Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: [[:]]

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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 which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~64
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-05: ~46

Other:

• Duplicates: ~9
• Advertisements/spam: ~3
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~43
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~15

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~57
• Interface admin: ~19
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~36
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

This page is for any user to report a problem with a user. Please feel free to post a new request. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note, so that other admins don't waste time responding to it.

Download A .SVG File?

moved to Commons:Village pump#Download A .SVG File? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Editor at Large (talk • contribs) at 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions by Leit

This admin doesn't follow our deletion policy and speedy deleted a lot of in scope images as superseded or "better image available". This is clearly against policy. Also see User talk:Leit#Map deletions and User talk:Multichill#Stop your actions. Opinions please. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Over a lot of years I used to delete images like this map image. As an example, this image was initially uploaded on March 20, 2005 to de.wikipedia and later transferred to commons. The author of the image is User:Rauenstein. Now, several years later he replaced this image with File:Grambow in NWM.png based on the same sources requests the old, now orphaned image to be deleted. There's no attribution path affected by the deletions. As already mentioned this case is only an example for houndreds of deletions of those locator maps. In the past there has never been an argument about my deletions of replaced map images. There has been a dispute on some other cases of map deletions but not about the deletion of replaced images.--Leit (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality? Do you understand it? Multichill (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm surely aware of the the Commons deletion guidelines. I suppose the "case by case" deletion was implemented to prevent the probable abuse of speedy deletions. This treatment is justified for normal images like photographs because each image has to be checked for itself. However, there are thome cases of mass deletions which come again and again – like the deletion of replaced locator maps. In practice those images have been speedy deleted for at least the last three years because a "case by case" deletion was unneccessary as each map had to be treaten the same way. There has been no dispute on the deletion of replaced locator maps since there's no loss of information or attribution path. It's a decision that has been made once and then executed over and over.--Leit (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have two or more similar maps of (for example) Rehna in NWM on commons. Because there will be some amalgamations in four days, new maps had to be drawn. If there are two or more maps in commons (e.g. at decision of "keeping" the old maps), it is possible that the wrong versions will be inserted in the articles of Wikipedia. There is no alternative for deletion of the old ones. So, why this bureaucracy? Perhaps it will be better for the future to load new versions over the old files, to prevent this indifferences. -- Niteshift (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a really good idea already practised on File:Biendorf in DBR.png. If there's no other solution we should ask Rauenstein and other map creators to simply overwrite the old maps. But the formerly deleted images still shouldn't be restored since there's actually no reason.--Leit (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen speedy deletions being abused in the past, e.g. with national flags that were "superseeded" by SVG files, which turned out to be wrong, artistically poor in quality, and have a copyright claim on them. Speedy deletion is not meant for this sort of replacements - Nerdie (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Niteshift & Leit: There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy! Perhaps you do not understand what kind of project this is. This is a project where people work together, and on this project the community makes the decisions. Administrators are only here to perform what the community has decided: a deletion policy. So you aren't allowed to set your own rules, but you are obligated to follow the decisions which the community takes: the deletion policy (is one of them). I hope that isn't too difficult to understand?

I fully support the reaction of Nerdie. There are too many administrators who do not understand what kind of consequences their actions have. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, even the speedy deletion itself is a kind of bureaucracy. I don't think such general statements help us on. Of course I respect the community decisions. Even more I respect the requests of the authors and uploaders of the 4.5 million files on the Commons project concerning their "own" (I know, it's free license) files.--Leit (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The deletion of PNG and GIF files replaced by SVG ones has been totally abused (not only the speedy deletion). But the maps are something different and this special case justifies a speedy deletion. It's the same author of both files and neither there's a questionning of the quality of the new image nor there's an attribution path affected. Neither it's about replacing a file format with a controversial new one.--Leit (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it seems clear to me that

