User talk:Odder/Archive 013

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Hallaca, bollo and hallacon

[edit]
A gift of Christmas
During these Christmas holidays, I wanted to let you take advantage of this delight, I hope you can enjoy them with love. --The Photographer (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @The Photographer, for your kind words. I hope you're enjoying the festivities and spending this special time with your loved ones. All the best, odder (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We buy everything and tomorrow we will have a private dinner. This Christmas we could not be with our family, however, yet our hearts are with them. I've spent most of this Christmas in wmflabs also ordering some things here at home. I hope that in this coming year we can continue to share in the project, I have the hope that maybe we can have a meeting together someday. Well Beria is with me here and She is telling you hellow. Take care by yourself --The Photographer (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year

[edit]
Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine✉


Hi @Pine, thanks for the wishes! And the very thoughtful pictures as well, of course! I really enjoyed looking at them. I hope you're having a fabulous time this festive season — and I wish you all the best for next year, too. Take care, odder (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10th Anniversary

[edit]
Congratulations
Exactly today is the big day:-) Congratulations on your 10th Anniversary on Commons! Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hortensja Bukietowa: Well, actually, I created my account on Commons on 29 October 2005 already! My first edit was made on that same day; it was a pretty crude and, after looking at it ten years later, also pretty embarrassing map showing the division of South America between Portugal and Spain as decided in the papal bull Inter cater in 1493. No idea where it came from, but there it is. I've since deleted that file myself as unused (and unusable :), so File:Dąb Chrobry.jpg is therefore my first still existing edit on Commons :-) And what a ride it has been! Thanks for the balloons! odder (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a long time. We are not always the same opinion but I hope having you around here in future. HNY. -- Rillke(q?) 18:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year!
Estonian winter. Taivo (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Taivo. I know for a fact (from Wiki Loves Monuments :) that Estonia is beautiful during the summer and early autumn, and it's good to see it's also true for winter! May 2016 be a great year for you, too. All the best, odder (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years! I would like to appreciate your perseverance! Keep on your good works! Wish you a wonderful new year too! Jee 13:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks, @Jee! It hasn't been the smoothest of journeys, but I got there, at last. May 2016 bring you love, peace and happiness. Take care! odder (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*** Feliz año! *** 2016! ***

[edit]
* * * Feliz Año 2016 ! * * *
* Feliz Año Nuevor!
* Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
* Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
* Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!

Deseo que este nuevo año venga cargado de bienaventuranza para ti y para los tuyos. Un año nuevo lleno de muchos nuevos retos que yo estoy seguro conseguirás superar. Te he dejado este video, con un mensaje positivo, lleno de esperanza y amor. De mi, un Venezolano que te aprecia. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]
Have a great 2016. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Colin, hope 2016 will be a great year for you, too. Perhaps we'll even be able to get that pint we've talked about :) Enjoy the weekend! odder (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint_John_the_Evangelist

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Saint John the Evangelist has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to love automated scripts: they'll notify you about a long forgotten page even almost 7 years after you (re)created it :-) odder (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
I have no political opinion on the Sanders campaign.

It is very interesting that you would take the role of starting public discussion about the copyrightability of art from the campaign, though. I hope that this makes for increased understanding of what can be copyrighted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Lane. I quite agree, although to me this is a very clear-cut case: you can't copyright slogans or text in a simple typeface, and we know from the Best Western Logo case that the U.S. Copyright Office has refused copyright registration for logos seemingly more complicated than Bernie 2016. But yes, this is a good opportunity for expanding the public's understanding of what can be copyrighted. odder (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For filing a counter notice and defending commons against copyfraud. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. Thanks, @Steinsplitter :-) odder (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odder

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Category:Odder has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Australia Day!

[edit]
Happy Australia Day!
Happy Australia Day! Portingmain (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZDNet / ArsTechnica

[edit]

Hi Odder, I thought too at first that AT must have broken the story, but the first tweets of the ZDNet article predate those of the AT article by 12 hours (compare time stamps: [1][2]). Also, the description of the vote in AT reflects a later status than the one in ZDNet. Thoughts? Unless the AT article's URL changed, it seems that those were separate reporting efforts, and ZDNet was first. (It's clear though that AT was more influential in the English-speaking world.) Thank you for your work on this. Best, --Andreas JN466 13:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andreas , sorry about that — it does indeed appear ZDNet were the first to break this story. I'll go ahead and revert those edits I made myself; thanks for letting me know. odder (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Best wishes, and happy editing. Andreas JN466 13:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem z szablonem

[edit]

Hej. Jakiś szablon generuje nieortograficzny zapis przy liczebnikach po polsku ;-). Wychwyciłam to w Template:Floor, ale boję się dalej grzebać (czyt. - nie umiem ;-)). Generuje się zapis "1-sze piętro" (i zapewne inne liczebniki porządkowe podobnie), a powinno być "1. piętro" (co przy okazji pozwoli na uniknięcie problemów z rodzajem gramatycznym i liczbą). Pewnie umiesz to poprawić ;-). Pozdrawiam. Gytha (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gytha: Wydaje mi się, że naprawione :-) Sprawdziłem kilka plików z linkujących i działają poprawnie. odder (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Super, dzięki. Gytha (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google 2015 logo.svg

[edit]

Dear Odder, you edited the image a while ago, so I thought I could ask you. The image is currently locked, but I found an official vector image of the logo in the Chromium repository that seems to deviate slightly from the version at Commons (and is also quite a bit smaller in size). Would you be willing to replace the contents of the <svg> with this one (but leave the <xml> line)?–Totie (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Totie: I would be, and I just have done exactly that! Thanks for letting me know! odder (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

For the reminder. Best, --Elitre (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here: thanks!
As a sidenote the admin action checking tool at the top of the page seems to be a dead link: waits forever at least for me. --grin ✎ 11:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I was writing this message the page appeared: took 110 seconds to load; maybe you can insert a warning of patience required for it. ;-) --grin ✎ 11:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@grin: (Edit conflict) Ha! I just meant to write that I remember the tool working but taking a very long time to load. I just clicked the link you added just above and it took about 30 seconds for me to appear, which is quite a difference. I've got no idea why it is like that, would probably have to bring it up as a bug on Github. odder (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably due to database/object caching. Not a problem if someone knows they have to be patient. :-) --grin ✎ 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedandakinyemi

[edit]

Sprawdzisz, proszę, kwestię praw autorskich dwóch plików? Grafika File:Mohammedandakinyemi.jpg została skasowana 15 stycznia. Natomiast praca pochodna File:Mohammedandakinyemi (cropped).jpg z niewiadomych powodów dalej jest dostępna. --WTM (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WTM: Dzięki za linka; podejrzewam że admin, który usunął oryginalny plik, po prostu nie zauważył, że jest w Commons dostępna też praca pochodna (w linkujących). Ja przed chwilą tę wersję usunąłem, więc sprawa jest ✓ załatwiona. Dzięki, że zwróciłeś na to uwagę :-) odder (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your EXIF stripping of Monkey Selfie

[edit]

Please note that I have started a discussion about your EXIF stripping of the Monkey Selfie at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg#Deletion_request_2

I am very concerned that your action is deliberate to conceal that David Slater is the author, photographer and asserting copyright holder for this and the other monkey selfie images.

Accordingly, and also because of a recent judgment by a US court, I am requesting you (as a COMMONS ADMIN) to start a Deletion Request for this image [3], because your administered computer system does not let me do so.Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mohsinpathania, I see someone's already responded to your questions. I'll try to follow the discussion as much as I can. odder (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. The other person is avoiding responding to my key grounds and is not opening a Deletion Request procedure to delete this image. Since you are a website Administrator who is familiar with this case, I am again requesting you to open a Deletion Request for this image - because I do not have permissions to do so and because the circumstances have changed and because I don't know how to use your procedures. My reasons are on the discussion page of that image file. Mohsinpathania (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsinpathania: Commons:Deletion requests#Starting_requests explains how one might open a deletion request, so if you want to do so, go ahead. I have no intention of re-opening that debate as it is pretty clear-cut to me and had been rehashed a million times over. odder (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder: Could you post a copy of the contested EXIF data for the record? If this has already happened somewhere on-wiki, I'd appreciate a link. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Done here. odder (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder, Thanks for the EXIF info. Mohsinpathania (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder: , @Fæ: Could you assist me? It is my understanding from Wikimedia Terms of Use that Commons must host "Free Cultural Work" as defined in the WMF Resolution from [4].

To satisfy the definition,

These are the additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free:
Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information.

