjour LaLaLa -- we do not have an explicit three-revert rule, as they do at WP:EN, but you should have called for help earlier, rather than just reverting three times at File:Artists impression of the Grand Staircase of the RMS Gigantic (HMHS Britannic).gif.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Snake311

Obvious trolling against our policies COM:SCOPE: [21] (DR), [22] (DR), Talk, ...

I can't see the goal of this actions. He speaks about fundamentalists that would strike Wikimedia if we have such images. In my personal opinion we have them already invading the project. To note: The original image is from Yūrē an Japanese artist. I only see COM:POINT and some provocative, disturbing behavior. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

DJackass

The user continues to upload copyvio pictures despite information on the talk page and on the users talk page on sv.wiki. Please take appropriate action against the user. -- Tegel (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - All files deleted and final warning to end copyvios was sent. If he continues a block will be in place.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Spamming account User:Hy2200

Problably too late but probably worth blocking spammer account User:Hy2200 --Tony Wills (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Done by User:A.Savin --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandoncrabtree

Look at their user page here and at en-wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brandoncrabtree - either some personal problems or a prank. Delete all? NVO (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the userpage acc. to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#User. I don't think we need those strange X-rays, so go ahead and nominated them! a×p_de^Hello! 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For info I have deleted his userpage on en.wiki for similar reasons. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the files ... mass deletion request? a×p_de^Hello! 21:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

The user consistently reverts the tagging of images with inappropriate JPEG compression, in particular File:General boulanger.jpg and File:Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary b54 066-1.jpg, which have clearly noticeable JPEG artifacts. Moreover, for the first file he did it twice, even after I have asked him no to do so before the discussion is finished. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As it was discussed by many people on your talk page and on Village pump people are unhappy with your tagging. Lets continue this discussion on Village Pump instead of spreading it to yet another forum. --Jarekt (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here is not about my tagging in general and unhappiness of some people. I have raised a specific issue about the behavior of a specific user with respect to specific files. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No one else has a problem with his behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Several people on your user talk page and Village pump think the main problem is your behavior. Who other than you thinks that the main problem is my behavior? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't an issue about AnonMoos, it's about Mikhail Ryazanov. I, for one, gave up doing scans for this place because of his continual and unwarranted criticisms of my efforts. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Similarly. He's even objected to my uploading documents released by the Seattle Municipal Archives because they released them as JPEGs (the documents were not available in any other form).- Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kaman_Awet_Malok Using the site for webhosting

Currently Mr. Kaman Awet Malok has been squatting on the Wikimedia.org site (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kaman_Awet_Malok) and has established a website promoting himself. He is not a contributor. He has been found to be squatting at on the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaman_Awet_Malok which is being considered for deletion. He is making fraudulent claim on his behalf regarding the Lost Boys of Sudan however as noted on the Wikipedia page we know that is a falsehood. While we are attempting to delete the page at the Wikipedia site he came over here and setup a site for himself. Whack a mole? He played NO part in the making of the documentary. DeusImperator (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 It happens - sorted & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it seems that he made a film named 'Lost Boys of Sudan in Australia', or simply a local film also named 'Lost Boys of Sudan'. There are Lost Boys of Sudan associations in various countries on the planet, see [23] for Australia. No fraud, therefore, just an inaccuracy. I furthermore don't see anything wrong with telling something about yourself on your user page. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly OK for a contributor to say something about him or herself on his or her user page. It is not OK for someone who is not a contributor to create a user page and nothing else.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - the project is about those who contribute something other than self publicity. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Commons. He may have an account because he is using images elsewhere and wants a watchlist. What happened to the assumption of good faith? Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I rarely do anything without checking such things. Almost all en edits have gone. Assuming good faith is a nice touch when dealing with Commons admins too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The en:edits are gone because the page he was editing was deleted on the same grounds as above, perhaps? Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)

