Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• 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	114, 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	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	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

^{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: ~57
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 18 July 2024: ~3
• No permission since 18 July 2024: ~19
• No source since 18 July 2024: ~2
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-07: ~158

Other:

• Duplicates: ~3
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~21
• Other speedy deletions: ~13
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~7

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~7
• Interface admin: ~15
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~1
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Suspect images uploaded byKumarrajendran

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of processes here. I know what I am doing on en-WP but this looks a little different.

User:Kumarrajendran has been uploading images for some time now both here & on en-WP, quite a few of which have been of uncertain origin and some of which were certainly incorrectly licenced etc. A contributor copyright investigation was filed at en-WP following yet another discussion on the user's talk page there.

The user was blocked for a while & is not communicating much. Worse, similar behaviour started once more yesterday. There has been a suggestion that the user is related to some of the Indian politicians whose images he has uploaded but it appears that even if this is correct then their statement regarding ownership of copyright only applies to the older images that have been uploaded, as s/he is a descendent.

I have spoken with the blocking admin at en-WP and was advised to raise the issue here as that admin is also "aghast" with what is going on.

Thoughts on how to deal with this situation would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

He or she has uploaded only one offending file recently here -- his only recent upload, which I have deleted as an obvious copyvio. I have also put a warning on his or her talk page. One problem does not warrant a block.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

However, I have blocked this user on en.wp for the same problem [1]. There are multiple uploads there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ww2censor

Ww2censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have become convinced that Ww2censor is incompetent and should be forbidden from nominating files for deletion. His latest gems are nominating a couple of photos taken in 1943. He demands that the Flickr user, who gave permission to upload, "prove" they were taken by himself. How, pray tell, is he supposed to do that? That moronic logic would rub out every personally-taken photo in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't give us a link, but I assume the case is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shibe Park 1943-3.jpg. It seems to me that the DR is entirely reasonable. While we Assume Good Faith as a matter of policy, we have here a 67 year old photograph taken from Flickr. The Flickr source page does not say anything about the photographer. It appears at first glance to be simply another sourceless fan pic from Flicker. I might well have done the DR myself.

I will add that the only violation there appears to be your unwarranted personal attack:

"What are you using for brains, anyway?"

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Given your equally-ignorant reaction to that picture, I should ask you the same question. The author says he was born in 1922, so he would have been 21 in 1943 when the picture was taken. More telling is the fact that it appears nowhere in Google Images except for the Flickr page, so it's unlikely he ripped it off from somewhere else... and it's obviously not of professional quality, so it's indeed likely to be a fan's snapshot. That reasoning is, of course, beyond the abilities of the average deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While I can follow your and the other keepers' reasoning, let me make 2 things clear to you, personally attacking other users does only weaken your arguments, and after your next attack you'll get a break. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First you need to block ww2censor on the grounds of incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Being mistaken is not a blockable offence. Making personal attacks is (just as it is on Wikipedia, as you know). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is hereby blocked for 24h for continued personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs' vitriolic attack, both here and on my talk page, are totally inappropriate, and I see he has been admonished for that. My Flickr review of the images I nominated for deletion were entirely proper based my experience of reviewing both copyright and non-free images for several years here and especially on the enwiki. As we all know there is a lot of Flickwashing going on, so, because I did not find any evidence these 1943 images were actually taken by the Flickr uploader himself, nor did I find the 1922 birth date, but I did see the word "probably" in the file description which was one of the reasons that made me question if these were really his images, hence I nominated them for deletion as questionable, not a copyright violations. Baseball Bugs has claimed they were taken by the uploaded (I don't know how how he knows that for sure) but he says "In communications with the user who asked permission to put it on wikipedia", while other say the uploader was born in 1922. If he had communication with the Flickr user then he should easily be able to get OTRS permission to verify the images. Deletion discussions are designed to determine the status of the image if possible, and I am entirely happy to keep any properly licenced images. BTW Google image results are no measure of the status of any image found online and numerous free images cannot be found by Google or even Tineye.