But you deleted the source file containing the EXIF meta data from which User:AJF generated the new file. How is this to be reconciled under policy and Terms of Use ? Mohsinpathania (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help you. odder (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohsinpathania: As a pragmatic path, I suggest you paste the EXIF text onto the image text page as a note in the description. You can apply the rationale that any reuser should be clearly informed about Slater's claims, regardless of whether they or we think they are legally valid. Though the consensus on Commons is that there is insignificant risk that Slater's copyright claim can be legally recognized, it is a good thing for reusers to have all relevant information before they republish images, especially if they are going to commercially publish the work. Keep in mind that many long term Commons contributors like odder and myself, have kept an eye on this well publicised case, but see little benefit in investing a lot of our volunteer time in it compared to the value of other work we can do for open knowledge. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo for the Jamaican version

[edit]

Hi! I've seen your message in the Incubator and I would like to ask your help in creating the logo. Here is the phrase: Wikipidia, di frii insaiklopidia. Thank you very much for your help. Katxis

Hi @Katxis, I've now created the logo in SVG: File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-jam.svg and PNG: File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-jam.png. I hope you like it; if not, let me know and I'll try to fix whatever needs fixing. Happy editing :) odder (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. I like both of them I just hope they are approved for our Wikipedia. --Katxis (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg

[edit]
File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mohsinpathania (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for making this a place of better living and respect. The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @The Photographer, and you're very much welcome; I'm so done witnessing our users get attacked over and over again with no reaction or support; we ought to defend one another more often. odder (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is increasingly common and has become a "normal" practice, unfortunately. It is quite annoying and exasperating situation, we must not only deal with WMF but also with a community that sabotages themselves in a manipulation where the ego keeps alive the drama. --The Photographer (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo for the Ingush version

[edit]

English logo version Chechen logo version Hi! I've seen your message in the Incubator and I would like to ask your help in creating the logo. Here is the phrase: Википеди, мукъалена энциклопеди Upload File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-inh.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-inh.svg. 2001:E10:6840:21:20C:6EFF:FE07:58E3 04:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stranger, sorry about the late response. I'm travelling today, but will try to work on the logo either tonight or tomorrow morning. Please keep an eye on this page, I'll let you know as soon as I create the logo. odder (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Stranger; both logos are now available at File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-inh.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-inh.svg, respectively. odder (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ilustracje na medal

[edit]
Życzę smacznego wielkanocnego śniadanka

Cześć Tomku! Zajęłam się (od wczoraj:-) wstawianiem medalowych ilustracji na stronę główną. Do tej pory robił to bot, ale ilstracje ciągle się powtarzały. Na stronie opisującej zasady rotacji pisze, że trzeba wstawić ręcznie informację do pliku na Commonsie o tym, że dana ilustracja była na stronie głównej pl.wp. Zauważyłam, że w wielu przypadkach taka informacja jest wstawiana automatycznie, gdy tylko umieszczę ilustrację w szablonie na konkretny dzień. Natomiast w pozostałych przypadkach nie jestem w stanie dodać tej informacji ręcznie, bo gdy otworzę zakładkę Edit, to nie mam takiej możliwości. Oczywiście wolałabym, aby informacje były w każdym przypadku dodawane automatycznie. Wtedy mogę się skupić na wyszukiwaniu ilustracji, z czym nie ma problemu, bo Commons Featured Pictures to kopalnia wspaniałych zdjęć, ale tłumaczenie i przygotowywanie podpisu zajmuje dużo czasu. Czy zechciałbyś zobaczyć, co da się zrobić w tej sprawie? Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hortensja Bukietowa: Mogłabyś wrzucić tutaj jakieś linki? Ja nie miałem nigdy zbyt wiele do czynienia z ilustracjami na medal, więc ciężko mi zgadnąć, o jakie szablony chodzi :-) Jak będę wiedzieć, gdzie i jak pomóc, to na pewno to zrobię albo przynajmniej postaram się skierować Cię do kogoś, kto wie, jak to zrobić. Dzięki :-) odder (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Np. na stronę tego pliku został automatycznie wstawiony szablon do rubryki File usage on other wikis [5], a do tego już nie [6]. Tym niemniej, na razie jeszcze nic z tym nie rób, bo okazało się (dzisiaj rano się o tym dowiedziałam), że na SG pl.wp. mogą być prezentowane jedynie te ilustracje, którym medal przyznano podczas głosowania na pl.wp. W związku z tym zapytałam się w kawiarence, czy społeczność wyraża zgodę na poszerzenie zasobu prezentowanych ilustracji o Featured Pictures [7]. Muszę więc poczekać na reakcje. Dziękuję Ci za chęć pomocy. Dam znać za kilka dni. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hortensja Bukietowa: Oh, już rozumiem. Ta rubryka — File usage on other wikis — nie jest uzupełniana przez bota, tylko automatycznie przez oprogramowanie MediaWiki (tj. „generowana“ z odpowiedniej tabeli w bazie danych). W obu przypadkach wykorzystanie tych plików w polskojęzycznej Wikipedii zostało wykryte: na 1 jest widoczne od razu, ale 2 jest dużo bardziej popularnym plikiem, więc użycie w pl.WP po prostu nie mieści się w tej krótkiej sekcji. Na samym jej dole znajduje się taka informacja: „View more global usage of this file.“ Jeśli klikniesz na link „more global usage“, zmienisz liczbę wyświetlanych wyników na 500, a następnie przesuniesz się w dół strony, to zobaczysz, że wykorzystanie pliku w Szablon:Ilustracja na medal/2016-03-25 zostało wykryte. Wykorzystanie plików w tamtej sekcji jest sortowane alfabetycznie, dlatego kończy się na anglojęzycznej Wikipedii i niestety na razie nie można z tym nic zrobić. Mam nadzieję, że to pomogło. Daj znać, jak zakończy się ta dyskusja na pl.WP. odder (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wielkie dzięki za wyjaśnienie! Niestety rubryka InM pozostanie w starym wydaniu, bo mało kto zainteresował się propozycją, a według starych zasad tylko ilustracje, które otrzymały medal podczas głosowania na pl.wp. mogą stanąć na stronie głównej. Ale dyskusja tocząca się piętro wyżej w kawiarence, pomimo że wszyscy wypowiedzieli się za, to zmian na razie też nie widać. Strasznie trudno jest coś zmienić. Nasza skostniała strona główna, opierająca się na powtórkach z rozrywki, raczej nikomu nie zaimponuje. Ale może to i lepiej, że tak się stało, bo doszedłby mi dodatkowy obowiązek, miły, ale jednak obowiązek, czyli dokładnie jak mawiał Johan Cruijff Ieder nadeel heb zijn voordeel. Już Ci więcej nie zawracam głowy, bo mnie zablokują za odrywanie administratora i biurokraty od poważnej pracy. Do prerfekcyjnie ugotowanych jajek na twardo (czego to nie ma na Commons:-) dołączam tak dla śmiechu zwariowanego wielkanocnego zająca . Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make threats or false accusations.

[edit]

At Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship) you claim I have made an accusation there. I have not done so. Please retract your comment there. I certainly didn't accuse The Photographer of being involved in the leak. If you think I did, let me be clear: having reread what I wrote, I remain firmly convinced I did not and in any case, I know I didn't intend to. OK? I find your comment, "you're pushing your luck here" sounds like a vague threat; please retract it. I find vague threats distasteful and unbecoming of an administrator. It reads to me like you're saying I better agree with you or else. If you didn't mean to threaten me or demand conformity I think you need to 1)say so very clearly and 2)explain what you did mean and 3)you need to identify what accusation you believe I made. I get that you think the evidence is clear that HJ is guilty. Am I required to agree with your accusation against HJ, rather than continue to withhold judgement? Am I forbidden to point out that you misquoted The Photographer or say that I see a vague comment that could easily be a non-denial denial even if the grammatical issues are ignored? Also, User:Jcb has confirmed there "that an accusation towards The Photographer was made on the OTRS list", which makes your claim that "it is definitely not true that @The Photographer was ever suspected of being a source of the leak" ripe for retraction as well. Are you willing to retract that, or do you stick to your guns no matter what, damn the evidence? Also, I said I have the idea "that policy forbids one from stating publicly that evidence exists if policy requires the evidence not be posted or referred to". You seem to be demanding I drop that idea. No? I'm afraid to comment due to the threats and false accusations I perceive. Are you trying to scare me away? I ask that third parties not comment in this thread.--Elvey (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: We don't usually edit archived RfA and de-RfA pages, so I do not feel at ease editing them on this occasion. I believed you had accused @User:The Photographer of being involved in the leak, and I know others read your comment the same way. You say you didn't, and I have no problems believing you. I did not mean to threaten you, and I am willing to withdraw my comment that The Photographer was never suspected in that case. And no, I am not trying to scare you away. Indeed, you will find that I have hardly ever discouraged discussion on this project or elsewhere, and in particular on this talk page; you are more than welcome to posts your comments here. odder (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very glad to hear that.
The de-RfA page isn't "archived", and there's no "Do not edit this archive" comment, in red, or otherwise. And you could make the retractions at Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship). (Yes, the vote has been closed, but it was open when I commented.)
And you could 2)explain what you did mean by "you're pushing your luck here".--Elvey (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: If you look at that page's history, you'll see that it has actually been protected from further edits, and it was also added to RfA archive; it's not really supposed to be edited anymore. I don't think it makes much difference if I withdraw that claim here or anywhere else, to be honest. When saying "you're pushing your luck", I meant that you risk being asked to apologize for making a false accusation — but as you said you didn't accuse The Photographer of being involved in the leak, I guess I was wrong; I apologize. odder (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know; I just tried to save an edit to this page to strike the first third sentence of my last comment but there was an edit conflict. You could make the retractions at Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship), and you did agree to make them, so please do; I have been the victim of a spate of false accusations including some recently discussed at UA and set acknowledged only after the UA closed and it helps when they are retracted. Thanks for explaining. And thank you for the apology.--Elvey (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: You didn't get an edit conflict; that page has been protected and you simply cannot edit it anymore. As far as the retraction goes, I already said I believe you didn't accuse The Photographer of being involved in the leak, and I think it makes no difference if it's posted here or anywhere else. You can link to what I said (here) if ever such a need arises in the future. odder (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, I did get an edit conflict. This page (User_talk:Odder) was not and is not protected. I'm editing it now, for crying out loud.--Elvey (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote, "I am willing to withdraw my comment that The Photographer was never suspected in that case." You seem to imply that I'm asking you to retract at Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship) (a protected page), but what I said was, "And you could make the retractions at Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell_(de-adminship)" which is a different, unprotected page:a Talk page. As an admin, you can edit either one. If you reply to this page without editing either one, I'll take that as a refusal to do so. You're free to think it makes no difference if retractions are posted here or anywhere else, and we don't need to agree on that. --Elvey (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being kind enough to grant me my freedom of thought. odder (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing; I beg you to AGF rather than assume that with that last sentence I attempted to do that and then snarkily criticize me for it. And you're free to continue to assume bad faith rather than accept the more reasonable thought that I simply wished to end the argument, and so so with a factual statement clearly identifying our differing opinions and my desire to move on.--Elvey (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey I am sorry if I told someting wrong about you. --The Photographer (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, maybe. I asked that third parties not comment in this thread.--Elvey (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, sure and please don't write my third parti name in your comments. Thank you --The Photographer (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's odder who pinged you, not me. (And you just said you would not not comment in this thread, in a comment in this thread, thereby doing what you said you wouldn't do. I'm amused.) --Elvey (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Don't write my third != ping and btw politeness, you should always pinging someone when he is mentioned. --The Photographer (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only just realized that you may well know of The Photographer's involvement in the leak, since User:Rschen7754 noted at the de-RfA that you are involved. Are you willing to state publicly that you don't think The Photographer was involved in the leak? --Elvey (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: I never said that The Photographer was involved in that leak in any way, shape or form, so I really don't know what you expect from me. odder (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I never said that you did! I'm asking you to say, for the record, "I, odder, don't think The Photographer was involved in the leak." Either you'll do so, or it will remain unclear whether you think the user was involved in the leak. Please do so. --Elvey (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think my position on this is obvious and requires no further comment. odder (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just close by saying, in a spirit of conciliation and after having absorbed more info about context, that I think Snowden is a hero; not all leaks are bad, and sometimes it's It's the right thing to do.--Elvey (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Elvey: Just as a final 'comment'... I've always found that odder considers what he is willing to say, and not willing to say, very carefully.... it's quite likely that he is under a personal commitment to not disclose who gave him that information (assuming that he even knows, it could have been anonymous) and a statement that it was 'not' a particular person would not only narrow down the source, but confirm that he knew who it was. He's repeatedly declined to give 'any' information, understandably. Reventtalk 01:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All possible, and without evidence, everything you've said after the "...." I presume is speculative so I'm wondering why you bothered, especially as I've asked that third parties not comment in this thread. Whatever. I'm just glad that Odder apologizes for accusing me of making a false accusation and states that he didn't mean to threaten me or scare me away. I just wish I understood why I've been subject to so many false accusations/shot at and I long for peace.--Elvey (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Wayne Ray

[edit]

Thanks for quick action on this. Could you speedy File:An Owl.jpg too? I don't like it one bit. Gooselanebook.pdf looks from the front cover like it could be deleted too. Category:Humber College 1973 Model Shoot raises similar issues, since I don't think we can tell how widely the participants expected to have these photos distributed. There is other erotic material going further back, but painted not photographic and as far as I can tell not a major issue. Blythwood (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: I have reviewed them all, actually, and don't think they are speedy material. I don't like them at all, either, but I think they should be deleted through a regular DR. I do know that other WayneRay files are already being reviewed on copyright and consent grounds, and we'll get to these too. Thank you for reminding me of them, it'll definitely help. odder (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blythwood: I just noticed the message you left at the Village Pump shortly after I responsed above. I checked all those images that you mentioned in the hours following my block of WayneRay, but I've just had another look just to make sure… and I still think that there is nothing urgent about them. They will probably have to be removed on copyright grounds but neither violates COM:IDENT because the subjects are not identifiable. I discussed this briefly with @Natuur12, and I'm not sure if we're going to end up with a mass-nomination of WayneRay's files? Or should we nominate them one by one? What do you think? odder (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks

[edit]

I see you locally blocked account WayneRay (talk · contribs).

FYI, based on evidence from w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WayneRay, I've also blocked accounts:

  1. WayneScottRay (talk · contribs)
  2. Haiku Tea (talk · contribs)

Just wanted to keep you updated,

-- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thank you. All confirmed sockpuppets of WayneRay can be blocked on sight without any warning for an indefinite period of time; I think it's very improbable that they will ever be unblocked anyway. odder (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What about this possible one? -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, would you mind having a look at this? odder (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I am not understanding something here. User:Athrash has no edits on Commons. so I don't think I can help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of a user

[edit]

Hi, Odder, I was wondering why you blocked WayneRay. Meneerke bloem whom I asked first, doesn't know. Also, making use of this opportunity, I was wondering who are the oversighters on the Dutch wikipedia. Cannot find any mentioned on the Oversight policy list. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lotje, NL-wiki doesn't have oversighters and the reason why this user is blocked is none of your business imho. Only in rare occasions the block reason isn't disclosed and always with good reason. Natuur12 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dankuwel Natuur12 voor de vriendelijke uitleg. Lotje (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Natuur12 for stepping in. @Lotje: Apologies for the wait. While the background information about the user bloked is now available on publicly accessible websites, including the English Wikipedia, I am not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the block itself. As an oversighter, I make it my policy never to discuss any details about oversight-related blocks, for a variety of reasons. In this situation, however, let me just mention that this block was placed in the full knowledge and support of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll also add that unless there is an extreme change in circumstances, this block is pretty much unapppealable, and should be enforced with full force by community-elected administrators. odder (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]

Hi, are you still active on IRC? Ec-arifffe (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ec-arifffe: I haven't used IRC for a while now, so if there is anything that you'd like me to know, please leave me a message here. For oversight-related issues, please e-mail oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org and someone will reach out to you as soon as possible; if you need the assistance of a bureaucrat, please either leave a message at the bureaucrats' noticeboard or e-mail bureaucrats-commons@lists.wikimedia.org, however please bear in mind that I am not subscribed to that last mailing list. Thanks, odder (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery Status Notification (Failure)‏

[edit]

Hi, Your e-mail seems non functional. Need to tell you something regarding wikimainia. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: I'm not aware of there being any issues with my e-mail address, so I suspect two things might have happened: either you were using an incorrect e-mail address (here is the correct one), or my e-mail provider had some temporary problems. In either case, please try e-mailing me again and if that doesn't work, I'll e-mail you later today. odder (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed section

