Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 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	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	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

^{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: ~36
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~10
• No license since 9 April 2025: ~10
• No permission since 9 April 2025: ~41
• No source since 9 April 2025: ~111
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-04: ~358

Other:

• Duplicates: ~13
• Advertisements/spam: ~9
• Personal photos/selfies: ~5
• Other speedy deletions: ~15
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~6
• Undeletion requests: ~21

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~4
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~4
• Template protection: ~22
• 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)

User:69.181.3.156

I think User talk:69.181.3.156 says enough. Where is it written that it is forbidden to have negative criticism. Does one have to be insulted for that? Check my own contributions and try to find a single insult. There are none. Yet User:69.181.3.156 aka MBZ1 does not cease, supported by Adam Cuerden and some others. Can a not involved admin step in please? Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's no need to look at all user contributions. How about those two just to start with you know [1];[2]--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I made some rather harsh accusations against Lycaon. I stand behind each and every one of them, and I could prove them, if necessary. I tried to do my best to stay away from Commons (read Lycaon). He is a very good and a very knowledgeable contributor much better than I am, but I do not think that fact alone gives him the rights to behave the way he does. The thing is I need help, but I do not know who I could ask for this help. The best thing now will be some kind of fair and public dispute resolution with Lycaon. I believe it will do good for the health of the community because I am not the only one, who is having problems with Lycaon behavior. Thank you. user:Mbz1

Summarizing from my post to Lycaon's user talk: Since it is clear that the objectionable post concerned Lycaon in particular, and that Lycaon and Mbz1 were recently in some sort of conflict,[3] suggested Lycaon reverse the block procedurally and open the matter for independent review and action at an admin board. Mbz1 has been an excellent content contributor; here's hoping we can work this out without losing a volunteer. Durova (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Durova. I cannot wish for anything else but what you suggested. I have a problem to login as me. I forgot my password, and I've done this in purpose to stay away from Commons, but once again I proved I am way too weak to stay away from Commons more than few days. Sorry. I've heard there are some medecine to fight nicotine addiction. I wish there were some medicine to fight addiction to Commons :) I'd say that now the Community has two choices to react at that post by Lycaon . The easiest one would be to block me indefinitely including preventing me from editing my own user pages. I will not fight that block, and my husband will be very grateful to you for returning me back to my family :) On a more serious note I do realize that for the last few months the community was getting increasingly tired from me, and my emotions, so as I said earlier I will not fight the block, if the community decides I should be blocked. It does not mean that I am going to admit that Lycaon is right. Not at all. He is dead wrong in everything he has done to me for the last 3 months or so. The other choice is as Durova suggested - try to figure out what are my disagreements with Lycaon and come to the fair and public resolution. This resolution whatever it is going to be would a great help for me, and I hope for the comminity as well. Thank you. user:mbz1

  • You're welcome. Balancing volunteer work and other life concerns can be tough. To the extent that it's possible, will endeavor to make Commons a welcoming environment rather than a stressful one. We all share common goals. Am not fully up to date on the circumstances that brought things to this point. Perhaps it'd be possible to have a digital sit-down and discuss the issues with some party who's respected by both sides? Durova (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Agree. This digital sit-down and discussion will be time consuming I am afraid. I agree to be judged by anybody of Lycaon choice and by the Community in whole. Anyway that discussion will be oppened for everybody to see and make their own opinion, and it is the only thing I am asking for, except of course restoring my password somehow :) user:Mbz1

To be clear: Lycaon blocked Mbz1 over a single comment by her that he disliked, [4]. (The background to the rest of the comments on that page is Lycaon warning Sarcastic ShockwaveLover over supposed incivility in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set_Candidate_-_Henry_Holiday's_Illustrations_to_Lewis_Carroll's_"The_Hunting_of_the_Snark", which I don't think any rational person could find incivility by SSL in.) The comment was not addressed to him, but to the victim of his false incivility claim. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mbz1 often has problems with civility. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt about it, Lycaon's civility often leaves something to be desired as well. Am less familiar with Mbz1's history and am not the best person to act as mediator. If Lycaon were willing to have a sit-down, would there be a good neutral party respected by both sides who could facilitate a dialog? Durova (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This log might explain why few administrators will volunteer to step in. --Foroa (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Foroa. Thank you for your message. I am not sure I follow it. Yes, I am not an angel, but "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone. " John 8:7. Now what? This post is not about my prior blocks. This post is about my new block, that you forgot to mention btw. I repeat one more time that I am ready and more than willing to be discussed at this board or any other place, and to be judged for every one of my statements. The thing is, if Lycaon is ready and willing to say the same thing. I do not think so, and I am afraid that once again Lycaon will not admit any wrongdoing and will go on with enforcing his own rules, while blaming other users for his own behavior. user:mbz1