1. Leit sincerely believed these deletions to have been obvious and uncontroversial, and
2. Multichill disagrees.

Thus, given that controversy has been demonstrated to exist, I would say the right way to proceed now would be to undo the deletions, for the time being, and file a mass deletion request at COM:DR where the matter can be discussed — with the possibility, should a clear consensus emerge, for a precedent to be codified at COM:DP. (I'm willing to do the undeletion and file the request, if there are no objections, and if Multichill would be so kind as to let me know which deletions he objects to; e.g. "all files deleted by Leit since date X".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it crazy to restore a huge number of old files deleted in 2007 or 2006 which nobody needs any more since they are replaced by identical but better ones? Are you really sure that makes sense? Furthermore, an accurate restoring would take weeks or even more because there are very different cases of deletions. Some deletions of map images were those of really duplicated images or of images deleted due to incorporations and name changes. Of course mass restoring isn't the way to go. Do you first want "case to case restoring" and then "case to case deletion" of houndreds of images?--Leit (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I was assuming all the contested deletions were recent. If it goes that far back it could be a problem. IMHO, once a file has been deleted for several weeks without complaints, however wrongheaded and out-of-process the deletion might have been, that should count as the status quo and any disagreements should be taken to COM:UNDEL. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, I think if a new image is of manifestly superior quality to another, and includes no elements that the other does not, there is no problem in deleting the old low-quality one. Such media should never be used, even if they are not technically exact duplicates. On the other hand, if the old image is merely similar, and not the same (a different crop, more detail in dark regions or light regions, etc.) then both should be kept. On the other hand, if someone objects to a deletion of a low quality version, chances are they have a reason and it should be restored anyway. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can make people at the wikies more mad than mistakes on commons. Commons are more or less hated at many wikies because of "deletion-madness".

We have to be damn sure before we delete anything. When images are deleted they are either replaced or removed at the wikies by the delinker. So If we delete by mistake and restore then the damage is hard to revert. In my view we have to follow the rules and policies that are decided. We shall not make our own because we do not loike the rules/policies. I agree that admins should not be above the policies.

In my view we should not have maps that are wrong. If they were right at the time (or belived to be right) then they could be interessting to keep. If the uploader made a mistake then a correct version could be uploaded on top but if someone thinks he/she can do better then simply make a new file. Work to get all wikies to use the new file and then the old one can be deleted when it is unused and has been approved for deletion. People should have a chance to oppose a deletion so no speedy deletions in my view. --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The story is quite simple. Leit, Rauenstein and co., have certain opinions how maps should look like. The deletion of maps they don't like is basically a convenient way to enforce their opinion. Maps looking differently are unwanted, since somebody could use them. The above examples show this very nicely (File:Grambow in NWM.PNG, File:Grambow in NWM.png). One could argue that the new map looks better, but I prefer certain features of the "superseded" one. Since the hard drive space is already used up the only reason to hide one from normal users can be that the categories the maps are in are to crowded. But this clearly is not the case. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Full ACK MGA73. There is no good reason to restore old deleted pics that will confuse others. In addition only persons should judge about that maps who have some experience or knowledge about that specific topic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

@Cwbm: have certain opinions how maps should look, maps they don't like. Well, the maps I deleted are all from User:Rauenstein. And the new maps are from User:Rauenstein, too. So you think he wants to destroy his own images deliberately? It's not a fight about how maps should look like. It's very stupid to have two or more different maps for each municipality because these maps have often to be updated when there are incorporations and other changes which must be considered. Who does this hard work for houndreds of new additional old maps? Maybe you? Otherwise these old maps become orphaned and provide wrong information very fast.--Leit (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

These maps should contain a date as of which they are making updates superfluous.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The demands to all map drawers are getting higher and higher: a seperate map for each change. That sounds very well, but who does this work? As an example, in most of the states of Germany there had to be created at least twenty maps for each municipality because there were so many incorporations and other changes. And when there's a decision to make a relaunch of the map's design you had to change not just houndreds but thousands of maps. You should talk to all the map creators because your demands to them are unrealistic.--Leit (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Users Drork and Adambro

Spreading deletion notices without a reason

User:Pieter Kuiper is spreading deletion notices for pictures taken in Israel with false claims. He keeps raising doubts about the FOP principle in Israel, even though he was answered that his claims are irrelevant. He pretends to know a lot about the Israeli law, even though he has no access to the relevant material. His notices are disturbing and answering him is time consuming. Lack of answer could be interpreted as consent. I ask to instruct him not to put these notices anymore. As for legitimate doubt that have been raised recently, particularly about whether the new 2007 statute changes the status quo regarding FOP in Israel - I sent a question to an copyright-expert lawyer who works with the Israel Internet Society. If there is a change in the status quo he will inform me. Drork (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not clear that all the deletion requests are spurious, and the ones which may be are at least made in good faith.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In most of my nominations, there are even two reasons for questioning the applicability of COM:FOP#Israel. Some of them were clearly not permanently situated as well as 2D, like the banners Commons:Deletion requests/Banners of the Rishon LeZion museum and Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 979 events אירועים.JPG; also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2314 Free Gilad Shalit out of captivity למען שחרורו של גלעד שליט.jpg. File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg is 3D, but probably not permanently situated, and one may have doubts whether it is a public place. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusement of power by administrator: Adambro