[edit]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3) is out-of-process. There is no consensus for de-admin on the admin noticeboard. There is in fact an ongoing proposal/discussion as to how to fix the mess and ensure it is not repeated. It would be very helpful if you could put an end to this. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I'm making a conscious effort not to get dragged into any drama that might be happening, mostly because I haven't really got the time to get involved, so I'll rather stay on the sidelines for this one. If I were to get involved, then I would point you to a past precedent where a user was permitted to start a rights removal request without so much as a shred of discussion let alone consensus, and indeed, without notifying the subject of that request. (And, incidentally, without any breach of Commons policy, either.) If I were to get involved, then I would remind you that you did not request that that past rights removal request be closed, and since they are quite similiar, I would say that I see no reason to close this one, either.
This is all by-the-by, however, as I'm not planning to get involved; I only noticed that de-RfA today, after quite a few users have already participated in it, and I think that that closing it at this point would be a pretty bad idea. odder (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is your popcorn sweet, salty or toffee? -- Colin (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry and I find this comment offensive. What purpose is served by reverting us and restoring this offensive comment, User:Pokéfan95, User:Colin? I see it as saying you anticipate a fight and you don't care that people will be hurt. I find that offensive. --Elvey (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you two find it offensive. But does odder says that he was offended? No. So there is no point to delete Colin's comment if odder was not offended. I don't find Colin's comment as a personal attack, IMHO. It is just like Natuur12's sarcasm. ★ Poké95 06:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to put an end to this, odder, are you offended by Colin's popcorn comment? ★ Poké95 06:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think we think it's intended to offend odder? I don't. What do you claim it means?--Elvey (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (note: moved the following comment from above this one, as it was made afterward. Move it back if you don't like that, but don't remove this comment.)[reply]
Just for the record, no, I'm not offended by that comment. odder (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: Now, odder himself said that he was not offended, so it means, no need to delete Colin's comment. ★ Poké95 02:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totoally logikal. And in other news, because 1+1=2, pigs can fly.--Elvey (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, firstly, Elvey's interpretation "I see it as saying you anticipate a fight and you don't care that people will be hurt. " is completely wrong. Who said anything about a "fight" or people getting "hurt"? The meme of "gets popcorn" is used by someone on the internet who anticipates a whole lot of drama that they'd rather watch as an audience than be involved in. Which is precisely what Odder says in his first sentence. While it is true that I hoped Odder would help curtail this vindictive de-adminship (and yet another futile one that only succeeds in providing a platform for people to say nasty things about someone), there's a limit to what one can expect any volunteer to do (though complete inaction or obvious bias may require the 'crat or admin bit to be resigned). Secondly, let's assume Elvey really is offended (rather than taking mock offence and stirring up a lot of touble). Big deal. Grow up. There's lots of offensive things said and done and proposed on Commons. I didn't revert Elvey's offensive proposal that Jcb's email be made public. I just criticised him harshly for it. I haven't reverted Pokefan95's offensive vote to censor me and Yann over any Russavia-related topic. You guys clearly have to much time on your hands and are causing trouble for the sake of it. Please, find something more useful to do. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: So you don't consider Amitie 10g support as offensive? Great. Because of that, I made a three-step program: 1. Ignore the votes 2. Go photograph something 3. Repeat step 1 and 2. You gotta try this. ★ Poké95 07:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/192281503

[edit]

Hi, was this an accidental rollback or was there something wrong with my edit?    FDMS  4    12:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: I think I must have pocket-clicked that revert link without realising it; as you saw, I've since reverted that erroneous edit. Sorry about that. odder (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said...inconvenient information has a habit of disappearing

[edit]

Problems with Jcb

[edit]
See also: Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#ticket:2013052310008773.

Odder,

Pinging also: Nick, Revent, Denniss, Stefan2, Josve05a, Steinsplitter, Beria, The Photographer, Peteforsyth, PierreSelim, AFBorchert, INeverCry, EugeneZelenko, Ellin Beltz, Rama, Reguyla, Taivo, Amitie 10g, The Photographer, Platonides, Fæ, Rjd0060, Pokéfan95, Zhuyifei1999, Stemoc, A.Savin, Nemo bis, Riley Huntley, Alan, Cirt, Didym, Rillke, Thibaut120094, Túrelio, Ymblanter

There is now a MAJOR issue with Jcb and what appears to be a personal vendetta against myself which has now resulted in Jcb out-of-process deleting HUNDREDS of files which are correctly licensed and uploaded in 2013, whilst continuing to accuse myself of submitting fraudulent tickets to OTRS.

The files used to belong in Category:Files from News Øresund Flickr stream which were imported by myself from Flickr stream. The THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE files are:

List of files deleted as a result of Jcb's misuse of admin tools


I can't remember whether it was on my talk page or via a deletion request, but the issue was raised in that on the Flickr photo pages there was a "no manipulation" clause, even though the photos are licensed under CC-BY 2.0 on Flickr.

In order to ensure that the images I uploaded were able to be kept, I contacted News Oresund on Flickr, and from what I recall I explained to them the issue, and wanted to confirm with them that they were aware of the issue, and they replied via Flickr mail that the licence is correct. I believe it was Johan Wessman who replied to me.

I forwarded this Flickr mail to OTRS for processing by another agent, and all their files had the OTRS permission template applied to them.

At the same time they also added the following text to their Flickr profile:

News Øresund är en oberoende dansk-svensk nyhetsbyrå med ett redaktionellt bildarkiv på Flickr. Alla våra bilder är fria att användas under förutsättning att källa News Øresund + fotografnamn anges. (CC BY 3.0)

And courtesy of Google Translate, this says:

News Øresund is an independent Danish-Swedish news agency with an editorial archive on Flickr. All our images are free to use provided the source News Øresund + photographer's name. (CC BY 3.0)

Apart from being totally out-of-process, Jcb's deletions has now resulted in disruptive deletions on other projects.

Check out the Delinker logs!

These are the Delinker logs from en.wp

These are the Delinker logs from da.wp

These are the Delinker logs from sv.wp

These are the Delinker logs from ru.wp

  • 16:29, 2 апреля 2016 (разн. | история) . . (-124)‎ . . Мальмёнская соборная мечеть ‎ (- "Moske_Malmo_2014Jun17_0002-3.jpg". Файл удалён с Commons участником Jcb. Причина: Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user, see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_Bridg) (текущая)

These are the Delinker logs of fr.wp

  • 2 avril 2016 à 18:28 (diff | hist) . . (-71)‎ . . Mosquée de Malmö ‎ (Retrait du lien Moske_Malmo_2014Jun17_0002-3.jpg, supprimé sur Commons par Jcb ; motif : Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user, see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index) (actuelle)

These are the Delinker logs of de.wp

These are the Delinker logs of no.wp


I haven't gone through all of the Delinker commands, so there is likely to be more.

Additionally, the deletions by Jcb now have implications to external re-users who are now in violation of the license terms, whilst also showing that Wikimedia Commons can not and should not be trusted. If you refer to http://www.vep-erlangen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Forum-VEP/2._Forum_VEP_-_Trends_-_Foljanty.pdf you will see on Page 3 a photo of a bike. On the last page, Page 14, you will see:

Cargobike: News Oresund, CC-by-SA 2.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cargo_bike_Copenhagen_20130420_01F_%288724864047%29.jpg

They were stupid enough to trust Wikimedia Commons, and now they are in violation of the licence! Should I be contacting other re-users and advising them of Jcb's deletions and advising them NOT to use Wikimedia Commons, pointing them to this discussion!

I found out about these deletions as a result of my own use of one of the photos externally. I am lucky....I have simply changed the link to Flickr.

Jcb has also mentioned in the deletion reasoning:

see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_Bridge_season_2_Sofia_Helin_%288724852601%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=192008

File:The_Bridge_season_2_Sofia_Helin_(8724852601).jpg is the file in question, and the revision in question is:

Rrburke (talk

—  contribs , in:  block) (1,282 bytes) (Marking as possible copyvio because Flickrwashed copyvio. Author is given in EXIF. Photographer has complained to OTRS about the photo.)

The file in question is still available in Google Cache here

It is not Flickrwashing, but rather a publicity photo which has been made available to News Oresund and they have made it available under CC-BY 2.0 -- such mistakes are not uncommon. This mistake in itself is NOT reason to delete hundreds of otherwise validly licensed photos.

And it is certainly NOT a reason to accuse me of engaging in fraudulent behaviour and abuse the admin tools in the process!!!

But I will leave you with a link which shows just how abusive and vindictive Jcb has become!

Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2013#ticket:2013052310008773:

Yes, after an explanation by an OTRS colleague about this issue, they responded: "The CC-By-2.0 license is correct for our photos." - Jcb (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And further reading:

Scott 54.206.5.7 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am reading is quite disturbing. Given Jcb's continued accusations of Scott acting in a fraudulent manner without any proof at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads, I don't see any way forward other than a de-admin request --The Photographer (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions:
  • What is the date of uploading of these files? If the files was uploaded before the global ban, then, no valid reason for deletion; if uploaded after the ban, well, deletions are at your own risk (if no copyvio or flickrwashing, reasons for deletions are very weak).
  • Why the shit Russavia was banned? This major issue caused a major division on the community. I don't support the actions from Russavia after his block, but I also repudiate the unilateral actions of the WMF (who also desysoped Denniss, beautyful!), and is a pity that many users support the actions of the Foundation as actions from the Community (claiming that Russavia is not welcome here is also agreeng the desysop of Denniss, feeling part of the WMF instead of the Community), and even worse, extending the hate to the files uploaded (IMHO, in good faith), forgetting the main purpose of Commons, making a free repository for free files that anyone can reuse.
If some users have personal problems against this banned user, tell us instead of keeping it a secret, secret like the ban or the desysop. Shameful. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunate that my own situation from last year hasn't served as an example of what not to do. Admin actions like these hurt Commons rather than helping, just as my own actions ended up doing. I started off thinking I was doing the right thing, and ended up turning it into a personal problem, with very negative results, and it looks like Johan has gone down the same road. As for the files above, they should be restored as soon as possible and the delinker reverted. As a minor issue, I would point out that 54.206.5.7 has been blocked indef by Jcb. This is a fresh open proxy at port 8083, so a year block is the appropriate action. INeverCry 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


To answer Amitie's 1st question:
Russavia had been WMF-banned in 17 January 2015. So, that could be the qualifying date for "legitimate" Russavia-uploads. Alternatively, we could take the date, when Russavia was banned on Commons, which happened on 18 July 2015.
The first file in the list above, File:White Alexandra Hagen 20121116 1F (8271310831).jpg, had been uploaded to Commons on 16 May 2013. So, it was clearly not uploaded after his ban. The image was sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/newsoresund/8271310831/, where it is still available. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Scott again.

I have removed the following from the list of files deleted above, as they should not be undeleted as they have the issue of not being able to be CC licensed by News Oresund:

The mere existence of these problematic files is not reason to delete hundreds of photos though, and especially not under the reasoning that I have engaged in fraudulent activity.

Amitie 10g all of the files I uploaded were done circa April/May 2013. I was contacted on 16 May 2013 by Palosirkka and advised of issues with their files. I then contacted the Flickr stream owner, and I heard back around 23 May 2013 and forwarded the discussion to OTRS around the same date.

Hope this helps. 82.81.77.76 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent to News Øresund

[edit]

Pinging: Odder, Nick, Revent, Denniss, Stefan2, Josve05a, Steinsplitter, Beria, The Photographer, Peteforsyth, PierreSelim, AFBorchert, INeverCry, EugeneZelenko, Ellin Beltz, Rama, Reguyla, Taivo, Amitie 10g, The Photographer, Platonides, Fæ, Rjd0060, Pokéfan95, Zhuyifei1999, Stemoc, A.Savin, Nemo bis, Riley Huntley, Alan, Cirt, Didym, Rillke, Thibaut120094, Túrelio, Ymblanter

Given Jcb's most recent commentary in which he now accused News Øresund of "fraud", I have sent them the following email. Placing it here for the record. 45.32.37.104 16:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUBJECT: News Oresund is being accused on Wikimedia Commons of engaging in fraud

Hello Johan,

It is with deep regret that I am contacting you today. Johan, as the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of News Øresund, I believe I have a duty to inform you of what is written below.

To let you know, I was an editor on Wikimedia Commons, but have been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for reasons which are unknown to myself or the community.

In 2013, I saw that News Øresund had made it's photographs on Flickr available under a Creative Commons Attribution licence. In line with this, I uploaded your fabulous photographs to Wikimedia Commons, and they started to be put into use not only across Wikimedia projects, but also across the web by various organisations.

You may or may not recall around May 2013, I contacted you via Flickr mail in relation to your photographs; mentioning your no manipulation clause in the photograph descriptions on Flickr. You replied to me and confirmed that the CC-BY licence was correct. I forwarded your response in full to the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS team, and all of your photographs were "tagged" with confirmation that the Creative Commons licensing is correct and valid.

A few days ago, it appears that Johan Bävman contacted the Wikimedia Foundation OTRS team in relation to a photograph of Sofia Helin which New Øresund added to it's Flickr stream, but in doing so accidentally made it available under the Creative Commons Attribution licence; I notice that you have also deleted that photo from your Flickr stream. Please do not take this to heart as many organisations which have large photographic databases, including the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Kremlin, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Financial Times, Brisbane City Council, the US Air Force, etc, (just some of which I am aware) will sometimes make this totally honest mistake.

However, the way that your photos have been dealt with on Wikimedia Commons as opposed to other organisations is, unfortunately, disgraceful.

An administrator on Wikimedia Commons, a Johan Bos from the Netherlands (username Jcb), took it upon himself to delete not only the single photo by Johan Bävman, but ALL photos which have come from News Øresund, with the reasoning:

"Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user"

I alerted the community to this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Odder#Problems_with_Jcb (Odder is a Wikimedia Commons Bureaucrat) and it is quite obvious from numerous comments by other individuals that Johan Bos has a personal vendetta against myself and has unfortunately began to attack the name of News Øresund. You may want to read that full link to understand the gravity of the situation as it affects News Øresund.

Johan Bos has also posted a thread at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads This demonstrates that Johan is very much alone in his accusations--including accusations against News Øresund, which includes:

"So we do know that the involved Flickr stream is unsafe"

and perhaps very disturbingly, Johan Bos is publicly accusing News Øresund of engaging in fraudulent behaviour with this statement:

"The ticket was fraudulous after all"

Never before on Wikimedia Commons have I seen such disgraceful and unprofessional behaviour by an administrator who sees fit to accuse a professional organisation such as News Øresund of engaging in fraudulent behaviour, and singled out one organisation in such a way---it's particularly disgraceful that News Øresund's good name is being dragged through the mud by such an individual; even when others are telling that individual they are wrong.

No-one has the right to engage in personal vendettas as Johan Bos has and sully an innocent organisation's good name in the process. It pains me to say this, and it does as I have used your fantastic aviation photos on other sites I am affiliated with, but you may want to consider whether Wikimedia Commons is a place where you want to have your photographs available and perhaps re-consider making changes to your licensing regime on Flickr to a "Non-Commercial" usage, in order to prevent their being imported and being made available on such an unprofessional website.

You certainly are most welcome to respond to Johan Bos' outrageous comments on Wikimedia Commons itself, and if you are unsure how to do this, feel free to let me know and I would happy to guide you.

I am sorry that I have had to contact you under such circumstances, but I am here to help you if you need it, or to answer any questions.

Kind regards,

Scott

Removal of libellous comments by Jcb

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of removing libellous accusations that Jcb has made against Johan Wessman of News Øresund (Archived here.

This is a breach of the Terms of Use, and I will be alerting Mr Wessman of these libellous comments being levelled against him by Johan Bos, and I think Jalexander-WMF now needs to become involved to enforce the ToU against those are actually engaging in real abuse; is accusing outside organisations and individuals of engaging in fraud, I don't know what else is a violation of the ToU. 31.185.29.147 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comments were ill-considered, and do not reflect well on Wikimedia Commons. But to call them libelous seems an exaggeration. I'm not a lawyer, but then again, to my knowledge, neither are you. -Pete F (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Jcb is an administrator, which I hadn't realized. I do find this accusation of fraudulent behavior of a specific person and company to be ill-considered and a poor reflection on Commons, especially when published by an administrator. It is tempting to expect perfect representation of copyright matters by companies, but it is not realistic. And we Wikimedians generally have no particular standing to protect the rights of random people around the world who happen to have copyrights. If several people had their works claimed by Mr. Wessman, that's unfortunate, but have they sued him? Has it been established that no resolution can be reached without using words like "fraud"? This all seems very dramatic, and I rather doubt that the facts of the situation warrant this level of drama.
It seems to me that both Jcb and Scott have done things here that assume a role far beyond what's appropriate, in terms of protecting individuals.
Scott, to wit: I am curious about your choice to create an indelible archive of Jcb's comments. If the goal is to expose and punish Jcb, that makes sense; but if the goal is (as you seem to claim) to prevent Mr. Wessman from unkind published comments, it makes no sense at all. -Pete F (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I am surprised they have the same first names... ★ Poké95 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth I created the archive because there is a history of great unprofessionalism on WMF projects amongst certain quarters, and non-WMF individuals who have been unfairly attacked by WMF editors have a right to know what is being said about them on these projects, and for evidence of it being kept if they wish to pursue it further in a way they see fit. Unfortunately, inconvenient information has a habit of disappearing in the Wikimedia world---just ask Grant Shapps and MichaelMaggs about that!