Would a mutually respected editor or admin step forward, please, for the purpose of mediation? Would offer to do so myself, but might not have the trust of both parties. Someone with a completely clean slate would be ideal. Durova (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Durova. I am still not sure, if Lycaon agrees to have that meditation at all. Of course you have my full trust. It is very kind of you to offer your time and your help. The only thing I wish for now it is to put that matter behind me as soon as possible. Once again I would agree with any mediator/mediators of Lycaon choice too. It looks to me that his first and the best choice might be Mr.Kuiper :) user:mbz1 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not just a problem between these two parties. Mbz1 seems unapologetic as usual, and is still trying to blame Lycaon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Durovas suggestion about mediation is a good suggestion. I can suggest Richard Bartz, Alvesgaspar or Tony Wills as mediators (and sorry for those I am forgetting) as I perceive these users good relations with both editors and are farly balanced. Surely, it would also be nice to hear Hans' thoughts about the entire matter here after seeing the comments so far. Even if the two editors accept mediation, it may not be resolved in the near future though as Hans has just written on his user and talk page that he (presumably very soon) probably will be offline until the end of August. If the timing wasn't so unfortuate (I'm at work at sea on an intermittent connection), I would have offered to mediate as well, if the parties accepted... --Slaunger (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you post, Kim. I am sure you will have plenty of time to come back from your work at sea, go on vacation, go back to sea, and so on, and so on, and still be in time to take a part in the meditation. Why I am so sure? I am sure because I doubt very much that Lycaon would ever agree to have that mediation at all. He said he was going to be off line until the end of August. That's fine. Yet I believe he had plenty of time to accept or decline the offer of the meditation in general. So far he did not. Mr.Kuiper said:
" Mbz1 seems unapologetic as usual, and is still trying to blame Lycaon".
That statement is not exactly correct Here I did say to Lycaon that I was sorry. Did he accept my sorry? Nope, he did not. So, let me try one more time, please. Lycaon, may I please ask you to accept my apology for the comments I made yesterday? I do not think I deserved to be blocked, not by you anyway. I hope you see now that, if even you believed that the block was really so necessary, it might have been much better, if the block was posted by somebody other than you, who was not so involved as you were. After all here you did ask somebody else to block Carol. Still I realize that my comments from yesterday might have been a little bit too harsh even after the block that was posted by you. So, I do apologize for those. I hope this post of mine provides some resolution for Lycaon's concerns. I doubt very much that I will ever find resolution for my concerns. Oh well...user:Mbz1

• @Slaunger. I have empathy with both sides (I can see the actions of both as being reasonable from their point of view :-), I also often disagree with the actions of both :-). I am happy to be involved in any mediation if both parties agree, but the parties involved may shudder at the thought considering the effect of my previous intervention. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  @Tony, I agree. Thanks. I would only like to add that, if you are to be a mediator , it might be not exactly proper to say now: "I also often disagree with the actions of both :-)" before you hear the case :) I mean I would not mind, if you have said "I also often disagree with the actions of Mbz1 :-)" because I've already admitted some wrong doing few times :) On the other hand so far Lycaon admitted nothing. So I believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and of course have the presumption of the whole and complete innocence before the case is heard.
  In a meantime I would like to explain, please, how I see the meditation, if of course there is ever to be one. I simply would like to be able to ask Lycaon some clear questions, and get some clear answers, and no Tony it is not the issue of simply being used to score points. Of course I am ready to answer questions that Lycaon or any other member of the community for that matter might have for me. Thanks. user:Mbz1

• Richard loves you all   • Richard • [®] • 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiate kindness and go back to work

• Thanks, Richard. I love you too :)
  Lycaon, I'm calling you for a duel of course not with swords , but with words. You left me no other choice. I have the right to prove my innocence and to prove that you are dead wrong, Lycaon. I am throwing down this gauntlet before you. Accept the challenge, Lycaon, or be dishonored.
  My challenge stands for any time and any meditator of your choice. Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • How about a kissing challenge ?   • Richard • [®] • 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    With you, Richard, any time, with Lycaon only after duel challenge is finished. :) Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Lycaon started that post himself.
2. Lycaon had plenty of time to respond my challenge, but he never did.
3. Lycaon cannot claim that he did not see it, because he was notified about it at his own talk page by user:Slaunger.
4. Of course Lycaon is very busy man doing useful work on Commons, but somewhere on his way he stepped over me few times, and even did not bother to turn around and to see, if I was still alive.