I don't do drive-by deletion nominations but carefully consider several factors, however, I suspect Baseball Bugs was already angry because a non-free stamp he used in the same article Shibe Park, an article that already contains many historic image, where some of these Flickr images are now being used was nominated for deletion by me recently on the enwiki and was deleted despite his protestations. Ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You won the stamp argument despite a lack of consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I question the logic behind your decision to nominate those Shibe photos for deletion. It suggests someone who's in too big of a hurry to delete something without spending a minute or two looking into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Question the logic all you want on the DR. I see no bad faith here, or egregious misjudgment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What you actually see is an editor so anxious to delete stuff that he didn't bother to ask the uploader about it. Inadequate communication, typical deletionist "F.U." attitude toward uploaders, admins posting obscenities on talk pages... somehow I expected better from the folks on commons, goddess knows why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance. Simple fact of life. You are right however, what I said was uncalled for and I apologise. However, I still think you are taking things far too personally - deletion requests are essentially people saying "I have some concerns about this image, could you guys please tell me what you think about it?" It's not meant as an attack, it's out of concern. You call people deletionist, damn right we're deletionists here. If something has a copyright issue, it is much better to just remove it than hope no one cares. The issue that was originally raised was about copyright status, and frankly it was a perfectly valid inquiry. We get a lot of people claiming copyright over things they have no right to, so when something looks suspicious, we nominate it for deletion to get others' input into it. Then if consensus agrees there is a copyright problem, it gets deleted. If people think otherwise, it doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance." Which is exactly why I filed this complaint against a very annoying user called ww2censor. Yesterday you blocked me for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". The reality is that it is ww2censor who engaged in intimidating behaviour and harassment, by taking an aggressive and ignorant stand against an uploader. None of you bothered to take even 1 second to look into the discussion around this picture. Nor did you all demonstrate even 1 iota of logic. An amateurish photo taken by a guy in 1943 who's now approaching 90, and your gripe was that he initially couldn't recall for sure what year he took it. I have to ask again, what are you all using for brains? Until demonstrated otherwise, I have to assume you and your ilk don't care about anything except your insatiable desire to delete anything you don't like, and will continue to be annoying impediments to the rest of us who are actually trying to build instead of destroy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more simply: Would it have killed ww2censor to ask the uploader a question instead of just trying to shoot it down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it have killed you to respond to the DR as if it weren't an attempt to shoot it down, instead of making a huge fuss over it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I responded to what it was, which was an attempt to shoot it down, pure and simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Commons' "ilk" gets a lot of copyvios and garbage that volunteers sift through daily. I'm not sure you're very familiar with how this wiki runs, otherwise you might more clearly understand the community's SOP and how one ought to act. It's poor form to make judgements without that knowledge. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, here's what's going on: Having won that illegitimate victory on the stamp issue, ww2censor was emboldened, and specifically targeted the next upload from the same user. Only this time he's not getting away with it, because all the respondents have repudiated his ignorant attempt to clobber a 68 year old snapshot taken by a now 89 year old man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you have killed ww2censor if he asked you a question? I'm going with yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm irritated with him because he did NOT ask a question. I welcome questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See, here's the thing of it... We've had a boatload of discussion about various Shibe Park photos. We've been careful to distinguish those that are public domain (such as LOC) vs. those that are off-limits (Temple University Archives, for example). One of us had private discussions with the owner of the pictures in question, an 89 year old man who saw the game in 1943 (which he confirmed by checking a logbook he had). If ww2censor had asked somebody about the picture or done a little research, instead of turning his anti-aircraft gun on it, all this rancor could have been avoided. Instead, he took the "F.U." stance and basically got what he gave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All this rancor could have been avoided, if you hadn't started the shitstorm here. Frankly, the only offended person I can see here is you. As has been explained, a deletion request is just a request for comments. If you had simply given your opinion in a friendly manner over there and not started throwing allegations at people, the deletion request would have been closed as usual and everything would have been fine. Instead you are insulting long-standing users and behaving rather impolite. The way I see it, you are currently heading with high speed towards a longer block. Please stop this and calm down. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got it wrong through and through, but that's par for the course here from what I've seen. The rancor could have been avoided if ww2censor had done things in an ethical way from the beginning. A "deletion request" is not a "request for comment", it's a request for deletion. If you want to call it a "request for comment", you should call it that. P.S. If you block me again, maybe I should take the Alexander Liptak strategy, and demand that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Merely to say that I agree with ChrisPK. Take some time out and get to know Commons better. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it all too well already, and I am not impressed. The way they botched the Alexander Liptak case continues to prove to not be just an anomaly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One more time:

It is not the job of a DR nominator to do anything but ask the simple question "Is this image OK?" and let the community respond. There is simply not enough time available from those who work here to seek out the uploader of each image -- who may not be active at the moment -- and wait for a response to a question. We delete around 1,000 files a day so, inevitably, speed is important.

You have repeatedly said that Ww2censor should have asked you about the image. That is precisely what he did, putting a notice on your talk page, and asking the question in the DR. The only difference between what you have been demanding and our well established practice is that the question is asked in a very public place, one that hundreds of editors look at on a regular basis. That means that even if the uploader does not respond, others may do so (as they did in this case) and the image will be kept.