Anyway, forget about my involvement here, but consider what these Jcb has done and is doing. You may want to opine at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3). 188.211.239.49 14:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of News Oresund photos

[edit]

If you refer to https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=wessman these are all the photos on News Oresund's Flickr stream which are clearly notated as being taking by Johan Wessman, who is the publisher and editor-in-chief of News Oresund.

These photos have been deleted by Jcb, and now MichaelMaggs is going to look like idiotic by apparently contacting News Oresund and asking him to confirm the licenses for these photos. Why will he look idiotic?

  1. The photos are already CC-BY licensed on Flickr
  2. The News Oresund profile page on Flickr states they are licensed under CC-BY 3.0
  3. There is evidence sent to OTRS in 2013 in which Johan confirms the CC license

What more do you want from Johan to show that he has the right to CC licence his own photos? An email signed by Johan with his own blood?

Now, let's look take a look at the photos which I listed above which were in use at the time of the abuse of tools by Jcb

  1. File:Tietgenkollegiet_Copenhagen.jpg - uploaded by Ramblersen on 23 April 2013. The Flickr image page states: "Foto: News Øresund – Jenny Andersson." -- Jenny is listed as an editor of News Oresund.
  2. File:Stævnen,_Ørestad.jpg - uploaded by Ramblersen on 23 April 2013. The Flickr image page states: "Foto: News Øresund – Jenny Andersson." -- Jenny is listed as an editor of News Oresund.
  3. File:Rågeleje_-_house.jpg - I can only assume this is this photo.

States: "Photo: News Øresund - Johan Wessman". -- NEED I SAY MORE?

  1. File:Rågeleje_-_beach_2.jpg - I can only assume it is one of these photos. All of these images state: "News Øresund - Johan Wessman". -- NEED I SAY MORE?"
  2. File:Rågeleje - beach 1.jpg - uploaded by Ramblersen on 12 September 2013 - The Flickr image page states: "Photo: News Øresund - Johan Wessman". -- NEED I SAY MORE?
  3. File:Moske_Malmo_2014Jun17_0002-3.jpg - uploaded by myself on 18 June 2014 - The Flickr page states: ""Foto: News Øresund – Johan Wessman" - NEED I SAY MORE?
  4. File:Hundested-Rorvig ferry 20130728 029.jpg - Uploaded by Blue Elf on 18 January 2014. The Flickr page states: "Photo: News Øresund - Johan Wessman" -- NEED I SAY MORE?
  5. File:Tietgenkollegiet Copenhagen.jpg - ploaded by Ramblersen on 23 April 2013. The Flickr page states: "Foto: News Øresund – Jenny Andersson." -- Jenny is listed as an editor of News Oresund.
  6. File:Oresundsting Maxjenny Forslund 20131024 020.jpg - Uploaded by myself on 30 October 2013 -- The Flickr page states: "Photo: News Øresund - Johan Wessman" -- NEED I SAY MORE??

Now, let's look at the photo for which I noted above is being used by an external re-user and which Jcb deleted in his abuse of tools, thereby making that re-user in violation of the license.

  1. File:Cargo bike Copenhagen 20130420 01F (8724864047).jpg - Uploaded by myself on 16 May 2013. The Flickr page states: "Photo: News Øresund - Johan Wessman" -- NEED I SAY MORE?

Now, let's look at https://www.flickr.com/photos/newsoresund/10580999074/ or https://www.flickr.com/photos/newsoresund/10580999074/ (which are now both deleted). NOWHERE DOES IT STATE ANYTHING THAT DOUBT THAT JOHAN WESSMAN IS THE AUTHOR OR THAT THE CC-BY LICENCE IS VALID!! The same holds true of most of the now deleted images.

Now, let's look at the editors of News Oresund - http://www.newsoresund.dk/redaktionen/

  1. Johan Wessman has 1252 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=wessman
  2. Jenny Andersson has 130 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Jenny%20Andersson
  3. Thea Wiborg has 49 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Thea%20Wiborg
  4. Anna Palmehag has 70 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Anna%20Palmehag
  5. Britt Andresen has 18 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Britt%20Andresen
  6. Emilia Söelund has 18 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Emilia%20S%C3%B6elund
  7. Peter Mulvany has 64 photos --> https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=88883738%40N02&view_all=1&text=Peter%20Mulvany%20

That is a total of 1,601 photos out 1791

Then we have images such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/newsoresund/25497737095/in/dateposted/ which are noted as "Grafik: Øresundsinstituttet © Øresundsinstituttet, (CC BY 3.0)" -- there's a lot of these -- they are mainly graphics (of which they have a lot of on Flickr. http://www.newsoresund.dk/om-news-oresund/ states: "News Øresund startede i 2012 som et interregprojekt mellem Øresundsinstituttet, Lunds universitet og Roskilde Universitet med finansiering fra EU og regionale aktører. Fra 2015 er News Øresund en del af Øresundsinstituttet." Given that News Oresund is part of Øresundsinstituttet, there is no reason to doubt the CC license.

Now, if Jcb did some due diligence before deletion he would not have made the outrageous comments including:

  1. "Fraudulous OTRS ticket from global banned user"
  2. Accusing myself of pre-ban fraud
  3. Accusing News Oresund of fraud
  4. Accusing Johan Wessman of fraud.

And he certainly would not have deleted them.

Now, if the rest of the community bothered to do this due diligence, the "white knight" routine by MichaelMaggs would have been shown to be unnecessary.

Let me do the due diligence for you Michael.

List of files deleted as a result of Jcb's misuse of admin tools with notation as to who is the author

As one can see, Jcb has dragged the good name of News Oresund through the mud for absolutely no reason. And others such as Natuur12, MichaelMaggs, etc continue to do so by suggesting that News Oresund is a problem.

Wikimedia Commons editors are the last group of people who should be flinging shit at other organisations, particularly when one sees 11 year old+ copyright violations on the project -- case in point --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludwig Scotty.jpg

In further comment, the claims by Jcb that he is concerned about copyright violations, etc is total bollocks. Case in point -- none of these were deleted by Jcb:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Thomas Oswald
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Dianna Bonner
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Magali Girardin
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Sam Hurd
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Rosie Hallam
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Drew Altizer

If he really, really cared, he would have deleted not only the above but also everything in Category:Photographs by The Financial Times.

And of course, I'm the problem? LOL 188.211.239.49 16:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one last comment:

If Jcb (and his enablers) had one ounce of integrity Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal would not be necessary. Someone with integrity would have:

  1. Undeleted the files already
  2. PUBLICLY apologised to Johan Wessman for his very public accusation
  3. Retracted all other accusations which he has made against others

Quite frankly, I have more integrity in my left nut than Jcb has in his entire body. 188.211.239.49 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to re-upload imagery

[edit]

This is an alert to let people know that I am starting to re-upload the imagery that Jcb deleted with his abuse of the tools.

I have started with File:Cargo bike Copenhagen 20130420 01F (8724864047).jpg as this photo is used above as an example of an image used externally. Editros such as Jcb, Natuur12, MichaelMaggs, Trijnstel, etc might be happy to fuck over external re-users in their petty political games, but I am NOT! AusOne (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improper close?