Please remove the "file renaming" right from the a/m user. He still doesn't seem to understand the file renaming guideline, despite that his file renames have been discussed here and/or on COM:AN before and he seems just as incivil about it before. --  Docu  at 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? --99of9 (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Search/Kintetsubuffalo prefix:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and [24]. --  Docu  at 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to go back through closed archives, but I agree that Kintetsubuffalo did not follow the rename rules in the specific case Docu mentions. His clarified reasons "wrong proper nouns or false historical dates" both seem false (moved File:Gordon Chang 24May10 300.jpg to File:Gordon G. Chang May 24 2010.jpg). Apparently it wasn't just a slip, as he removed Docu's comment with an incivil dismissal when notified. I  Support removal of filemover status until he acknowledges and commits to following the existing policy. Kintet, if you disagree with the policy (as you seem to), you need to obtain consensus for change before simply taking action.--99of9 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing I watchlisted this page, because nobody bothered to tell me of this discussion, which would by the way be the civil thing to do. User:Docu has objected to my having the right since the day I got it, and there was no civility in the way they notified me (tacking "please" onto pedantry makes it no less pedantry), so no civility was returned. It was just badgering for the sake of badgering. There are in fact two notable Gordon Changs on Wikipedia, author w:Gordon G. Chang, and professor w:Gordon H. Chang, and I was following policy by correcting the proper noun. It was a clean move, there was no need for nitpicking, just some look for an excuse to nitpick. I have no problem with the policies and implement them as closely as I understand them. This falls within that range. If some have it out for me, nothing I can do about it, but I need not be civil in the face of incivility.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to confuse file naming at Commons and article titles in Wikipedia. Nothing in Commons:File renaming suggest that you should rename other people's files to fit en.Wikipedia.

BTW It seems impossible to post on your talk page, as people just get insulted and reverted. This makes it difficult to notify you there about anything. --  Docu  at 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One can hardly say that these moves are perfect illustrations of the Commons renaming rules, nor is his temper when critics are issued. --Foroa (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User with many problematic uploads

This user has uploaded a ton of copyvios - I noticed two high-quality photos of a critically endangered snake grabbed from random websites. Not sure if any of his photos are legit, but lots look like they're just snagged from the internet. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it...-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Between me, Lymantria and Artem we managed to detect and delete the most obvious copyvios, and the user has been warned. At least 2 images seem to be legitimate (the older ones). The rest should possibly be deleted as well, since the license is unreliable.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note. He has the same problems in the ruwiki (I am a sysop there). And probably someone should look at his contributions at enwiki as well as he also uploaded a number of images there. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The user confirmed that all images uploaded by him except Image:Technics Техникс.JPG, Image:Часы Mercedes-Benz 2.JPG and Image:Часы Mercedes-Benz.JPG are not free. So his contribution must be deleted without hesitation. Somebody should also inform enwiki sysops. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted all except those three. -- Cecil (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Another user with lots of copyvios

This user just seems to be grabbing images from the web and uploading them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it... *sigh*-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, all copyvios, as you said. I have not deleted this one: File:Terremoto de Ambato 1949.jpg since copyright laws in Ecuador are unclear, and it may be public domain. I've sent it to DR instead. Thank you very much for reporting this issue.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Abigor

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

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

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

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

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

• Abigor (talk · contribs)
• AbiBot (talk · contribs)
• AbiBot.nl.wiki (talk · contribs)
• Huib (talk · contribs)
• Huib (old) (talk · contribs)
• Sterkebak (talk · contribs)
• SterkeBak (talk · contribs)
• [realname of Abigor removed --AFBorchert (talk)]
• Delay (talk · contribs)
• Delay1 (talk · contribs)
• Bottleneck (talk · contribs)
• Miss-Art (talk · contribs)
• Thunderflash (talk · contribs) - uploaded copyvio picture File:Sky_above_Charatte..jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attack removed.[25] The Accounts Huib, Sterkebak [realname of Abigor removed --AFBorchert (talk)] Etc etc are all old accounts, not socks, everybody knows them and there was a message about those on my userpage at the time I still had a userpage. Currently they are just used to make a big deal about something. There is no rule on WikiMedia that says you cant switch accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I propose an indef block on Delay and Delay1. Elekhh has shown evidence that Delay has uploaded one of Huib's images. So this is either a sockpuppet (denied above and thus unacknowledged), or someone else pretending to be a sockpuppet (and stealing images). Either way these accounts are violating policy and should not be allowed to continue. --99of9 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