Except for your misunderstanding of our ways, this would have been a routine DR, closed as keep, as around twenty percent of all DRs are.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment It is actually rather sad that people think a deletion request is merely a "question". No, it is a deletion _request_. If you don't want to have the file deleted, don't file a request. For questions there is Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment No, I don't think so. It is true that it is not a perfect name -- perhaps it should be Status Determination Request -- but it is often used as a question. If you read a lot of DRs you will often see experienced users, including me, say, "I'm not sure of this, what does the community think?" or words to that effect. The fact that it is not at all certain is borne out, as I said above, by the fact that around twenty percent of DRs are closed as Keep.

We suffer a little from the fact that we have many places where one can ask questions -- on the user's talk page, here on ANB, Deletion Requests, the help desk in five languages and 43 different language Village Pumps. A DR has the advantage for this kind of question that it has the most eyes looking at it and is a definitive answer. The English language Village Pump gets many fewer eyes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So if you as an admin are closing a DR you are not _deciding_ it but merely answering a question. Maybe you should read your job description again. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jim, while I see what you are saying, I have to disagree. I have never brought an image to COM:DR unless I think it should be deleted. I'll sometimes include a comment that I could be persuaded in the other direction, but otherwise, my default belief is that it should be deleted. Otherwise, I leave it alone or ask a question elsewhere as Cwbm says. Wknight94 ^talk 14:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I see no reason to believe that Baseball Bug would have responded any better to a question anywhere else. In any case, the nominator has the right to believe that this image should have been deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're 180 degrees wrong. My complaint was driven precisely by the fact that the guy nominated a photo for deletion without having asked anyone. ww2censor had NO right to believe that the image should have been deleted. As someone pointed out on that page, his assumption that "old people don't use the internet" is a horribly bad-faith conclusion - and speaks to the competence (or lack thereof) of the ww2censor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be driven by the fact that you have a grudge against the guy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor had not taken the approach he did, there would have been no issue. Had he spent even 1 second looking at the lengthy discussions the uploader has had about Shibe photos, it would have been obvious to him that there was no issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Per Baseball Bug's threat to claim that all of his uploads are copyvios, I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Metrodome with new roof.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• And I've commented there. Just stop. How silly. Wknight94 ^talk 14:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  And I have closed it. Please do not disrupt commons just to make a point. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Matt, I'll thank you not to assume other editor's motivations.

This was a serious deletion request. I've recently been involved in the fall-out from two editors who suffered a fit of "uploader's remorse" and decided that previous licences were henceforth revoked. Both situations were a damned nuisance to sort out. Such behaviour makes the future of Commons re-use deeply problematic and we mustn't allow such behaviour to take root. For an established editor like BaseballBugs to start throwing around such a strategy so lightly is very worrying indeed. Can we really rely on such content? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to commend you for your spot-on interpretation of the alleged "suspicious" nature of the photo in question, and which I've previously cited without crediting you: "The nominator's strongest reason for any suspicion here would seem to be "Old folks don't use the Internet", and nothing more than that." That goes directly to the (in-)competence of the nominator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but our agreement over a DR is no indication of support for your threat of a highly dubious copyright claim on your images. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate if you weren't involved in the Liptak incident, since you might have been able to help provide a better result than his little con game actually yielded. I'm not sure where you think I lied about something (I may be an idiot but I don't consider myself a liar), but I should point out the key word "MAYBE" in my proposal to use the Liptak strategy. P.S. I did in fact take the Metrodome picture a few days ago - but just like the guy who took the Shibe Park picture in 1943, I can't prove I took the picture - you'll have to take my word for it, just as you do with any other uploader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So saying maybe makes it okay to threaten to grossly violate policy and be dishonest and unfair?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, to threaten to lower myself to Liptak's level and similarly con the Commons leadership? No. Why do you think I keep bringing up his name? As admins have said more than once, the folks who run this joint, just like those at wikipedia, need to be reminded of their faults from time to time. (I certainly get plenty of reminders of my own faults, I assure you.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What faults? You want to pony up the $20,000 it would take to fight Liptak in court? I personally agree completely with the decision to cut the drama and get rid of Liptak completely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He uploaded those illustrations for the purpose of advertising his personal website. They were edited to remove his signature/watermark. He spent a year fighting to get them deleted, since his advertising scheme had been foiled. He used a variety of tricks, none of which worked. Then he hit upon something that did work: Legal Threat. He made a totally bogus claim of copyright violation in order to accomplish his goal. He's one of the weaseliest characters I've ever seen here or on wikipedia. So he's indef'd. Big deal. His purpose was to advertise, not to contribute. Once he could no longer advertise, wikipedia ceased to be of any use to him. And the so-called "leaders" of commons bought into his fabrications, hook-line-and-sinker. I've seen nothing since then to suggest that the leaders here have any more of a clue about anything than they did six months ago. "What faults?" That's funny. Reminds me of Eye-gor: "What hump?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WMF as a service provider is legally obliged to follow DMCA takedown notices, even bogus ones like that. And as far as I understand anybody could reupload these pictures and then to file a DMCA counterclaim, however nobody (including you) did this. I fail to see any fault made by the "leaders of Commons" in that situation. Trycatch (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no one here provided that good advice at the time. They basically said "dat's dat". Thanks for providing yet another example of incompetence at the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually this advice was provided from the start (see the original discussion Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#DMCA Takedown demand). Trycatch (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you'll drag an unrelated drama into this does not make at all inclined to privately discuss problems with photos you've uploaded with you. Make one move you disagree with, and you'll apparently hang onto it forever.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not one, but one of a growing number of screwups by various characters here, and they need to be reminded. It's what admins at wikipedia have called "keeping their feet to the fire". All this can go away if ww2censor withdraws his deletion request. It was a bad-faith nomination based on ignorance and prejudice, which others here have called a "mistake". I don't care if he owns up to his ignorance, prejudice and incompetence; but he could demonstrate some competence by fixing his "mistake" and withdrawing the deletion nomination - and then hopefully learning from that mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an established principle at WP, which I understand to be the same here, that an editor can invoke any legal process they wish - as there's little that WMF can do to stop them anyway. However such a practice is incompatible with editing here. As the only part of this that is within WMF's control, such a threat becomes an automatic blocking.