[edit]

Odder: Is it proper for someone who voted in an RfDA to close it? Surely not. Not that the !vote was close, numerically speaking. Just seems procedurally improper. Is there a better qualified Bureaucrat to re-do the close? --Elvey (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit is there swapping out one signature for another? That is going to be the only difference. I don't disagree it's procedurally improper but there also much better things 'crats could be spending their time on. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: It is a procedurally improper close, and @Jim should've known much better than to close that request himself after having actively participated in it. However, as @Riley Huntley points out, as as you mentioned yourself, given that the vote wasn't even close numerically, I think there is little point in exchanging Jim's signature to someone else's. Let's just take it as a lesson learned moving forward. odder (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elvey and Riley, first, I probably would not have closed it if there had been any question at all -- but at 27-8, it seems to me that there was no problem.
Second, and perhaps more important, I can't find any policy statement where it says I should not have closed it, even if it had been close. If there is such a statement, then it conflicts with this:
"It is allowed for a bureaucrat to close a discussion or vote on which they have previously expressed an opinion, but in such a case the closing bureaucrat should take care to close based on policy and overall consensus, and not on his/her own views. The bureaucrat's opinion/vote should be taken into account in the same way as that of the other voters, but with no special weight given to it. If the issue is particularly contentious, or the bureaucrat has become closely identified with one side of the argument, he or she may wish to ask another bureaucrat do the closing." see Commons:Bureaucrats#Community_role.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, what I am more disappointed by was that no rationale was given for the close. It was only once I became curious why that was the case that I noticed the issue. What I think is warranted is a rationale from a neutral party. It was a particularly contentious issue, IMO. I posted to the BN. --Elvey (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with your comment there, but just to be clear: there was no procedural violation whatsoever. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.is/mEq22

[edit]

In case anyone is wondering what is so bad that needs to be revdelled from this page by Ellin Beltz, one can refer to https://archive.is/mEq22


95.47.206.28 18:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of your talk page

[edit]

Hi Odder

As you will have seen, your talk page is being heavily used at the moment as a convenient location for a globally banned ex-user to make extensive IP postings contrary to the Terms of Use of this site. While it's no doubt impossible for crats and admins here to prevent him from continuing to pop up here, there, and everywhere, we should not by inaction or otherwise provide him with the ease of a user page that becomes a de facto safe space where he can post whatever comments he wishes. To that end I'm intending temporarily to protect your page against IP edits, or you could do that yourself if you prefer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: This user talk page has been protected against IP edits only once, to protect it from excessive vandalism, for 24 hours. I have no issue with people discussing things on this talk page even if I don't participate myself, and as this is my talk page, I ask that you do not intervene unless I specifically request that you do. If you want to take action against IP editors for avoiding Foundation-imposed bans, then so be it, however I like my talk page the way it is. odder (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This whole situation has become so extensive and aggressive that I wouldn't except as a last resort want to inflame matters further by restricting IP access to your talk page without your consent. But it would be problematic if the page continues to develop into a kind of free-for-all space, protected by your request that others should not intervene, and where everybody knows that the site's Terms of Use effectively no longer apply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelMaggs, if you want to take on the issue of inappropriate use of user talk pages, IMO a much more appropriate target would be that of Jimmy Wales. A few people chatting it up on odder's talk page seems rather frivolous in comparison to what goes on there, setting an example to numerous new and experienced Wikimedians, and banned users, around the world. -Pete F (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed bad, but it's for the admins on the English Wikipedia to worry about. Commons admins and crats are naturally going to be more concerned with what happens here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly cared about what happens on Commons Michael, all those files would have been undeleted by now. Instead you have made me your focus. Don't you care about re-users of Commons' (now deleted) content? Don't bother answering, we know the answer already 95.47.206.28 19:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelMaggs You're right, my point was a bit off-topic. But I didn't mean to bring that point up for discussion here, only to point out that this use of a user talk page -- even if you think it's not ideal -- seems pretty trifling in comparison to much more standard, ongoing, Trustee-endorsed poor use of user talk pages. I suppose you could call that an "other stuff exists" argument, so...I'll show myself out :) -Pete F (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Russavia, using SHOUTY TEXT means you lost the argument and resorted to yelling. Using BOLD SHOUTY TEXT means you lost your audience, thinking they are too stupid to just get the salient points without help. But BIG BOLD SHOUTY TEXT. Wow. I would explain what that says about you, but the Tone Police would probably censor it. If anyone is in any doubt as to why you got banned, thanks for reminding us all what a deeply angry and unpleasant person you can be. It's only ones and zeros. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Well, you, Collin, are the one that is losing the argument(s) and you should read again your text as your the one attacking the person and not the arguments of said person. Would you counterargument (or can you willingly}} the arguments of Russavia in capitals, specially the one referent to his showing (or arguing) that the majority (or at least a big part) of this files were correctly licensed, instead of making attacks on the person. Tm (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, Colin, where is the SHOUTY TEXT, BOLD SHOUTY TEXT, and BIG BOLD SHOUTY TEXT of Russavia that are you saying? I think you lost yourself. Find yourself. ★ Poké95 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Tm has a point, Russavia used the SHOUTY TEXT and BIG BOLD SHOUTY TEXT for emphasis, not to yell. ★ Poké95 01:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the subject Michael

[edit]

Hi MichaelMaggs perhaps you could take some time out of your extremely busy schedule to read User_talk:Odder#Analysis_of_News_Oresund_photos and get these images undeleted.....pronto! Also, I have to say your comment:

Probably few people would have even noticed, and even fewer would have cared.

is a fucking disgrace. I am certain that News Oresund would care! You ought to be ashamed of yourself. 95.47.206.28 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pytanie

[edit]

Witaj. Nie znam zbyt dobrze uzusu na commons, a Ty jako admin zapewne tak. Chodzi mi o to: [8] 1. czy na Commons można dawać wizerunek osoby niepublicznej zwłaszcza zrobiony w miejscu niepublicznym? (z tabelki polityki prywatności na commons wynika, ze w Afganistanie nie można robić zdjęć ludziom, ale już publikować tak - nie wiem który punkt brać pod uwagę) 2. Czy można pisać, że widoczne osoby są oskarżene, nie podając żadnych poważnych dowodów (źródeł) na to, że są oskarżeni (oskarżony a nie skazany to wciąż niewinny wg prawa, więc chyba tym bardziej jego prawa powinny być przestrzegane), zwłaszcza że z opisu grafiki "Most of them have been arrested by police" wynika, że nie wszyscy zostali aresztowani? W sumie to mam tez pytanie o to zdjęcie [9] - miejsce publiczne (ulica), ale czy zbliżenie twarzy bez widoku miejsca publicznego nie narusza prawa do ochrony wizerunku? A może to tylko w polskim prawie jest takie pojęcia, a w USA nie? (nie znam ich prawa, dlatego pytam.). --Piotr967 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr967: Zgodnie z COM:IDENT fotografie przedstawiające osoby niepubliczne wykonane w miejscu niepublicznym wymagają ich zgody przed opublikowaniem w Commons. W przypadku tego kolażu część zdjęć wygląda na wykonane w miejscu publicznym, przy czym zgodnie z COM:CSCR#Afganistan, ich publikacja (czyli nie samo wykonanie zdjęcia) również wymaga zgody osoby przedstawionej na fotografii. Co do punktu 2, to moim zdaniem nie powinno się takich rzeczy publikować bez możliwości oparcia się na rzetelnych źródłach.
Ogólnie rzecz biorąc to na tych kwestiach w tych konkretnych dwóch przypadkach koncentrowałbym się na końcu (bo jak rozumiem, osoba widoczna na tym drugim zdjęciu została zabita poprzez linczowanie); moim zdaniem przesłanki w kwestii praw autorskich są dużo silniejsze, zwłaszcza w pierwszym przypadku i na tym bym się skupił. Jeśli czujesz się na siłach, to polecałbym otworzenie wniosku o usunięcie obu fotografii, jeśli w przypadku tej drugiej znajdzie się jej autor (wątpliwe), to pewnie potwierdzi udostępnienie na wolnej licencji tego zdjęcia na OTRS. odder (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partoller right for jdx

[edit]

Witam!