See this. --Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

More connections: User Delay also uploaded File:Solarpanel.jpg which I first thought is a simple copyvio from here as the metadata was indicating the same creation date in 2008. Upon further scrutiny however the file uploaded by Delay, unlike the one on the website, contains in its metadata Author:[removed --AFBorchert (talk)], one of Abigor/Huib's old accounts. --ELEKHH^T 07:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7485923-solaranlage.php this photo was contributed by Daniel Schoenen... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, deleted. Blatant copyvio of a commercial photograph with Exif data falsified to look as if [realname of Abigor removed --AFBorchert (talk)] was the author.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is there really absolute certainty that Abigor and Delay are the same accounts? File:Solarpanel.jpg is such a stupid forgery that I find quite strange that someone who has this level of skill would do such a thing. It stinks of false flag operation. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, I personally find this edit quite strange, but will not read too much into it for now.

Again, I'm still saying they are trying to set me up here :/ Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC) See here:

• Checkuser results on Thunderflash: ( http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Sokpoppen&diff=prev&oldid=26014072) It isn't a clear case, there are some things that make it look like me, there are things that doesn't show it is me.
• Checkuser results on Delay: (http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Sokpoppen&diff=prev&oldid=25829119) Conclussion: NO socks found, after that the Admin trijnstel decided that I should be blocked because off the exif data.

Its clear to me that they are trying to do everything to get me blocked and they have done so for the last years. Also user:Miss-Art did like 4 edits on Dutch Wikipedia and got checkusered two years later, that isn't even possible cuz the data isn't stored that long. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment *I* never decided to block Abigor/Delay etc.; it was another admin who blocked all the accounts. I only blocked Miss-Art, as it was already known that it was an account he used (and it was forgotten I guess in the long list of sockpuppets). Another thing: Huib didn't show all the results: this was indeed the first reaction of checkuser André Engels, but this was the sequel of it and that confirmed the sockpuppetry. With the second checkuser it wasn't the question whether Delay and Abigor sockpuppets were or if Delay had more sockpuppets; the CU checked if 62.195.94.106 (an IP which editted on an article Delay created - about that "Eva Krap") could be linked to Delay. The answer was no, but that doesn't mean 62.195.94.106 and Delay know eachother (possibly meatpuppets). I hope I explained it right. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Treinstel, you are only making a fool of yourself. You couldn't link the IP to my account, how in earth could I edit with two IP's at the same time? You checked my IP's talked to the checkuser so you must know I use Ziggo and Tele2 IP's, I have some rental IP's from my company, they are all LeaseWeb's (kind of nice to use when EvoSwitch is having trouble) The IP you stated is UPC Amsterdam, I don't leave there... I don't used it... And I can't be in Amsterdam and Utrecht at the same time. You just told here that you blocked on base of something you think that could have happend.. And didn't follow any facts. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I said "meatpuppets", for that you don't need to stay in both places, that means you could know the other person. And as I said, 62.195.94.106 is not the IP adress of Delay. You could've worked with him/her while you were with hem/her on the phone, mail, social media, et cetera. And I didn't block "Miss-Art" on base of something I thought, I was sure about it and it was already known it's an account you used in the past. Btw, you admitted on this page that you know Eva Krap, as you called her "your girlfriend", so with all respect, who's making a fool of himself now? I only act (read: block, delete, protect) if I'm totally sure about something and that was the case here. Trijnstel (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ow I am making a fool of my self because I don't like the fact that there is a picture on Wikimedia Commons of my girlfriend? I'm sure most guys here don't want the girlfriends, boyfriends, babies or family here on Commons without any consent.

I got a e-mail saying hey your girlfriend is on commons sure as hell I reacted and deleted the picture, I nor Eva did give any permission for the use of this file. If that is the problem? I will do it again and again, this is normal behavior. I don't give any shit of people misusing my photographs here on Commons, Wikipedia or whatever. But when you get my family involved its personal and I don't give a shit about any rules anymore and more... I will do it again and again when its needed.

So, if you believe I'm getting myself in a mess here, its your problem... Someone is setting me up here, and I hope for that person I will never meet him, cuz he will be sure he ever started this. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 21:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So you admit that you wipe your ass with the policies? Jcb (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If it comes to my family? Yes, I will wipe my ass with every policy I can find if its needed to protect my family. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy clearly should not be an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @Abigor - Do you realize that this statement, far more than anything written above, disqualifies you as an administrator? Your have sufficient knowledge of the project to be able to resolve such things without causing the appearance of admin abuse. You could e.g. explain the situation to a non-involved admin at IRC and if the situation is as clear as you suggest, he/she will be willing to speedy delete the file. We are not working as egos, but as a community. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I know what I'm saying, and I'm sure everybody will do the same, or at least think about it...