If BaseballBugs' word can be taken as remotely serious that they intend to contest their previous licensing, then I would see this as putting them into a similar position. They can of course do this, however any editor that does so makes themselves persona non grata with the aims of the project and thus their continued ability to remain part of it. The two are simply incompatible. If so, then such content should be removed, and it should be removed forthwith, to reduce the risk of further entanglement developing for the future. We do not need or want content that has any contentious threat hanging over it - we're better off without. If editors even make such threats, we're better off without them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Several persons have pointed out the problem with your approach. Instead of reflecting on it, you keep on demanding, that people bow to your will. I once again recommend you to leave this discussion for a while and return when you are calmer. Continuing this discussion in this way will not lead to a favourable outcome for anyone. I recommend closing this discussion here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to continue stonewalling by closing this section, feel free. I have reflected on it. It further reinforces what I've already suspected about this site. Thanks for your contribution to that furtherance, and especially for standing up for ww2censor's continued cluelessness. P.S. I am totally calm. And I'm heartened to see that there are at least a couple of other users in this section who have a considerable clue. Needless to say, you're not on that list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It would really be nice, if you refrained from categorizing people as "clueless". That is a personal attack. I will, however, let someone else take care of that. I'm done with this discussion. Good night, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't and won't stoop as low as Baseball Bugs uncivil personal attacks, which he continues to make, but will point his some of his issues. He fails to remember that the burden of proof lies with the uploader to provide all the necessary details so there is no need to question an image's copyright status. It is not up to other editors to go asking questions of the uploader or the source. The uploader, Delaywaves, politely replied on the deletion nomination pages but not so Baseball Bugs. Why is he so angry about other editor's uploads? If he has such a high level of concern about these images he could easily have discussed it with Delaywaves and added appropriate information for clarity without the moaning and incivility. Bugs also mentioned consensus in deletion discussions but seems to have forgotten that it does not matter how many posts are made for keep or delete, the closing admin will make a decision based on policy and guidelines, and not by the quantity of posts one way or another. Put your bugs away and get on with constructive editing instead of wasting time with all the hot air. Ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Foroa (talk · contribs)

I've been in dispute with Foroa over the a number of UK geographic categories: Specifically where the subject of the category in question, is arguably the primary topic for that term. I believe that if the subject is the primary topic, it should not be disambiguated and this view is supported by this discussion on the VP, this move discussion and the categories such as Category:Dogs which are ambiguous (domestic dogs, wild dogs, bands etc). Foroa believes there is no such rule on Commons.

The existence, or otherwise, of a primary topic rule is not the problem here, though a sensible discussion about it would resolve the problem in longer term.

The more immediate problem is Foroa has been speedily moving cats in line with his viewpoint [2], even though the category move is clearly disputed [3]. A disputed move should be discussed (either via CFD or a {{Move}} discussion) and consensus established before implementing. He has also abused admin rights in pursuit of his views, by using CommonsDelinker inappropriately [4], the instructions state "Do not request name changes that you know may be controversial".