Adambro is abusing his power by reinserting deletion notices, which I deleted with a proper explanation why they are irrelevant. Furthermore, he deletes my legitimate remarks on Categogy talk pages in violation of the "no censorship" principle. I ask one of the other administrators to instruct him to stop this abuse immediatly. Drork (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork repeatedly removes DR-tags before the deletion request is closed, see File:PikiWiki Israel 236 Immigration to Israel גלויה עם ציור של אוניה.jpg and File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuiper and Adambro are joining forces, and not for the first time, in order to silence other users opinions, and to waste other users time. I ask other administrators to instuct them to stop this behavior. Drork (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The category talk page to which Drork refers is Category talk:Alan Dershowitz. I've deleted it three times now since he isn't interested in using the page to discuss, he's using it as a soapbox and I've warned him about doing so. Apparently, "freedom of speech" means we have to allow him to say what he thinks anywhere on Commons and the Commons principle that our content is not censored for the benefit of any individual or groups also means we can't remove comments from talk pages. If someone else could review the appropriateness of his use of this talk page it would be appreciated. Additionally, is my reinstatement of a deletion notice where the deletion request to which it refers is still open an abuse of my "power"? I note with some amusement that Drork seems to suggest, or perhaps likes to believe, that there is some great conspiracy against him. Adambro (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Drork, it would be much better if you stop playing persecution paranoia, and address the real problems. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The image in question is highly offensive, if the administrators insist on keeping it in its current category, they must allow people to protest against it, otherwise we have no freedom of speech nor human dignity. My protest is very modest in comparison to the harshness of that drawing. I believe that people who wish to promote extreme political views want also to silence any protest against it. Please prove I am wrong. Drork (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, can you explain the way you defend Kuiper's abuse of the deletion notice template? Am I the only one who sees a problematic connection here? Drork (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Side note, the talk page stuff is out of scope, and I have now deleted it. It's not an argument for deletion, it's just IDONTLIKEIT. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adambro has now locked the page where Drork removed the DR-tag three times. I think it would be better to block Drork for such actions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That certainky sounds reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork seems to frustrated by the Pikiwikisrael problems. I asked him nicely but looks like Drork just wants to stir up things by editwarring, soapboxing and accusing different users. Drork, please stop this counter productive editing.Multichill (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A block of a single user causing disruption would certainly be preferable to protection which effects everyone. I'm not inclined to block Drork though, not least because of the likely accusations that would result but also because I think Drork is purposely looking to be blocked and I don't want to be the one grant him his wish. Drork seems to want to martyr himself for his cause. As Multichill recognises, this latest disruption seems to be a response to things not going as he would like and it isn't the first time he's behaved like this. Adambro (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like his wish was granted. Multichill (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally consider the Dershowitz drawing antisemitic, slanderous, and extremely distasteful. It should in my opinion be deleted. However, Drork's comment on Category talk:Alan Dershowitz was out of project scope, and it was right to delete it. --Kjetil_r 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm extraordinarily unhappy with the way the Pikiwiki project and Drork have been treated, I'm equally unhappy to see this utter nonsense. Drork should and does know better, yet persists in purposeful disruption of the project, which is not acceptable. On the assumption that he will be focusing on something more productive than this, I've unblocked Drork. If he continues in this vein, I or any other admin should reinstate a 1 week block.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame to see Drork to now drag it into the Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests(Diff). I would reissue the block but I will hold off and see if Drork is willing to make it a undeletion request rather then just using it to unfairly attack Adambro (This is what this page[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems] is for). Really it's a shame to see the drama as it's affecting the project. I'm not saying that Adambro fairly/unfairly deleted the file or is using their Admin powers nor am I going to take sides but this needs to be sorted sooner rather then later. Bidgee (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have every interest to keep the reputation of the project, but this story will go to the press. There is corruption here, and sunlight is the best sterilizer. Drork (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't give you the right to take it to parts of the project which doesn't deal with possible abuse of Admin powers. It's disruptive and saying that there is corruption here is even more unhelpful. Also you shouldn't delete other editors (including Admins' comments)[1] but I've left a note on your talk page (Drork) and I hope it was a mistake. With the undeletion request itself I'll be having a neutral view. Bidgee (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork again, also off-commons