I hope that post and my sleepless nights will not go in vain. I hope that next time Lycaon will think twice before enforcing his own unethical rules, before harassing users with absolutely unwarranted warnings, before insulting users by removing their messages from his talk page, or ignoring their questions on his nominations and his talk page, and before lying. I hope Lycaon will think twice before blaming users in harassing him without any proves of that imaginary harassement whatsoever. Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Narratio argentea, Silentium vero aureum est. IMO on the part of Hans everything is said. After reading your comments everything is said by you, too. Sometimes there are really good movies without an happy end :-) I know you both a bit and can't believe that discussions, comments and actions was done with pure hate. It was a clash which can happen sometimes but shouldn't be overrated. Let's see the good things - I can remember that Hans often supported and has stand by you when you was new at FPC and bold as brass (because of your temperament, which I like) :-) Remember when he was retouching your sweet squirrel and helped to get it featured ? He is a good person - same like you. C'mon let's pipe down for a moment and in a few weeks (when there is winter again) everything is forgiven and forgotten. Baci   • Richard • [®] • 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah my dear, kind Richard. Are you mistaken me with somebody else, or maybe you are mistaken Lyacon with somebody else :)? Lycaon FPXed more of my FP nominations (new and old ones) than all other users combined :) I've never nominated an image of any squirrel. I assume you are talking about that image of mine File:Kissing Prairie dog edit 3.jpg? It was edited by Vassil, and it was opposed by Lycaon as usual :) He also opposed my green flash image that you posted at my user page to welcome me back. Yet, I'd like to make that very clear please. My dispute with Lycaon has avsolutely nothing to do with him opposing, and FPXing mine FP nominations. It either has absolutely nothing to do with the block he issued on me few days ago. You say he is a good person. Richard, if only for a moment I thought that somebody left the project because of something I've done or said, I would have done everything, and I mean everything, to bring that person back, even, if I was sure that I was 100% right in what I've done and said, and the person, who's left the project, was 100% wrong. And what Lycaon does? He removes my message (together with message by Tony Wills BTW) from his talk page with the edit summary "obsolete". Obsolete. Only one word, the word that said it all. Of course I will forgive and forget as usual. I already have. :) Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! But Squirrels and kissing Prairie dogs are the same - cute.   • Richard • [®] • 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of your recollections are sort of right File:Kissing dogs edit Lycaon.jpg originally got promoted, but then there was a recount and the other edit got promoted as it got one more support vote. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There you are! Mila you old naysayer :-)   • Richard • [®] • 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right to the point, Richard! Even such an "old naysayer" as I am cannot deny that fact. I probably should add that new characteristic of mine to my brand new user page :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I created a naysayer babel for you {{Babel|align=left|NS2|PH-3}} place that code to your page  • Richard • [®] • 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a very right message about Lycaon behavior. It will be good for the record to have it here too.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 is writing accusations in edit summaries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear mr. kuiper, usually I am avoiding responding to ones, who is known for making antisemitic remarks as you are, but today I'd like to make an exception please, and to thank you for your post, my very dear and very personal watchdog. It made my mood so much better, I really mean it . To admins, yes, I really said that Mr. kuiper is known for making some antisemitic remarks. Isn't this is a good reason to block me indefinitely? Please do. Let us stop all the disruption once and for all for the best of Commons. As I've said many times in the past I am way too addicted to Commons and cannot leave by myself. I need some help please. I promise that I will leave my user pages intact for everybody to enjoy. . Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? This seems like a long section that is not leading to a resolution. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Lar. The post is too long because I am writing/talking too much and thinking too less ( should it be "little"? Ah, what is the difference? ) I do need some resolution, but so far Lycaon has refuesed to have one. Somewhere on June 23 or around that time Lycaon indicated at his talk page that soon he was going to be offline until August 22.How soon is the "soon"? I assume it was done to avoid taking part in a dispute resolution because today is July 8 and Lycaon is still very much around, and I see this edit no more. Maybe I am missing something, maybe not. Once again, everybody, I am sorry I am always present at AN/U, I am sorry I am taking so much of everybody time. What else I am sorry for? Maybe user Maedin was right, when she told me: "You are doing nothing at the moment but causing distress and discomfort for other users". So once again I am asking you to block me and block me indefinetely. I mean it. It will be better for Commons and probably much healthier for me. . Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Leit again