I'd like him to stop acting unilaterally, and instead try to establish consensus on what to do with the disputed categories. This would eventually involve discussion of the primary topic rule, its scope and applicablity, but this general discussion should not prevent the individual cases from being resolved.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I move only for disambiguation when I notice that several images are miscategorised or categorisation bots are plain wrong. Of course, people find "their" place very often the "primary" topic. In Commons, there is no rule for primary topic as they are very much country and language dependent. We are only more tolerant and make a couple of exceptions for major capital/historical cities for historical, practical and national/religious symbol reasons. --Foroa (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not have moved that category (and disambiguated), when you knew the move was disputed... If the bots are wrong, that may be a problem with the bot not the category, and the category should not be moved solely to serve the bots (as I pointed out on your talk, the move won't help in that specific case anyway).

"Primary topic" does have the subjective problem you mention, but that issue is not unresolveable - en.wikipedia mostly manages it, despite many shared name topics in the USA, UK, Australia etc, but the national groupings of editors can still reach agreement in the end. We are different as we have to serve all languages, but when all the topics relate to a single language (or even better single nation) it becomes simpler. The "exceptions" are part of that rule, people looking for "dogs" are overwhemingly looking for domesticated dogs, and thats true regardless of their background. Those exceptions are not exceptions at all.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself what anyone from any culture is likely to be looking for when they look for "Chicago", "Perth", "Gun". If you are getting a consistent answer then there is probably a primary topic. If not, then there probably isn't one.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The logic is amazing. Because you voted against the disambiguation of _Melbourne_ you claim that the disambiguation of _High Peak_ is implicitly disputed. Shall we take it that any disambiguation needs your permission now? And to be clear: High Peak is a clear case for disambiguation. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm I voted against the disambiguation of Melbourne yes. I also explicitly disputed the disambiguation of High Peak [5], there is no inference from the other. The opposition is due to the fact High Peak is the primary topic (and the Melbourne case is an example of how we have primary topics on Commmons).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The key request here is that Foroa does not "speedily" disambiguate a page, but should always use a {{Move}} template to propose the move before actually doing it. Once its done it can be complex to reverse if that's what consensus wants. This gives anyone who objects a chance to object, and what's obvious and clear-cut to Foroa may not be to someone else.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodrigues2

Resolved

Rodrigues2 (talk · contribs) continues to upload obviously copyrighted material after many warnings, including a last warning on his talk page. Please block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the deletion of his last remaining upload : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panoramica-teresopolis.jpg. We can't trust his own work claims after all those copyvios, and keep this last one just because we couldn't find the copied source. --Lilyu (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Site the photograph was stolen from was found and has been speedy deleted. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Wetenschatje