Drork has accused me of all kinds of things before, and now started again on his user talk. But I am now also getting inquiries about messages that Drork sent out on the wikimedia mailing list, where he mentions me by name: "I have to answer stupid questions from Pieter Kuiper who is known to have extreme anti-Israeli opinions." This is not a good description of me. Could someone who is on that mailing list put out a denial? All I did the past few days here was for maintaining commons standards also for pikiwiki imports. It seems that site takes infringements on the intellectual rights of Israeli artist too lightly. Even the rights of a captive IDF soldier are ignored, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2314 Free Gilad Shalit out of captivity למען שחרורו של גלעד שליט.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to respond? Drork (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Adambro abused his power again

Adambro is abusing his power as an administrator again and again. His last action was deleting a legitimate derivative work of Latuff's cartoon. Latuff released his images to the public domain. Derivative works are therefore legal. Latuff work are political and are here on the principle that the Commons are not censored. We therefore have to allow works expressing protest or different opinions based on the same principle. Adambro an Kuiper cannot be the sole judges of this issue because they promoted Latuff's images in the past, and they have clear interest in deleting every work that might hurt Latuff's feelings. I know Adambro will block me for posting this complaint. Drork (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't deny that the works are legal, we just deny that they are educational. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So Latuff's caricatures are educational, and a work that tries to protest against it is not educational? And if I may, what's so educational about drawings of arrows and V signs that we have so much? Basically what you are saying is that certain opinions are welcomed here, even when expressed in the most harsh way, and some opinions are out of the question, even when they merely try to correspond with files already uploaded. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Drork (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, you really need to have a pause. Please take a few days off and come back. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I ignore the corruption that goes on here, or are you suggesting that I take a break and you take care of the matter? Drork (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, have you noticed that every discussion I start is closed, now by Mattbucks, while Mr. Kuiper constant attacks against me are kept open? Do you know I've just heard on the IRC remarks about Israel that made me terrified? One of the administrators here accused me of calling him Nazi (!!) and said that Latuff's cartoons just describe the state of affair in Israel where a bus can always explode, and where people explode buses in order to express their opinion, hence Latuff's cartoons are descriptive.

I received some notices urging me to quit talking about a conspiracy, but there is something strange here. Any political caricature against Israel and Judaism is welcomed on the account that the Commons is not censored. Other caricatures are deleted on the account that they are out of scope. Antisemitic caricatures are categorized so everyone must see them even if they look for neutral material. A project managed by the Israeli chapter is blocked, claiming that we don't understand the Israeli law (!!) and that we made bureaucratic errors. Do you really expect me to think there is no conspiracy? I am not suggesting you are part of it, I just wonder if you are reluctant to acknowledge its existance. Drork (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, you're seeing things that are not there. There is no conspiracy against you or against the Israelian chapter. Admins all come from different backgrounds and cultures; few of us know each other or even interact here, on Commons. We'd be a truly poor choice of conspirators. However open to criticism the functioning of Commons may be, there is no corruption either. Corruption by whom? to what end? Like Yann before me, I urge you AND the admins directly involved to have a pause. This dispute stems from copyright issues and doesn't need escalating further. Other admins could have closed your DR. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, please please take some time to consider whether what you're doing is helpful. Commons has problems, but you're not going to solve them today - it will be long-term work within Commons' guidelines that is going to change things. Right now, you're simply inflaming matters unnecessarily.

As well, there are several Commons admins who need to stop antagonizing Drork and pushing him into a corner. That's not a good position to put him in, and most certainly does not help the project.

For everyone: Please take some time to consider beyond the closest DR - the health of the community is at risk.  — Mike.lifeguard 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Adambro (3)