To get it clear, what policy did I break? I deleted a file here on Commons that wasn't in use. The file was a personal picture with no encyclopedic valeu, this makes it offtopic or out of scope. Its common practice to deleted those on sight. So didn't I just follow the policy? Or is there a new policy I don't know about that says I need to nominated every picture and keep it open for seven days that fits the speedy deletion policy?

Get the facts straight... No policy is broken. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There is more. A personal attack on MoiraMoira (now removed by someone else) and wishing that someone would be in hell forever. I asked him to retract, which he refused, see User talk:Abigor#Please do not make personal attacks. Completely unfit to be an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Abigor falsely claims to be an admin at Meta and doesn't respond to a notification of that error at his user talk page. Jcb (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And he didn't delete File:EvaKrap.jpg because of "out of scope", but because of "copyrightviolation". Funny fact is that Abigor uploaded a previous photo of Eva Krap himself: File:Eva Krap.jpg. So I'm wondering why he says he (nor Eva) gave permission to upload the image... Trijnstel (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The original version (File:EvaKrap.jpg) was uploaded by Delay on nl-wiki btw and I transfered it to Commons. Trijnstel (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The image Abigor uploaded himself is exactly the same as the image he deleted to "protect his family" - WTF does this user want to reach with his obviously false claims? Jcb (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Abigor yesterday tried to get his admin@meta restored, using a lie, see also here. Whatever this user states, the default situation seems to be that he's lying. In the past at NL.wikipedia he repeatedly accused user:RonaldB of blocking him, forcing unblocks of IPs by stating that the IP block exempt at his account didn't work. He wasted a lot of time of the community that tried to find out why his IP block exempt didn't work. Finally we found out that the IP block exempt was perfectly working and that user Abigor falsified block messages to make us believe that he couldn't edit from his account. What to do with this user? I really don't see any reason to trust him anymore as an administrator. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So, when somebody is wrong he lies? I thought I had deleted edits, I asked about it and I lie? Get a live...

Shut up or start a de-sysop but stop wasting community time. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This could be a mistake if you were a good faith user, but the story about the Eva crap and the falsified block messages tell something different. There may come a desysop procedure, but as long as it isn't there you may also use the opportunity to show us that you can also behave in an acceptable way. Also you may choose to withdraw yourself. Jcb (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Abigor is no longer an admin at Meta and should correct the tag. I'm very disappointed with behavior in this discussion. From Abigor/Huib (don't like the obfuscation of the true username with the signature using a different name) I see the following comments: "Please go to hell and never come back", "you are only making a fool of yourself", "I will wipe my ass with every policy", and "Shut up or start a de-sysop". Any standard user would see a block for such comments. Out of scope files are normally subjected to a deletion request. Only pages are subject to speedy deletion for such a status, at least for anyone following Commons:Deletion policy. So I see a blatant disregard for policy (not merely mistaken violation of it) and offensive comments toward others (even another admin). If any of the rest of the above is true, well that's pretty bad. – Adrignola talk 01:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor (de-adminship) - Jcb (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You did great work

Dear Abigor.

You did a lot of good work and I still cannot figure out if you did all the bad things you were accused off or if someone else was behind some of the accounts to make you look bad.

But before I got to a final conclusion things got out of hand for you and finally you asked for your rights to be removed. So there is no point of discussing anything more about this.

However I think in this case you were not the only admin that failed. I hope some will feel ashamed tomorrow when they have thought more about it.

I wish you the best!

--MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Socking by Abigor

I didn't see a point of bringing up the socking because Abigor was blocked. I was surprised to see edits by Abigor today. I'm talking about this. What are we going to with this? Multichill (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to leave it for now. User has been blocked for a few days after. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been seen before that admins are allowed to make a few "oopses" when they are reported on COM:AN, in a desysop etc. so I think the same should apply to Huib. Especially because Huib has very few bad edits on Commons. It seems that nl-wiki may have a problem with him but that is not out problem.