Today I noticed that Leit deleted a whole category tree of maps without any form of deletion request. He deleted similar images without a deletion request, see here. This admin clearly doesn't respect deletion policy. What to do with him? Multichill (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really stunned. Could you please inform me that you started a section on COM:AN? This procedure can make s.o. very angry. By the way: You should open a request on Commons:Undeletion requests and not restore the maps I've deleted. That's against policy. Well, there was no final decision "how to do" with me at your last complaint. There were some users who disagreed with me and there were some users who agreed with me. The discussion simply petered out. I can only repeat what I said four weeks ago: What you are demanding of the map creators on Commons is simply impractical. If the Commons community says "There have to maps for each time and each municipality ever existed and these maps have to be maintained" – then you will push them out of this project and then there will be no more maps showing German municipalities. Have you ever speaked to map creators like User:Rauenstein, User:Niteshift and others? They could tell you what's the problem.--Leit (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here at Commons we have all sorts of projects like maps, tree of life, flags, etc etc. All these projects have to work according to our global Commons policies. We have this policies for a reason: To protect Commons and it's users. How can users ever trust us if our policies aren't even respected by the administrators of Commons who are here to enforce these policies? Commons already has a very bad name among local communities when it comes to deletions and actions like this only fuel this fear. This is a far bigger problem than deletions requests being somewhat impractical, this eats away at the foundation of Commons: The local communities. You knew you where wrong and tried to hide your actions by deleting the images as "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission", which is plain nonsense because all the information is there. If you think our guidelines are impractical, try to change them, but until you manage to do so you have to file a normal deletion request so users have a chance to respond. Multichill (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You talk about the local communities. Well, the problem is that Commons has a very bad name at the German community in this special case because there are some users preventing us from deleting maps which would outherwise be wrongly used on de.wikipedia and other language versions. There are so many incorporations of German municipalities which would require – and I want to emphasize that – houndreds of thousands or even millions of new maps being created by only one or two users who engage in creating maps. That's because there are 12,000 municipalities in Germany. You have to multiply this number by the number of area changes in each district (Landkreis) of Germany. That's when you consider all those area changes and upload a single map for each area change. So there were instead of File:Heideblick in LDS.png 1) File:Heideblick in LDS 2007-05-30.png 2) File:Heideblick in LDS.png 2008-04-11 3) File:Heideblick in LDS.png 2009-01-16. And if you consider all design changes for each time and if you consider all area changes there were at least 30 maps for every municipality. That's when you say "deletion of superseded images has been stopped".

Look at File:Kletzin in DM.PNG, the file you restored yesterday. The description of this file was wrong. It didn't show the location of Kletzin in the Landkreis (district) Demmin, it showed the location before June 7, 2009. But people who click this image don't know that. And in addition, this map is only an orientation sketch so that users see where the municipality lies in connection with the surrounding ones. But once the time goes on, most people don't know any more the outlines of the former municipalities, rivers etc. so that the map is completely useless. The procedure you are demanding therefore is against the logic behind it. Orientation maps only make sense if they show the present situation. Would there be any city maps being shown in the street which cover the situation three years ago? Neither there would be a historical use of this map nor there is a use for the present. I know historical maps are included in the Commons project scope. But that's not what we are talking about. And in addition, if not deleted, those maps would all be orphaned and wrong, because the updating of their description and their design would simply take too much time. There is a map project on German wikipedia which decides how those maps have to look like and once there is no bot making a total relaunch of 12,000 maps automatically that takes the time of de.wikipedia users. All in all, handling the "Commons Policy" so inflexibly is the wrong way to go.--Leit (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's important to find that balance between deleting images simply because they're superseded (which is no longer a valid reason by itself) and making Commons unusable by letting tons of useless files pile up. I don't want Commons to be known as a collection of useless, redundent, poor quality, incorrect, outdated files. We should never ever decide what files the local communities decide to use, but as long as no one wants the file any longer I don't quite see the issue. DRs are pointless when admins always close them with "superseded images aren't deleted" regardless of what the community wants (and I don't mean just consensus, but unanimous support for deletion). Sometimes they close them before even allowing others' input. Of course if the image is used, then that doesn't matter and the "superseded" reason is invalid. Another thing, I'm not sure why people are uploading under new names if the newer versions are really non-controversial updates. That would be better solution. Rocket000 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rocket000... what about marking the image description page with a note that it's superceded and should not be used, but not deleting it, would that be an acceptable compromise? Because unilateral deletion seems like not a very good approach. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rastrojo