Wetenschatje (talk · contribs) is best known for gruffy comments and in many cases inapplicable comments and argumentation concerning voting at VI, FP and QI. His provocative behavior does not only attract attention to me but also to others. A inappreciative question of the nominator I have commented like this [6]. Not bearing the truth he deleted in an editwar this commend with various arguments (spam, personal assault, ...). Because Wetenschatje behaviors becomes conspicuous in many cases I request for help in this case. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad personam comments as this have no place at nominations and the edit war which took place at this nomination page is a completely unacceptable behaviour of you both. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This Ad personam comment was folling his ad personam activity. I just describe it, like I do here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote from COM:VIS in regard to what kind of buildings can be chosen as a scope for a nomination: Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. Hence, it is legitimate to ask if the depicted building qualifies. This comment did not help to address this point but these comments did. I do not know the whole background of your conflict but in this particular conflict on the nomination page you refered to your ad personam comment was not justified and again the edit war by you both was unacceptable. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why this building was nominated and is more than just local interest. To ask a candidate is not a problem or the point. But if you are not confident with the topic you should vote carefully and best give the voting than when the circumstance are clear. In this case Commons:Valued image candidates/Boiler house, Dornach Wetenschatje suggested that the building is part of a museum and gave therefore a contra which is verifiable wrong. His whole argumentation was disproved but Wetenschatje is starting a new rampage instead of striking his voting because of not applying argumentation. And this dear AFBorchert is a behavior I sadly follow since months now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For obvious revenge reasons (because of temporal sequence) after the conflict he gave two dubious contra for my QI-candidates [7], [8]. I recommend strongly that this user calm down instead of rampaging and foiling the candidate sides. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is yet no interaction ban between the two of you. Hence, Wetenschatje is even then free to comment on your QI nominations if you edit war in parallel. In both cases, Wetenschatje issued comments which focus on the pictures. We cannot evaluate here to which extent these declines are justified. But I think that the avoidance of ad personam comments and the participation in edit wars is surely helpful in avoiding escalations which possibly evoke emotions that could disturb sound judgements in these nominations. Even if you feel that a comment was not fair, please stay cool. If your nomination has merit, it is not unlikely that others will support you. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an obvious distracting action of him. It is up to you to approve it or to ask him not starting conflicts. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've posted some comments at Wetenschatje's talk page. I do neither approve his nor your behaviour. I would feel significantly more comfortable if you both could pledge not to participate in any edit wars as you did in this case. And, if I may say without having any overview about your previous interactions, I see a lack of kindness in both of you. I find it neither appropriate to oppose quickly about the scope of a building without apparent knowledge about the subject nor do I see it helpful to respond to such an assessment ad personam. I can just recommend to be consistently kind and patient, this builds up reputation in these processes and helps to get support. And yes, these processes have also their faults. At times I am surprised not just to see what gets accepted and what rejected but on which reasons. This all depends on the regulars like you two in these nomination processes. If we see that these processes tend to self-regulate to achieve better results, then they are an asset for Commons. If they get dominated by petty conflicts and drama, then we need to raise the question whether they do any good to Commons. Perhaps it could be helpful to raise a discussion at Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list and other similar places how these processes can be improved to avoid such conflicts. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not first time that the behavior of Wetenschatje was picked as a theme: three examples you can see here, here and here. He know how to provoke but not go too far. For sure also the reason why User:Wetenschatje playes the "bad-guy" to protect his alter ego, the "good-guy" User:Biopics, because he hazard the consequenc of being banned maybe. At least he stopped with editwar and even with editing exactly the same time I posted here at AN/U (what a coincidence). We'll see how all this will develop. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly ok to have two or more different accounts if they are not abused. In this case, the relationship is openly declared at the user page of User:Wetenschatje. If there are ongoing discussions to find a consensus to which extent buildings can have a scope, this would be a good thing. The first discussion you are referring to was surely helpful and perhaps it is necessary to find a formal consensus for this which is binding for the coming nominations. Otherwise, please apply AGF. You are both excellent photographers. Both domains, architecture and zoology are important subjects which are in the core of our repository. In many cases, arguments can have merit even if they are conflicting. You cannot expect me to solve this conflict at this board. This board is for the violation of policies which need the attention or the involvement of admins (like an ongoing edit war or uploads of copyvios). But the only working approach for conflicts in nomination processes is to look for consensus and process improvements. And in some times it helps to have the patience to let other people comment. At times it is best not to respond at all. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic and unhelpful discussion

VI, FP and QI are clubs for mutual admiration. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)  Comment Wladyslaw has been blocked indefinitely on de. The propensity of the community to put up characters like this who despite having been blocked before don't show any change in their behaviour does not cease to amaze me. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This comment is in no way helpful. Wikimedia Commons is an independent project and we are usually not concerned here about the block log at other projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) At least you do not pretend to read my comment for content. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) First: your arn't involved in this conflict, for second you even not know wherefore I was banned. So: the quality of your comment is even worse than Wetenschatje in the candidate sides. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) @Cwbm: You are referring to a infinite block due to an abuse of sockpuppets. How is this related to this discussion? Did any abuse of sockpuppets take place in this case? The reference to a block log in another project does not grant you the freedom to attack other users here. If you do not have any constructive to add to this discussion, then please keep silent. If you have strong reasons for a global lock, then issue them here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This discussion is use- and worthless for the reason I stated before. I think saying that is potentially pretty constructive. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Some users think they are very constructive by heating-up discussions. Not my appreciation of constructive and collaborative work for this project. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Look Wladyslaw, don't take this personally. I don't give a flying damn about what you or don't do here. I only think that admins have way more important things to do (for example deleting copyright violations) than to dig into your private wars. I am only providing the information. What the admins do with it is entirely up to them, of course. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Look Cwbm, I am not naiv. "Only providing the information" means you want to steer the discussion in a special direction. And I guess now it is all said in this topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kazakh or Russian speaker needed to communicate with User:Madina Kilybayeva

Could a Kazakh speaker please explain to her that she must provide sources indicating from where she produced the scans she is uploading? Also, her uploads are missing any license and are uncategorized.

Possibly Russian might work, too. Thank you. Lupo 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll try, she has ru-4 userbox on her kk. userpage. Trycatch (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Hm, and an en-3... didn't occur to me to check for a user page at kk-WP. But thanks. Lupo 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seckin27

Seckin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in uploading copyright violations after a final warning. I have already blocked him/her at en.wp [9]. I realize this is stale by several months, but it seems more important to me that we protect Wikimedia than that we practice some online form of statute of limitations. Of course, as I indicated at en.wp, the user can always appeal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this user does not look like a good bet -- I have just deleted his or her last remaining upload (File:Zincirli Bedesten.jpg) which was All Rights Reserved on Flickr and from which he had removed the FlickreviewR:failed tag.