So I suggest a warning is enough this time:

• No more socks or IP-edits.
• No attacks on other users.

And if that is held then we are all happy? --MGA73 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Abigor#CU says Abigor abused sockpuppets. I'm requesting indefinite block for Abigor. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - A.S. 09:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the huge amount of good work Abigor has done here, but if I am understanding correctly, checkuser has proven that he's created vandal accounts and account names which publicize users' real-life identities. Wow. Even if only done on other projects, still Wow. And Tiptoety alluded to more sockpuppets here. Unless I missed something, I have to sadly  Support this indefblock. There is no return from those depths in my opinion. Wknight94 ^talk 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, given the CU results on Meta this user should remain infinitely blocked. In general, it is true that a ban on other project(s) is not alone a reason for a block here on Commons. But since there were things like vandalism, harrasments or similar, it is likely that something like that may repeat here. Should Abigor have the intention for productive work on Commons or other projects, a completely new account is the best way. - A.S. 14:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block. I am not sure what happened, but the two accounts made no contributions at all. I believe the editor should be unblocked now, and given the opportunity to explain himself. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

← Of relevance: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Delay. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I do not know what to think, but let's say Delay is a sock of Abigor. Here's FP nomination made by Delay. The nominated image was taken from Abigor Flickr account. As you could see neither suspected socks nor Abigor himself voted for this FP. I still believe that if Abigor promises not to make socks, watch over his family members using the same IP, he should be given just one more last chance to make positive contributions. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm more worried that, according to checkuser, he is creating user names "so grossly insulting/harassing that [they] got oversighted", and according to someone else, also created user names to reveal real-life information about people. I've been targeted by that level of harassment, and people like that should not be allowed on any Wikimedia projects. Wknight94 ^talk 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here Abigor stated very clearly a list which was, according to him, a complete list of all his accounts. If there appear to be more accounts used by him besides that, no matter for what purpose, that would mean he lied during the de-admin procedure, and that would be to me enough for an indefinite block. I'm sorry, but lying is several steps too far for me. However, the evidence should be sound and clear of course, and I will leave that up to the very capable (unfortunately very practiced) checkusers. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support indef block on Abigor, either for what he did in meta - creating an user account which was both grossly insulting and at same time revealed personal details about one of his nemesis - which has been matched against Abigor and a second sockpuppet of him with 100% confirmation; and for what he did here in Commons with Delay, using that account to upload a blatant copyvio with faked EXIF info aattributing the work of another person to himself. I must recall as well that Abigor grossly lied during the Eva Krap affair, inventing a new version for that story each time the previous version was proven to be a lie, and miisled the community during his de-admin request with the use of open proxies to simulate third parties supporting him. This user clearly don't belongs to this community.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support indef block on Abigor, agree with Darwin --Neozoon (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support It's not normal to hear "sockpuppets" next to an admin's name or any user. This is my only account and my work here is just fine. --ZooFari 00:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Abigor says he did not make these accounts. It is hard to believe that a reasonable user, who just recently was an administrator on a few wikipedias would make socks. Maybe he could be given another chance, please, with the condition that CU would be performed on him every week? If Abigor has some real enemies, he could have been set up. For example, if he edits from an Internet cafe, somebody could have made these socks from there.I know it sounds as a crazy conspiracy theory, but after my own email account was hacked by somebody from wikipedia, after I got an email from an impersonator of a member of ArbCom, I am no longer surprised by anything.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I initially also considered the hypothesis of Abigor being framed up, but it really doesn't hold any water. Abigor has been caught intentionally lying again and again and again (see Eva Krap, for instance), and the whole, evidence is just too much. At this point, it doesn't matter to me whatever he says. If you live in Wessex and hear hoof beats outside your house, then it probably is not a zebra. See also Occam's razor. Besides, he was already a problematic user when he was "elected" as admin, to the point that he wasn't really elected, but rather allowed to serve as admin on a conditional basis. Strangely enough, there is no mention at all of this episode when he applied again to adminship with his new sockpuppet/identity/whatever, Abigor. This is nothing new, really, neither is new his fondness of sockpuppetry.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• A representative of the WMF has just confirmed that Abigor officially linked his identification to the Delay account with the WMF, so a new set of blatant lies from Abigor has just surfaced. I sincerely hope that on the face of all this there's nobody still defending Abigor's unblock. And it is never too much to remember again that the Delay account was used here to upload at least one copyvio stealing others work and faking the EXIF info to make it appear as an Abigor photograph. Commenting on this episode, Abigor consistently said that he was not Delay and was being "framed up", though recently he changed his line (as usual), claiming that the Delay account is in fact a shared account, though he never used it. All lies.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support with sadness but the facts are now overwhelming. I've just blocked User:SterkeBak as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support indef. Abigor has violated just about every policy on multiple wikis. He has a really long incivility streak and used his adminship on multiple wikis to go after other people. An indef is a good start to fixing the problems that he started. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support indef block. Per Ottava Rima. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Block or unblock of Abigor