Hello,

In March 7, 2009, I uploaded a map named File:Localització del País Valencià respecte Espanya.svg, who was a retouched version of File:Mapa territorios España2.svg made by HansenBCN. A few days ago, the user RoxVal uploaded the same version of the map with a different name, and I started a deletion request for the new file, that can be seen here. Now, the user Rastrojo uploads the same map that I made, with the name that a few days ago had been deleted, and erased my first map. In addition, he tells that is the only author. In a few words, I think that rastrojo wants to steal my map, hiding all my autorship. That can be seen in another similar case, the file File:Localización_de_Cataluña.svg. March 7, 2009, I upload the map first time (weights 560K, the same weight as the other maps, because is the same file of my autorship). In 6 July, 2009, Rastrojo uploads a new version, who is exactly the same as before, and erases my name of the file description autorship, as can be seen in the history log. This is not fair game. --Mutxamel (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But you are credited as the author in both cases (File:Localización de la Comunidad Valenciana.svg and File:Localización_de_Cataluña.svg), so I don't see the problem. –Tryphon^☂ 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing all the copied maps from rastrojo and adding my name, I hope he doesn't revert them. --Mutxamel (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not sure what you're expecting from admins in this case. If you don't get reverted, then this is a non-issue. I'd leave it at this for now. –Tryphon^☂ 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please update "Swine Flu figure"

Hello, I would like to take over the responsibility to update the "swine flu 2009" diagrams, with permission of the previous contributor. I re-created the first graph but was not able (because new user to commons) to replace the file.

Could you please replace the following file:

With this file:

Could you also update the following file:

With this file:

and maybe give me the permission to overwrite the newer versions in future?

Appreciated, --Kettner2 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC it's 4 days until you can overwrite. Otherwise there is no way to speed up the process nor any special permissions needed. As a note, the text on your images is a bit fuzzy (I realize it is a smoother font, but even still, it's not as crisp) --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with an old user account:

To Whom it May Concern:

My name is Andrew Turner and I am an IT/Administrator at the Remy Corporation in Denver Colorado. A former employee of ours submitted an article to Wiki relating to our company, but this article is out of date and needs to be changed.

Unfortunately, we are unable to even access this article as we do not have any of the user credentials or login info related to the user. All that we know is that the user is "Samenus\Remy Corporation" or something along those lines.

Originally I thought that I could just put in the username and have your system send an email to the registered email address "dan@remycorp.com" and because this email address is now forwarded to a different person (Dan nolonger works here) we could fix our account credentials in this manner.

But it would appear that this is not the case and we do not know any of the login credentials for this account. It seems that Dan used a personal email address when registering on Wiki.

I need a couple of things:

1. We need to be able to access the article relating to the Remy Corporation. It would even be acceptible if we could have you guys delete this article and then we could recreate it.

2. We need to change/update our login credentials to your website so that we are using login information that is documented on our side and will remain static and not change for the remaining duration of The Remy Corporation's existence.

Please send an email to tech@remycorp.com with whatever options you can provide to us so that we can resolve this matter and preserve the informational integrity that makes wikipedia so great.

Thanks!

Andrew Turner Software Engineer/IT Guru The Remy Corporation 1637 Wazee Street, Suite 201 Denver, CO 80202 aturner@remycorp.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.203.165 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2009 July 8 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for stopping by. Unfortunately you've reached Wikimedia Commons. We do pictures, not articles. You're probably looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Good luck. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

deletionist admin

this user/admin User:Abigor

is using their powers to close discussions & delete material inappropriately.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Abigor&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

they csded the only anatomy photo we have on wmc of preadolescent human male genitalia (non-identifying close-up) without any discussion as being "out of scope";

they deleted this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Briefs-20080618.jpg

(nominated by a sockpuppet account; which is how i got involved in the matter) after a very short debate time & with no consensus having been reached , with the reason given:

"Deleted. We don't need nude or semi nude kids! Huib talk 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"

not exactly objective analysis (the pic was a non-nude underwear close-up, non identifying)

they also deleted a series of images i'm not familliar with as "probable copyvio"; apparently all as csd without duscussion; i can find no log of deletion discussions for any of the files, so i can;'t judge the actions on those, but i'm not filled with confidence at this person's judgement right now.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just skimming over the log. A) "preadolescent male genitalia" sounds a lot like "Child porn" to me, so I agree with the deletion. B) Deletions are not a vote, closing admins take what people say - but democracy doesn't rule. C) I checked a few of the "probable copyvios" and I'd agree with that assessment. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

the problem with your statement is that you fail to distinguish between human anatomy & pornography. wmc is supposed to be an education resource. how exactly should we cover the topics of human anatomy & development? with figleaves, or maybe pencil sketches? i'm sorry, but you are expressing a personal opinion; commons scope includes educational material on the subject of human development, & this user has erased the only file we had for this specific topic. perhaps the cat should be renamed: Category:Naughty, bad things that are not allowed on wikimedia commons! ? :P Lx 121 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Abigor's action. Also, 'deletionist' is a fairly useless term, as all the admins on Commons delete images regularly. --Bastique ^demandez 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

deletionist as someone who deletes material excessively and/or without regard for policy/rules/scope; which this person has done Lx 121 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ok so wikimedia commons IS censored?