User:Adambro has added controversial categories here and abused his power as an administrator by blocking this page for edits. This is in complete violation of the consensus reached in a long and detailed discussion about this file. Most users voted to keep this file, and yet most of them also expressed a strong discontent with the way it is categorized. Adambro wasn't neutral in that discussion. He advocated strongly and lengthly to keep this file and the current categorization. I urge a neutral administrator who wasn't part of the discussion, to remove the block and to remove all categories not agreed upon, namely all but "Category:Carlos Latuff". May I remind you that the educational value of this problematic image is to show the nature of Latuff's works (as described in that discussion) - nothing more than that. I also urge a neutral administrator to advise Adambro not to repeat such an action. Drork (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have clearly explained on the talk page and in the protection log, no one had actually decided to remove the protection, it was merely a consequence of the image being deleted and then subsequently restored. In light of this, and the ongoing edit warring, I consider it appropriate to reinstate the protection such that any changes to the categorisation are actually discussed on the talk page. This is particularly important where the changes to the categorisation would go against the established use of categories as set out at Commons:Categories. Drork's insistence that this image should only be Category:Carlos Latuff would seem to be strong indication that he isn't proposed an appropriate categorisation. Categorisation was discussed as part of the recent deletion request but it was primarily a repetition of the same old rather unconvincing arguments, no real consensus as to how to categorise this image emerged, rather it perhaps simply demonstrated that it remains an issue that needs to be discussed. The appropriate venue for that discussion to continue is this image's talk page and I encourage everyone involved to try to find a consensus there. The constant removal of what seem, according to the established standards of how categories are used, to be valid categories is not constructive. Adambro (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Adambro is not neutral here. He expressed a clear opinion in favor of promoting Latuff's cartoons in general and this cartoon in particular. He is now trying to force his point of view and use his admin privileges to override a legitimate discussion. There were numerous serious opinions against the current categorization, and the improper implications it delivers. I urge a neutral admin to remove all categories which are not in consensus, i.e. all but "Latuff", and to advise Adambro not to be involved in this issue anymore. Drork (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grouped it with the other relevant topics. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork makes the point that I am "not neutral here", which is true to a certain extent. I would like to know though on what basis he suggests I have "expressed a clear opinion in favor of promoting Latuff's cartoons in general and this cartoon in particular". This is completely without any basis. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting Latuff's work, rather a strong desire prevent images being removed simply because certain individuals don't like them. Drork simply tries to accuse anyone who opposes the deletion of these images as being a fan of Latuff in what is presumably an attempt to discredit them. As much as I would like if there was always an uninvolved admin available to deal with issues, clearly that isn't realistic. To try to deal with these issues requires a good understanding of the background, something which someone who has never commented on related topics is unlikely to have. Drork is simply looking for any opportunity he can find to try to force me to not deal with these issues. I suspect any admin who hasn't supported the proposed deletions and is prepared to use their admin rights to prevent Drork from disrupting Commons would also find themselves similarly targeted. Adambro (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You two both need to stop bickering with one another. Just leave the image as-is and leave each other alone.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I still demand that the categorization issue be handled. Drork (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have really had it with you two. I propose banning you both from Latuff and middle-east-related issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First correct Adambro's wrong-doing, namely remove the categories he added unlawfully. I believe you can forget about this issue afterwards. Drork (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff cartoons arbitration

Since this is about categorization, I suggest that discussion should move to the CFD page. I have made a proposal for dealing with this mess at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/Carlos Latuff. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cachubis (talk · contribs) and Deesaire (talk · contribs)

I was checking images of Madonna uploaded by Cachubis (talk · contribs), found out they were copyright violations, which he dared to mark as copyright holder and "grant permission for the use of this file". After warning him and deleting all the user's images, I found out that the user had uploaded the one of the pictures in various names, one of them was File:Bilde.jpg which was uploaded in June 1, 2009 by Deesaire (talk · contribs), who was then blocked for a week... Cachubis and Deesaire upload logs appears to be quite alike, so I do suspect of sock puppet... Yuval Y § Chat § 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I feel like a detective... File:Detective barnstar.png Could I use this barnstar..? Yuval Y § Chat § 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You was right, came to the same result 4 days later. --Martin H. (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen you've banned the user and the sock puppet. And once again I wonder - why does a person uses a sock puppet when he's blocked for a short time or no time at all..? But, I guess I'd never know for sure... =) Yuval Y § Chat § 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image request..

See section below -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello- The following image link is that of my Jeep. It is being copied and used all over the world and eBay without my permission. Please help me to have it removed. Thank you. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1972_Jeep_C10

You know, you have licensed it (File:1972 Jeep C104 Commando.jpg) under a free license (Gnu FDL), so anyone may copy and use it for any purpose, as long as he fullfils its terms. I guess they violate one specific clause, but that is a different story. Sv1xv (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image removal help needed.