Abigor/Huib was until recently an admin on Commons but now he is blocked infinite. What did he do to deserve this?

He made himself unpopular on nl-wiki so he is blocked there. The users on lb-wiki decide if he should be blocked there so nothing to say about that.

But normally we would not care what users do on Wikipedia. We evaluate users on their actions on Commons. But users on nl-wiki reported him on Commons and later on Meta. Then after a short discussion where Abigor and probably also a few other users said and did something that was not best practice Abigor was blocked.

If we block and ban all users that say or do something stupid then the block would be perfectly ok. But I have had arguments with a few other admins and I have seen comments like “stupid”, “moron”, “piss off” and they were not blocked for that and many users even thought they should not have a warning for these comments. We even allowed a user to call an admin a pedophile and when the user was blocked it was removed shortly after.

So what else did Abigor do? He had more than one account: Some old accounts and some bot accounts. Furthermore some additional accounts are likely his accounts (but not all are 100 % surely his). Most of us agree that users should not use more than one account (with the exception of bot accounts). But what if a user has 2 accounts and makes good contributions from both of them? Should we block the user for that? I would not be surprised if some of you knows users that have a secret account whithout doing anything about it.

Personally I think we should block users if they make personal attacks and vandalism. But normally we start with a short block and if user keeps doing bad behavior after block expires then a now and longer block is made. Infinite blocks are not normal procedure for first time offences.

So I would like us to have a look on what Abigor and his socks and his likely socks did that could justify an infinite block.

Some of you may think “Why waste more time?” The answer is because if we do not reach concensus (or close to) then this will keep showing up and we will waste even more time. And if we do not have a clear argument to exactly what Abigor do to get blocked then we would just have the discussion next time a “good user” says something stupid in a dispute.

So my question are:

1. What did Abigor do on Commons that could be called bad behavior?
2. What are normal “punishment” for that behavior?
3. And what is then a good block period (if any) for what Abigor did?

While we discuss this I suggest that Abigor is unblocked so he can Comment. It is possible to transclude his comments in this discussion but it makes it more complicated. Personally I find it unlikely that he will vandalize or harm Commons while this discussion take place because it would ruin his chance to return if he does. --MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What Abigor did wrong at Commons has been pointed out over and over again. (see e.g. this comment by a non-NL Commons administrator). I agree with DarwIn that we should remove the permission for Abigor to edit his talk page, so that he stops bothering us with unblock requests bathed in lies. Jcb (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you do not comment to much on Abigor. It could easily look as "pay back" for his desysop request of you and that will only complicate this discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what it may look like to whoever, I'm just free to comment on it. Jcb (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Also if it starts to look like stalking? --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we don't share the same definition of stalking. Jcb (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You made fun of his wife/girlfriend and called her "Crap" instead of "Krap" and when he removed it you report him to AN! So let me ask you: What would you do if I called your whife/GF "Bitch"? --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See reply at the other board. Also my dictionary doesn't know 'bitch' as a meaning of 'crap'. Jcb (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again you use every chance to avoid to reflect on your own mistakes. If Abigor gets upset that you write "Eva crap" then it was a mistake to do so. I asked you if you would be upset if I called your girl "Bitch" and you avoid to answer - probably because that you did not want to admit that you would do just like Abigor: Remove the comment. You made an edit that he took as a personal attack and re removed it. You would have done the same if you have read a comment as a personall attack on you! --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An off topic side note: I've heard she's not his girlfriend anymore for a while (quite the opposite atm...). Trijnstel (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But even if they are not together I think it is unfair to blame Huib if he gets upset and remove that comment :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just posted to AN a small, non exhaustive resume about what Abigor has done wrong here at Commons when you reopened the issue here. All the actions I describe there relate to Commons. Besides all that, which IMO more than justify on itself indefinite block, he was very poor as an Admin. Between applying indef blocks to newbies minutes after warned them for the first time, deleting PD-old images (with a stated source!) as "no source", and closing PEs with completely absurd reasoning, there's not much to cry upon for his miss. And I'm not even talking about the privacy disclosures he has an habit to do about people he doesn't like, on meta and other projects, the last one being the sockpuppet created on meta for that effect, which led to his indef block there and a serious proposal for global lock. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You could say "reopened" but I desided that it was best to keep the discussion in one place and since it started on "AN/UP" I kept it there (it was not archived).

