Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
Administrator's assistance

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
(edit | watch)
User problems
(edit | watch)
Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)
Other
(edit | watch)

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


Note

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


SiBr4 and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Therealori (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

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

FlavioThiago[edit]

Hi,

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

Portrait uploads by User:Moaminsco[edit]

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

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

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

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

Yes check.svg Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • ✓ Done Sockpuppet is sockpuppet. So, yes: Label attached to forehead. :) All three user blocked, uploads nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Could have sworn there actually were four (not just the repeated one), but I think I'm subconciously post-rationalising my mistake. :-O
Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppettry from user:rolandodeynigo[edit]

I strongly suspect the user rolandodeynigo of using sock puppets :

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

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

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

User:Yann[edit]

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

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

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

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

Copyrights violation[edit]

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

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

Copyright[edit]

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

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

User:Yann by Eleassar[edit]

Hi, does anyone else besides User:Yann consider this sculptural work "too simple to get a copyright"? Yann concluded for a number of files that they're too simple to be copyrighted in the past, but it was later proven that they're not. I think this casts serious doubt on his judgement about what is simple and what not. It's not the first time that he acts provocatively in regard to the DRs that I open (see e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) And he seems to be very persistent about the grudge that he keeps against me.[6] I don't understand why and I also don't understand why he likes it so much to be discussed at this page. In my opinion, if he is not capable to close DRs impartially, he should refrain from closing them. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

106.69.139.31[edit]

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

Sockpuppetry by serial copyright violator Lloydbaltazar[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved

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

So I suppose I can take it that there is nothing actionable here? Perhaps you should consider the contribs of this copyright violator that are still not deleted yet. I don't want the project to be liable for the infringement. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is Time2wait.svg Stale. Problematic uploads can be addressed with normal deletion requests. Please use COM:RFCU if new accounts are suspected. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hypergio (talk · contribs) mass-creating deletion discussions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Эрманарих[edit]

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

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

User:Pocketthis[edit]

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

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

User:Andy king50 and watermark 'policy'[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:LTPhotoforWebsite.jpg (en) deleted by Fastily[edit]

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

Thank you,

ProductionFan

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

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

Dear Permissions-Commons:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

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


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