Hello- The following image link is that of my Jeep. It is being copied and used all over the world and eBay without my permission. Please help me to have it removed. Thank you. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1972_Jeep_C10 File:1972_Jeep_C10

Please note- I did not post this image. It was posted without my permission. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakdalegallery (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That file does not seem to exist nor does it appear in the deletion log.[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct filename is File:1972_Jeep_C104_Commando.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That one was uploaded by Sfoskett (talk · contribs),[3] an experienced editor, who I don't think is this user. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this user is User:Oakdalegallery and has already stated that he did not post this photo. Sv1xv (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that this is apparently your jeep, and that you did not take the photo, you apparently took it to a vintage car rally, where you can expect it to be photographed. People don't need your permission to photograph your car - if it's in a public place, they're free to take whatever photos they want, since the car itself cannot be copyrighted, and freedom of panorama restrictions do not apply. If the image were unused I'd be willing to delete, but as it's in use on 5 pages across four wikis I'd rather not. Maybe a compromise can be reached, with the numberplate being blurred out or something? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, maybe just blur out the number on the plate.. It was photographed in a public place so the person who took the photo would be the copyright holder and they released it under a free license.. --Ltshears (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken care of the plate. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

inclusion of article within an article

I added knowledge to the Di George Syndrome article as a sufferer of the mis understood disability.

Why therefore was the edit deleted .

How can my information be incorporated into te knowledge in the article to aid understanding on what is a rare condition.

iansnowball Mr Snowball (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr Snowball,

you are here at Common, where we store images etc. You are probably complaining about an article in Wikipedia. If you are looking for the english Wikipedia, go to here. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:El Gouna R20.jpg

Full resolution‎ cannot be accessed.

Can someone look at this? Wispanow (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem for me, with IE8 and Firefox 3.0.8. Maybe a technical problem with your browser? --Martin H. (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Loads fine for me in Firfox 3.0.10. Would have been best to post this on Commons:Village pump as this page is for reporting problem Users or Users having issues with another user. Bidgee (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip Guiver

This user has taken the name of an artist he says he "represents". Apparently it is just a clumsy move. I have suggested him to choose another user name. Is there anything intelligent to do about that? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion request where it began: Commons:Deletion requests/File:GreenPearYellow.jpg --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:FrankAssessment

A single-purpose account whose only edit was to add a warning to my user page that the National Portrait Gallery, London uploads were conducted "without the Gallery's approval." No more disturbance so far, but this may be NPG or their supporters at work again. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian-speaker needed

I strongly doubt about all uploads of new Игорь Мираж (talk · contribs), but can't really check his claims because it's all in Russian. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Along similar lines, I was thinking it would be nice to have a template like {{Ru help needed}} for every language. It would simply put the image (or talk page or whatever page) into a category that speakers of that language could monitor. Does that already exist? I often run into this problem in deletion requests, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User Misael431

Vandalism?

Misael431

--189.145.1.16 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of vandalism, but the Metrobus station icons, e.g., File:Tacubaya.jpg, may be copyvios. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tryphon (talk · contribs) warned Misael431 (talk · contribs) about overwriting existing files and I reminded him/her to request permission to publish copies of copyrighted works by means of Commons:Email_templates. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Abdominoplasty

Forwarded from my talk page. Yann (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC): Hello Yann,

I'm a new Wikimedia contributor and I was hoping you could give me a little advice on a community matter. I noticed that you had made changes to the Abdominoplasty page on Wikipedia because of an image that did not meet Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Well, the owner/contributor of the image you removed has been removing images that are legitimately related and descriptive towards the article (of course, that's all relative ... but in my opinion ...), and even going to the extent of contacting me via telephone with the explanation that he was "there first" and that I should not be modifying/adding any content. This user has a history of warring with other users on the aforementioned page (and other pages), and is also using more than one account (Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230) to maintain his anonymity. Of course, it's not too difficult to conclude that his name is Dr. Otto Placik in Arlington Heights, IL, USA. But his antics are beginning to degrade the quality and reputability of the articles, and I am hoping to find counsel from someone who is definitely well-experienced in the function of this virtual community. Much thanks for any help/advice you might be willing to offer. Paravis (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this user has uploaded several images which were deleted because they lack a permission. See Special:Contributions/Emilymiller123. Yann (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the OTRS permission has been sent for the newer ones and are awaiting confirmation. The giant watermarked ones won't need to be undeleted though since it looks like they have be replaced by better versions. I'm not sure about things like this. Personality rights? Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and 75.63.221.230 are blocked on en.WP as socks, in case no one has checked. Both usernames have uploaded files here on Commons. The IP has also edited here on Commons here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Le Behnam

User:Le Behnam is not banned on commons.wiki, but is (as per this edit) banned on en.wiki. Yes, being banned on one project does not mean you are necessarily banned on another project - unless, for example, the editor uses Commons as a platform to point POV at en.wiki.

Although File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg and File:Map of Languages in Afghanistan, by district.svg claim www.aims.org.af as a source, Pashto is noticeably underrepresented. Both the maps especially the linguistic one seem to contradict data from aims.org.af which is claimed as the source.

Please look into this matter more closely. Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)