wmc can't have any photos showing stages of human development, "scope" & "eductaional" be damned?

we need to change the policy then; "commonas:not censored" is A JOKE

it should read more like: "COMMONS:wmc is censored: anything any admin doesn't like, for any reason, goes away, no discussion, no debate, no concensus, & to hell with the rules & policy & scope."

this is why nobody outside wikimedia takes wmc seriously as a resource.

it's more like a sloppy, unprofessional, clique-ish private club's photo album than a professional media archive.

a professional archive would have photos, properly sorted & categorized, of all topics they claimed to cover.

wmc fails on both parts of that qualification

we're kidding ourselves here.

if this is the objective standard this place runs by; wmc is never going to be anything more than an afterthought to wikipedia.

the organization of the material on here is a sloppy unprofessional mess; i've spent a fair amount of time trying to categorize things in a way that can be taken seriously by people used to a professional standard of competence in organization, using the miserably inadquate tools in mediawiki. at this point i'm left feeling that it's waste of my time.

if you guys can't do any better than this, my suggestion to the wikimedia foundation is that we pull the plug. the only useful purpose wmc serves is as a dumping ground for materials to be used wikipedia, & we don't need to pretend that it's a real, standalone "project" to accomplish that. doing so is a waste of wmf resources.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also; the user's signature hides their real name, another policy violation

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When you see someone complaining about an admin's signature, you know they're just fishing for an excuse to be outraged. Nothing to see here, move along.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks mike, that's a very professional attitude, & completely fails to address anything (& who cares about "rules" anyway?) Lx 121 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. +1 to mike. I mean seriously, use the link Luke.... I am curious where we have that policy on record, I remember as it being accepted practice, but written policy? Then again, meh, never was a big fan of policy. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just about the most sympathetic admin around when it comes to keeping sexual images, but it's a terribly unfortunate matter of fact that the United States child pornography law does not allow any depiction of the genitalia of minors for any purpose whatsoever. Even medical journals can't publish them! Unless we move the servers to an offshore oil rig, we're compelled by the overzealous law to omit these images, or face dire consequences. People have even been convicted for distributing clothed images of minors that were "suggestive". There's a fine line to walk here, and we should be aggressive, but not include anything that is a clear legal violation.

I would however admonish administrators who include emotionally charged messages like "We don't need nude or semi nude kids". Really, we do (for example, for the depiction of intersex conditions at birth), and those images could be obtained without exploitation of minors (one simple way to do this would be to have the minor later give permission to use the image when they are an adult). A better reason is "Legal restrictions do not permit us to include this content." Dcoetzee (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dcoetzee here. I would like to keep non-sexual images of naked children, as I understand there is a difference between nudity and pornography. However, Commons must abide by US law, and if it's illegal, we can't host it. However, Abigor should have closed it with a remark about the legality, rather than us "not needing" naked children. I see nothing wrong with speedily deleting them as legal violations, but I disagree with speedying for personal issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

US law only forbids child pornography, not naked pictures of children, so medical journals can (and often do) include depictions of genitals of minors. The problem is that a combination of overzealous prosecutors and "think-of-the-children" juries result in convictions whenever the pictures being considered are even remotely questionable. --Carnildo (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Upshot? My take: we should counsel Abigor about making sure the right reasons are given when doing otherwise legitimate deletions, and we should counsel Lx about being more mellow. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Abigor Huib Sterkebak seems too much in a hurry to close DR's. Amd I do not believe his is the admin most knowledgeable about US legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, prompt attention was warranted. I endorse Lar's summary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A guy in underwear? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Briefs-20080618.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"User's signature hides their real name, another policy violation"?!?!! Since when it is policy that admins must declare their name? I mean, the last I looked I was editing WikiCommons, not Citizendium. And besides, not everyone of us is 100% willing to fully public. (Though there are enough people who know who Tabercil is besides myself...) I mean, we have the need on EN for the category of Admins willing to make difficult blocks.

Now, having said that, let's back to the original subject: the deletion of the image. Looking at the image, I'm kind of torn... I honestly do not feel the image is overtly sexual, but I do agree with what Dcoetzee says in that there has been a general "think of the children" push into trying to create a clear split between kids and sexuality. Case in point: the Miley Cyrus photo shoots, first with Vanity Fair and now the new one with Elle. Do I personally feel that the image should have been deleted? No. Do I feel as an administrator that the image should have been deleted? Yes, as a case of erring on the side of caution.