On the other hand, as you say, his or her last upload was five months ago, so it does not appear to fit our requirement that blocks be preventative. This is one of those cases where I wish we could put a user's contributions on a watchlist, so that we could automatically see any new upload (if that's possible, please tell me how and I will add it to my Notes for Administrators).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This could only be accomplished via a bot (and would be surprisingly easy to implement). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Claratroddy

Claratroddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) spam-account --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

+ a puppet account doing the same thing :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Natuzzi mandus

Natuzzi mandus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuked and blocked for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, some of those files had an OTRS permission added quite recently. Was that permission valid or not? --Rosenzweig τ 16:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The user has been unblocked and the files restored. We also got a second email from another Unilever representative that covered other files the first email didn't cover. You trust me as an OTRS agent and Commons admin, right? – Adrignola talk 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rahmatdenas

I need an admin to review/comment on this user's uploads. I have identified and tagged some as copyvios (even used a fake panoramio review tag) and the other uploads have multiple different camera models in exif data or no exif data at all. I suspect they are all taken from somewhere else and are not the uploader's own work - nuke them all ?. --Denniss (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the files that reviewed by trust user maybe {{Change-of-license}} will be correct.Geagea (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no file reviewed by a trusted user - this fake tag was added by the uploader. See history of File:Masjidrayaganting.jpg. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Thanks for the good job.Geagea (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Constantinople

Constantinople (talk · contribs) is another obvious sockpuppet of Wikinger (talk · contribs) (cf. en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger). He has been creating useless files here and trying to insert them on multiple different wikis (where he doesn't speak the language: de-wiki [10], el-wiki [11], nl-wiki [12]) through various open proxy IPs. Since this behaviour is difficult to control on the other wikis, I request blocking him here and not deleting his files. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so easy. Please don't let me fell prey to various joe jobs of various vandals, like [13]. (here Leszek Jańczuk is victim, while above Constantinople is victim) Being used by vandals is not being vandal.Constantinople (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't help your case by uploading and overwriting at File:Greek_alphabet_extended.png -- something which seems to have a strange hypnotic fascination for Wikinger/CBMIBM/Piast, like a flame does to a moth... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You really seem to have been pissing off Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise with your continuing edits at en:Talk:Alpha and Omega; if you wanted to fly under the radar, it would have been better to refrain... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It was only cleaning of spotted original research. Nothing more. Constantinople (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I am partially abused by FPAS when doing good faith original research removal, I stop hunting for it by self, instead I will ask AnonMoos for guidance in each case of spotted original research. Constantinople (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinger, I don't find you as annoying as some others seem to do, and after dealing with you since 24 September 2006 (almost 5 years now!) I'm kind of used to certain of your habitual modus operandi, but I really couldn't positively approve of most of what you do, since little of it is ultimately practically useful for Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only coincidentally similar to him (he perhaps is pagan-gnostic hybrid, contrary to me, who is only gnostic), not being himself. Not only he shares similar interests, see this. How I can be Wikinger? To being Wikinger, I would belong to http://hugogegenrechts.geschichtsag-hjg.org/files/wikingjugend.jpg Constantinople (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to deny that you're Wikinger/CBMIBM/Piast, then why did you re-upload on the old Piast image File:Ugaritic alphabet.png?? (By the way, a large number of the letter-names in that image and in the related image File:Ugaritiska.png are bogus.) As for Wikinger name-choice remorse, see en:Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet#Image:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet_reconstructed_23_glyphs.png (as you're already well aware). AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I wanted only purge nonsense made by these vandals. See that Ugaritic fabrications blatantly broke http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U10380.pdf reference. I simply got their list from FPAS listing directly below, which turned to be good, especially because i later failed with other trial and error OR hunt, like this with western map available at File:Westerncultures map.png. Can you point me another vandals unknown to me and to FPAS which OR I can fix here? Constantinople (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Unicode names of the Ugaritic characters are actually not suitable for use in a Wikipedia article on the Ugaritic alphabet. Because 1) They were derived by removing all necessary scholarly diacritical marks. 2) Many of them are quite speculative, and do not seem to be based on any direct ancient evidence. It's very noticeable that there's a mixture of Hebrew/Phoenician forms (yod, kaf), Aramaic forms (samka, rasha), Greek forms (delta, zeta), Arabic forms (dhal, ghain), and mysterious forms of unknown origin (hota, thanna). 3) Assigning the name "shin" to character U+1038C is complete nonsense, since historically the Phoenician letter shin is connected with character U+10398, not U+1038C. I would guess that this resulted from Michael Everson (who is conspicuously not a Semitic scholar himself) being insufficiently supervised by Semitic scholars, or being supervised by the wrong one. The upshot is that the names would be better removed from the graphic, and only the sound values of the Ugaritic letters included... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess this aspect of the discussion should be continued on the relevant en-wiki talkpage (undisturbed by Wikinger). There seems to have been some backstory, as there were several subsequent encoding proposals by different people involving different character names (the names that were ultimately chosen apparently weren't the ones proposed by Everson). But in any case, that's not for this noticeboard. It's disappointing to see there's still no admin response here at all, and the sock is still roaming free and actively seeking more opportunities for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of disruption without any proof, which is against en:WP:CIVIL. Recently I did edits recommended by AnonMoos exactly as he wanted. For now, we have all Wikinger's machinations on Ugaritic script fully thwarted. Constantinople (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: accounts currently indef-blocked on Commons include CBMIBM (talk · contribs), Piast (talk · contribs), Polaczek (talk · contribs), Immanuel Gıel (talk · contribs) (an impersonation account, note the spoofed "ı"), Archer888 (talk · contribs), Load (talk · contribs), Lade (talk · contribs), VIRGENGÅRD (talk · contribs). See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_16#"Wikinger" using impersonation socks for earlier report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A strange aspect is that he sometimes seems to edit-war against himself, slowly and over the long term (especially if User:Load is also Wikinger, something I don't know from personal experience)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's old news. He always does that. Yes, Load was also him, there's not the slightest doubt about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploads by User:5green2009