I find your comments about his edits as an admin relevant in a desysop request but he is no longer an admin. Even if we do not want him to be an admin he could be a good regular user. If you check his uploads you will notice that he has many good uploads.

If you check above there is only a handfull of block votes and I think we should have a lot more before we indef block a user (unless it is a vandalism account only). --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The mention to your reopening was not meant to be taken as a criticism, but as a mere statement of fact. Indeed, it will possibly better if the other topic could be merged into this one. The reference to his bad work as an admin is indeed irrelevant to his indef block, but all the damage he has done trough socketpuppetry, deceitfulness and lies is not. And it happened here in Commons and matters to Commons.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been told that sock = indefblock on many Wikipedias and if we have same "rule" here then there is no need to discuss anymore. However, I would like to point to a discussion I started here MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown#Abusing multiple accounts. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have such a rule, and for ages Abigor paraded part of his sock zoo in the open, and it was tolerated. What is wrong is the abuse he has done using socks, such as lying about being the sockpuppet of another Commons account in his RfA, lying about owning the Delay account, using the Delay account to create a problem which was then used by the Abigor account to create disruption posing as the victim of the very problem he created, using the Delay account to nominate his own files to QI posing as a third party, using the delay account to upload and nominate to QI a copyvio faked to appear as Abigor work, using open proxies to fake support on his edit wars, and so on and so on and so on. It's more than enough to get rid of this person for good without thinking twice.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lucas koche

This user seems to be uploading a lot of images to Commons without valid source, author, a good description, category or even a useful file name. Almost all of them seems to be {{Out of scope}} as well. Not sure how to deal with these images. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Deleted them all. Most were symbols or equations that should be set using TeX. Two were duplicates of existing material. I left the user an explanatory note -- trying to be welcoming while having just deleted his or her first twenty contributions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Masur's blocking behavior

I became aware of the arbitrary blocks by admin Masur (talk · contribs) when he blocked me for removing unwarranted problem tags. He also removed my talk page access, something he does by default (see his block log. I notified him of COM:BLOCK, which says in bold that blocked users should be allowed to edit their talk pages. Yet today, Masur did it again, blocking Willyvice (talk · contribs), without notice, and also removing edit access to his talk page. This person should not have the block buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the block accordingly to allow the user to edit his own talk page as suggested; I can clearly see why Masur didn't do that in the first place, most probably feeling slightly offended. I agree that Masur shouldn't have removed talk page access—I'll inform him about that. Regards, odder (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you for your intervention. Habits from pl-wiki, if I can use it as excuse. Will know what to do in future! Cheers. Masur (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And Again User:Fastily...

Please, administrators and other user, say here who is fool, vandal or incompetency user - he or me? (If it is me write me why). He again, again, again nominated for deleteing another file under US-1923 license. File:View of Piermont, NH.jpg He wanna deleted this file, again as the files. I am not US citizen but I know All published things before 1923 is under PD. He is admin but he doesn't know such the simple Laws. :( Please, Help! --Pauk (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:deletion requests/File:View of Piermont, NH.jpg

While I would not have nominated the image for deletion, User:Pauk's report above of this DR does not describe it well. Fastily's reason for deletion is that there is no way to verify that the postcard is, as claimed, from 1913 and therefore PD-1923. There is no indication whatever that Fastily does not understand the law, simply that he does not believe that this image fits it.