I also heartily agree with what Lar said about Lx needing to be more mellow, and possibly also needing to take a closer read of COM:SCOPE as well as Commons:What Commons is not. Tabercil (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

signature hides the admin/editor's real USERNAME; User:Abigor signature = "Huib"

see as example: "Deleted. We don't need nude or semi nude kids! Huib talk 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)"

apparently, both are part of the user's real name, if pieter's comment is factually accurate, but if the editor abigor wants to use huib, that should be the his username. signing one name & having a different username is confusing & misleading; the first time i clicked thru, i thought i was on the wrong page. one of the basic principles of wiki-community is being able to clearly identify community members & contact them, as needed; moreso when the user is an admin. hiding your username in your signature violates that principle, & is not allowed @ wikip. i'm unindenting for my other comments re: tabercil; too much trouble to format Lx 121 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can see Lx's point in scope of such images, especially in w:Puberty and related articles on any Wiki. However, we must abide by the notion that Wikipedia and Commons are "not censored within the law" and wherever there's a policy that speaks to any of the projects being not censored, they should be re-written to reflect this important aspect of "within the law where the servers are based". Indeed, Lx seems a bit high-strung over the issue but we shouldn't dismiss his opinion as it is valid. So that's my suggestions.. Lx should chill out and be calm.. and any "we are not censored" policies be written to reflect "within the law". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Notorious copyvio

Dear Admins, I am an administrator at the Hungarian Wikipedia, and would like to draw you attention to Jojoka2, who is a notorious copyright violator. He is currently being reviewed at huwiki for mass-uploading copyvio pictures and writing articles referring to sources that are either false or simply not existing. Now he started doing the same at Commons as well. I strongly advise to review all his submissions. He usually uploads copyvio photos/pictures stating they are own work. Thank you, --Teemeah (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see several copyvio warnings from yesterday for Jojoka2 (talk · contribs). The first three photos look ok, but the balance (signs/logos/plans) look like copyvios.[5] Language is not the problem since it occurred on huwiki also, according to Teemeah.[6] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Burial mounds royal graves or not

I am having trouble convincing two Swedish editors to stop reverting edits over and over in the above subject. We need neutral opinions as to

• whether or not a category containing images of ancient grave mounds, generally considered by most experts to be the graves of (often unidentified) ancient royalty, can be a subcategory to a category for images of royal graves in the country where the mounds are located;
• whether or not a rune stone naming a person who experts believe was a king can be considered a cenotaph.

Anyone able to look at this on these talk pages, which are getting too overheated, partly because of my own (I concede) temperamental impatience?

• Category talk:Graves of Swedish Royalty
• Category talk:Burial mounds in Sweden
• File talk:Hovgarden runsten 2008a.JPG‎

Any assistance would be much appreciated. EmilEikS (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, since not all mounds are believed to be royal graves, it'd be best to categorise the mounds which are widely believed to be royal burials into both categories. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! We just recently reached a compromise which I hope will hold up, by putting in an "Also see:" link that everyone seems to be happy with. Almost every mound in Sweden has its own argument that has been going on for 1500 tears or so, especially in the last 2 centuries when ideologies began to play a part in interpreting history, more than before. I really think this is the only feasible solution in this case. The rune stone (third link above) is still being debated (now in English), but that discussion is getting very tired. EmilEikS (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See this amazing explanation by EmilEiks. And 1500 years of historicl debate? In Sweden?? EmilEiks must be exaggerating a bit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The comprise did NOT hold up. Pieter Kuiper has been stalking me for months to pick fights. I need him to stop it or I will have to quit Commons and Swedish WP. Just can't take it anymore. Can anyone help me? Please! EmilEikS (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I try here to get him to leave me alone? EmilEikS (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation & copyright infringement

It looks like someone has setup a user account with the intent of impersonating me: User:Janksmata has a name very similar to mine (User:Jaksmata). Their only contribution has been to upload a copy of a file I nominated for deletion. I'm not too familiar with policies on commons, but I think the user should be banned or forced to change their name. Both the original file I nominated and the copy need to be deleted because they contain derivatives of copyrighted work.Jaksmata (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also reported this user on w:en. Jaksmata (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has been indef blocked on English Wikipedia and their contributions deleted ([7]).Jaksmata (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked, thanks for bringing this to our attention. →Nagy 21:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I greatly appreciate it. Jaksmata (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IP claiming copyvios by other user - spanish-speaker needed