Can someone review files uploaded by him. One can't be the painter himself, and the person who took the photo of the painter. Suspicious to me.--Ben.MQ (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Many artists have friends take photos of them, and believe they own the copyright to those photos. It's a common mistake, but not bad faith. Also, an artist may have a photographer "work for hire", taking photos of them working and signing over the copyright to them. It's more likely to be the former in this case, since I see he has uploaded newspaper scans and claimed copyright on them. He's probably just documenting his own work in good faith, without understanding that he can't release other people's material about him -- only material he has created. At least, that seems most likely to me. All the best, Quadell (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Japanese-speaking colleague LERK to take care of him. --Túrelio (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

revoking Licences by User:Taxiarchos228

moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

---

Hi, I just noticed that User:Taxiarchos228 removed old licences of several "own" images and replaced them by {{FAL}} (expample). I readded these old licenses (and left of corse the FAL) with a german edit note that they are not revokeable, and got instantly reverted by him. Question: I am correct, that the old licenses are not revokeable and should stay at the images? If I am correct, maybe an Admin could enforce this; pls. check this for more cases. If not, pls. tell me. Thx and regards --JuTa (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: Pls see also User talk:JuTa#Lizenzen meiner Bilder (a short diskussion about this case in german). --JuTa (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons talk:Licensing might be a better place for that problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Commons:Licensing clearly states: The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. I could move this case to user-problems if thats a better place. --JuTa (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

end of move. --JuTa (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If he replaces it with another equally acceptable license, I see no problem with his action. If he demanded deletion instead, that would be a problem. But this way, we can easily keep the images, and whoever wishes to be picky about the "non-revokability" can just treat them as double-licensed. The new license is in place, the old license can be retrieved via the edit history. If the uploader now prefers the new license, there's nothing wrong with displaying that to re-users by preference. If any future re-user should ever insist on treating them under the old license rather than the new one, there's nothing we can do to stop him, but so what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, some months ago I asked at the VP whether a license-"update" from CC-BY-SA 2.0 to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (actually recommended by CC) was acceptable and got many objections. --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am changing one valid and free licence into an other valid and free licence. This changing does neither effect Commons nor other wikipedia project. I am the photographer/ author and copyright holder of these pictures. More is needless to say here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you released the images under a free, non-revocable licence. And we know what that licence. Commons is under no obligation to stop distibuting the images under the old licence simply because you don't like it anymore. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't remove an old one... that old license is and will always be valid (as shown through the file history). You can certainly add any new ones you like, but the old ones should remain to most accurately reflect the true licensing situation. And yes, it could affect us badly in some cases -- if someone has made derivative works of one or more of these, the licenses of those derivative works, if they were correct before, would now appear to be incorrect (when in fact they are still fine). The same is true for derivative works made outside of Commons -- it is best to keep the licensing documentation as accurate as possible. If something like this was done shortly after upload, it'd be fine really, but after two years it's not really good practice as all sorts of use could have been made of it in the meantime (not to mention that the removal is factually incorrect). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I had put the old license back in and protected the page for a week. The user has since threatened to take legal action against me and I have neither the time nor the money for a lawsuit, so I removed the protection. I'd appreciate it, if someone else, who is willing to stand up to the threat, would take it from here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)