I do not think this is a question of a "fool, vandal or incompetent user" -- simply a disagreement, something we have often -- far too often, in fact. Fastily looks at the image and sees a photograph with no date or photographer and thinks it might be unpublished and therefore still in copyright. I look at a photograph that is in the shape of a postcard, is a typical postcard scene of a town street, and has no automobiles and think that it is a pre-1923 postcard. I disagree with his assessment, but that's all.

Our rule is clear that where there is significant doubt, we should delete. The subject DR certainly falls within the ordinary scope of things we do. If Pauk wants to complain about this one, then perhaps he or she should complain about many more DRs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Comrade Jameslwoodward, I don't want to complain. I only moved free files from Wikipedias to Commons. :) Sorry for my hot words (fool, vandal or incompetency user) but it is not first time. Say me about "normal" source for 1910s photos? Or any user thinks about it is postcard 1990s or 2000s? Absurdly... --Pauk (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant doubt. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the standard for deletion is that the community should have significant doubt. That isn't the standard for creating a DR -- I've created a DR when I'm 50/50 about an image, to gather other opinions. One of our colleagues -- no one in this thread -- has created scores of DRs about logos that are marginally PD-text logo -- I think they're a minor nuisance, but I haven't brought him or her here for chastisement. We should not be discouraging users from creating DRs that may be marginal, except, perhaps, by a friendly note on the user's talk page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A misleading DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vespas Night Club in Funchal.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it was probably mistaken, but "misleading" would require intentional deception which I don't believe for a minute and Pieter Kuiper certainly can't prove. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I felt mislead by the DR when I later looked at the other images that he had nominated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Saibo (talk · contribs)

over and over claims that I would try to censor commons. Similar thing in other deletion disussions. If he cannot discuss without personal assaults, he should leave it.

I would appreciate that this user ceases to publish his (false) opinion about others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In Saibo's defence, you do seem to pop up on most deletion requests regarding partial nudity to say the image in question is useless and out of scope. Oh, and I've informed Saibo about this topic. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling this a personal assault seems quite extreme, and demanding that someone not offer their opinion where it is relevant is rude.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@mattbuck: Where have I said that a picture is "useless"? Am I not allowed to participate in DR just because they are - as pointed out - blurry, redundant, and of questionalbe scope?

Finally, it does matter how you are calling others, just saying that "it is my opinion" is ridiculous - "you are an idiot" would not be an assault anymore, as this is always an opinion and for the attacker maybe not quite extrem enough.

Arguments matter, not how I see or call others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Then stop deleting his vote from that page and respond to his arguments. Deleting his vote is a clear example of censorship, by the way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'll note on that very deletion request, you say "I do understand that you cannot give some facts.", which is opinion about the person, not argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather say: Ignoring my concerns is a clear example of censorhip. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not censorship, because we aren't silencing you. We aren't even ignoring you; we're responding to your objections, although we don't agree with them.

Since you chose to ignore part of my last argument (Ah! Censorship!) I'll expand and repeat it. In that very deletion request you say that another editor cannot give some facts, which isn't about the argument; it's about the person. You fail to apply your own rules to your own behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By reverting me you are silencing my concerns, which of course could also be interpreted as "response".

In your single (!) example I had the impression that no arguments have been provided - but of course it is always easier to claim others "censors" or fullfiling some agendas. Or have I censored commons at some point? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikrazuul, you just makes your case worst here. Please stop argumenting uselessly, and (re)read COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mumohdunais (talk · contribs)

Can someone handle the images please? Too many copyvios being added. I've left an end of copyvio warning after another copyvio upload subsequent to initial warnings. I haven't been able to find sources for two images but given the rest I'm guessing they could be deleted too. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- mostly. There are only two images left, both of which have {{No permission since}} tags from two days ago. They look like problems, but Tineye did not turn up a source.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry in conjunction with Take 5 related copyvios

Hello!

I have the suspicion that the accounts Tsting123 (talk · contribs) and Tjsngh02 (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person. Within a few hours, both uploaded a comparable (copyvio) image and included it in the EN article, first as file:Take5.jpg‎, then as File:Take 5.jpg‎. T*02 has other copyvio-probable music related files in his uploads. The username patterns are similar, so I think that there may be enough evidence for further investigations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmed and blocked 1 week/infinite. --Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)