This new 87.223.67.241 (talk · contribs) has created the userpage User:Miguelo282 (without account) and seems to claim that many images uploaded by Jmfd (talk · contribs) are actually his photos. Accordingly he removed Jmfd as author from many images and partly added his username.[8] Could sombody with good knowledge of spanish take care of? --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the userpage as userpage of a non-existant user, someone who speaks spanish can sort out the fracas. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Random catch: File:Vista moguer2.jpg - 500px first upload - http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguelo282/393452772/ which is Miguelo282s photostream according to the website he promotes on his deleted user page. The file was uploaded to Flickr on February 18, 2007, here in June 2008. If Jmfd is not Miguelo, which seems to be very unlikely, the case is clear. --Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

P.s.: Maybe some spanish user should ask him directly on Flickr if he wants to release his images under a free license, we otherwise delete them to remove the violation of his copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The story goes on: this night the IP/person (193.148.246.4 (talk · contribs)), who identifies himself as Miguel Angel, has labeled an additional image (File talk:Monum.Colon2.jpg), originally uploaded by Jmfd (talk · contribs), as his own, and has left further explainations an the talkpages of 3 images. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is ecemaml from the Spanish Wikipedia (admin both in there and here). The key point here is this user is not new in the copyright violation business. If you take a look at his deleted contributions, you'll see the size of the problem. I deleted dozens of pictures claimed by him. Some of them were screenshots of a local council promotional video. Another group were from google maps (he even claimed that he worked from a satellite imaging firm). If you can read Spanish, you can see here that he was strongly adviced about copyvios, but it seems that he simply refuses to understand. As this issue is being discussed, I'll wait for your decission. Jmfd has been permanently blocked in the Spanish wikipedia. My personal recommendation would be a similar measure along with a delection of all his claimed pictures, as it seems impossible to assert that none of them have been taken by him. My two cents. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) PD: BTW, Jmfd is not Miguelo

There is an email on OTRS (ticket#2009071510050282 for users with access) claiming copyright violations of this user. I recommend to delete all images credited as miguelo282 File:CarabelaNiña esqueleto.jpg, File:Fuentepiña2.jpg, File:Ptoribera3.jpg, as it has been done with other ones with the original localized at Flickr (User talk:Jmfd#File:ConvSclaraEspadña.jpg), block the user and review all his uploads. --V.Riullop (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The first image you linked is again clearly from Flickr, see the size of the first upload. I just checked his log or parts of it, and found several cameras with the exif. I will later delete everything he uploaded, except retouched uploads of other users uploads or clearly pd-old images. --Martin H. (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have marked those tree images as copyvio from Flickr, and also File:Monum.Colon2.jpg, File:ConvSFcoClaustroBajo.jpg, and File:ConvSFcoClaustroAlto.jpg. He has even uploaded as own work File:ConvSClaraExterior2.jpg a free image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jose_l_filpo/1139628689/. --V.Riullop (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked all uploads, as said above: I will delete All uploads except pd-old. I can believe some images the uploaders own work after I checked all images, this will not be deleted for the reason, that the exif and upload date are extremly close together and that the user tended to replace his copyvios with own work photos. I saved my investigation in User:Martin_H./Jmfd, It is c&p from Excel separated by tab spaces. Also all unsourced maps of unknown origin will be deleted. My investigation covers only the files that are not yet deleted - and thats almost ~100. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkmenistan questionable uploads

User has uploaded many images of varying quality, style, and topic, all marked as public domain and 'Own work', which is frankly unbelievable. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirgyt12 (talk · contribs)

This new user got my attention when first an IP and then he himself replaced the no-license-tag of several of his uploads to GFDL. While many of his uploads don't have camera EXIF cata, those who have show an amazing number of cameras: Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n, NIKON D2X, NIKON D100, Canon PowerShot A590 IS, Canon PowerShot S3 IS and Panasonic DMC-FZ50, thereby strongly suggesting copyvios. Eventually somebody with knowledge of Czech language should contact him. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Block me please

During this post I will mention Lycaon name, but this post is about me. As you all know I tried very hard to somehow resolve my issues with Lycaon. It was done first on his own talk page, later on this very board and few other places in between. It lead no where. Some offline efforts left nowhere either so far. In a mean time Lycaon continues to insult me by completely ignoring my questions [9]. Maybe he has the right to do it because he feels insulted by me. I do not know, and this does not matter.IMO it is always better to talk over such disagreements, but if this cannot be done, I have to go. I tried to do it myself by editing my monobook [10], then forgetting my password in purpose. In both situations I failed. I cannot continue like this and I cannot leave on my own. I know it is selfish of me to ask you to do my job for me, but I still do. Please block me indefinitely without ability to edit my own talk page. I am asking for this not to punish Commons, and not to punish Lycaon, but rather for my own well-being. Thank you for your understanding. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)