Dzięki za patrollera. Z pewnością się przyda. Ale piszę do Ciebie ponieważ właśnie miałem złożyć wniosek o nadanie rollbacka i niejako spadłeś mi z nieba. :-) W związku z tym, czy mógłbyś nadać mi to prawo? Używanie zwykłego „undo” albo „popups” jest trochę męczące. --jdx Re: 13:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: Zrobione :-) odder (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Axpde (de-adminship)

[edit]

Not to beat a dead horse, but could you please make this correction to the penultimate comment on the page: “… but to then [add] your pejorative reply …”? (Somehow the word “add” got lost along the way during editing, to the detriment of making sense.) Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Sure thing, now done. odder (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Weekly Address

[edit]

May I suggest that you start uploading the Presidental Weekly Addresses from the White House Youtube page (using video2commons) instead of from the White House website? That way, the subtitles from the videos will be uploaded with the video. Elisfkc (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: Sure thing! Thanks for letting me know about this. odder (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: Just as an update to this, it seems that the White House does not produce subtitles for their weekly addresses until a couple of days after the videos are published. I will keep on uploading the versions from the website, but I have found an easy way to grab the subtitles once they appear on YouTube, so I'll be adding them as soon as I can. I have already done that for the most recent videos, and I'm planning to go back and add subtitles for as many videos as I can, time permitting. Hope that's OK :-) odder (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please put this image back into Commons (request from author)

[edit]

Dear @Odder: the following is a request as preluded by a conversation at the #wikipedia-commons IRC chat about 1 hour ago. Please re-upload File:Plaque on one of the buildings of the Chung Wah School, installed in March 1986 to commemorate the generosity of the donors whose donations enabled the erections of five additional classrooms, in Honiara, Solomon Islands.png to Wikimedia Commons. This is a request from author, and off-line agreement is reached with one other editor who contributed a substantial amount of work regarding the transcription of the characters on the picture). It would be great if this transcription could (the original file description and info) be put on-line on Commons again. Thank you very much for any help. This request comes from my motivation to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. (Verheyen Vincent (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

File:Ben Lomond Ski Jumper.jpg

[edit]

Cześć. Czy mógłbyś sprawdzić, czy uzyskano zgodę na wykorzystanie tego zdjęcia? Wydaje mi się, że Skisprungschanzen "dawno temu" nie udzieliło zgody, jednak może coś się zmieniło i się mylę. Pozdrawiam, Szoltys (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Szoltys: Niestety dwa lata temu zrezygnowałem z mojej roli w OTRS, więc nie mogę odpowiedzieć na Twoje pytanie. Najlepiej będzie, jak skontaktujesz się w tej sprawie z którymś z użytkowników wymienionych na tej stronie (@Ankry i @Jarekt wydają się być najbardziej aktywni), być może oni będą Ci w stanie pomóc. odder (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nie znalazłem żadnych zgód od "Skisprungschanzen" na OTRS, ale nawet jakbym znalazł to nie jestem pewien czy są oni spadkobiercami praw autorskich nieznanego fotografa który zrobił to zdjęcie. --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyon-St-Clair (talk • contribs) 09:17, 06 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have forgotten to comment on this, but just for future reference, I support the request to delete File:Line A of Tramway de Bordeaux logo.svg which I uploaded a couple of years ago as it's now obsolete. odder (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Poland

[edit]

Uszanowanko! Potrzebuję konsultacji w sprawie tego rozdziału ponieważ nie jestem biegły w angielskim. Otóż jest tam napisane „Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art are not eligible…” i jest to IMO coś w stylu słynnego „thank you from the mountain”. :-D IMO fraza „wierne reprodukcje” w tym kontekście powinna być przetłumaczona jako „accurate reproductions” albo „exact reproductions”. Co o tym sądzisz? --jdx Re: 11:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: Zwrot "faithful reproductions" jest jak najbardziej poprawny z punkty widzenia gramatyki języka angielskiego i jest używany w języku codziennym (co dla upewnienia się sprawdziłem w archiwum Newsbank). Co dla nas ważniejsze, jest on też szeroko używany w prawodawstwie amerykańskim, dlatego więc posługujemy się na zalinkowanej przez Ciebie stronie (w opisie wyroku w sprawie Bridgeman v. Corel). Jeżeli chodzi o użycie tego zwrotu w odniesieniu do polskiego prawa autorskiego, to po krótkim zapoznaniu się z treścią przytoczonych wyroków Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie i Sądu Najwyższego wydaje mi się, że został on użyty poprawnie. Jakkolwiek opis sytuacji w Polsce nie oddaje wszystkich szczegółów tych dwóch wyroków (przykładowo, w wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego mowa jest o "muzealiach" a nie wyłącznie obrazach), to jako skrót moim zdaniem jest akceptowalny. odder (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

[edit]

At Wiktionary-logo-v2.svg, please change the other fields to |other fields={{Igen|+|<|s=l}}, to tag it correctly. Thank you.
I am always wondering why protection, e.g. the cascading, inhibits small editings; it should be enough to protect the image itself against destruction? I always need to molest admins to have small changes. sarang♥사랑 07:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: Done, thank you. As for your question, I have been wondering that myself for years now. I'm quite sure there is a Phabricator (back then, Bugzilla) request to have this changed, however for the time being we have to treat this as a limitation in the MediaWiki software. Perhaps it would be a good idea to submit that as an idea for the next Community Wishlist Survey. odder (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

warning ?

[edit]

hey, tu przesadzasz, bo mi pomógł (you're exaggerating, he helped me), --wkaczura (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@wkaczura: I beg your pardon? odder (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
zwróciłem tylko uwagę, że takie ostrzeżenia z powodu "inactivity" to już kompletny absurd wikipedii, nie uważasz ? jak nie uważasz, to możesz pominąć, --wkaczura (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight needed

[edit]

{{YGM}} INeverCry 04:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+3 more shots from another IP. INeverCry 07:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @INeverCry — it's now been taken care of, please check your inbox for more details in a couple of minutes. Thanks :) odder (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Bed time for me. 1:30 AM here on the West Coast. The rangeblocks I did are really small and can be removed at any time; the /24 is the bigger one of course. The /64 on the IPv6 is like blocking a single IPv4, but you probably already know that. I don't take a lot of time with the buttons in this kind of situation. Good that Jdx caught these. Perhaps a future fellow admin... Have a good night (or morning probably). INeverCry 08:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time

[edit]

Hello Odder, I hope you're fine. Turkey's government has decided to implement the daylight saving time for all year. UTC + 3 system has been become permanent. According to it, you can modify this files? :File:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png, File:DST Countries Map.png, File:Standard time zones of the world.png Uğurkent (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uğurkent: Hi, I'm really sorry about the delay. I'll attend to your request on Sunday when I get some free time. Thanks, odder (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uğurkent: Looks like all three files have now been updated. odder (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Greetings.

Turkey and Northern Cyprus have abolished daylight saving and are permanently fixed on en:UTC+3 (en:Further-eastern European Time). (Also Crimea has not been updated in some of these files which is also permanently fixed on UTC+3.) See the news and sources. Can you change these files accordingly?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.200.22.58 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.
While you have updated Turkey in one map, Northern Cyprus has also followed Turkey and is now permanently fixed on en:UTC+3. There is also Crimea which is permanently fixed on en:UTC+4 since 2014. Could you check all aforementioned maps, and update them with these three changes?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.200.22.58 (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I simply do not have the time nor technical ability to do all these files justice. As for Northern Cyprus, I tried searching for information about that when I updated File:Standard time zones of the world.png but I wasn't able to find any information confirming they use a different time zone from the Republic of Cyprus, so a reference would be required, as it the case with Crimea as I can see it's using Moscow Time which is UTC+3, contary to what you say. odder (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. (I for instance don't have the technical ability at all to change detailed maps, and SVG files are beyond my IQ level) I have found sources for Northern Cyprus: http://famagusta-gazette.com/cyprus-will-have-two-time-zones-from-next-month-p36121-69.htm http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0908/815258-turkey-daylight-saving/ http://www.news24.com/Green/News/turkey-scraps-winter-clock-change-20160908 http://cyprus-mail.com/2016/09/09/un-two-sides-will-decide-address-time-zone-problem/
I hope these sources are acceptable, if you wish to change the files. If not, thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.200.22.58 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these are perfectly acceptable! I just updated File:Standard time zones of the world.png to have Northern Cyprus marked in the same colour as Turkey. Thanks for being so vigilant about this :) odder (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your notification

[edit]

Hey bud, can you please look at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Special:Contributions.2FAlert5. This is not how things are supposed to be done on Commons. 106.68.219.165 10:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, apologies for not being able to respond earlier — I've been travelling all day and only got an e-mail notification about this when I was already on my way. I'm glad it's been sorted out in the meantime, it would've been a loss if we couldn't get that picture back up as soon as we did. (But it still left a bit of a sour taste, didn't it.). Anyway, thanks for taking care of this, appreciate your involvement. odder (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GWToolset Priviledge Request

[edit]

Hi odder, I've translated the GWToolset interface to pt. Would it be possible to grant me the GWToolset Users priviledge? I believe that this is the only place where the translation work could be properly reviewed. -- Hamilton Abreu (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hamilton Abreu, thank you for your work on this! If your request is just about seeing your work on a live wiki, then I think you can review it on our beta cluster. @Steinsplitter, @Natuur12, @Fæ and others are bureaucrats there and can grant you the necessary user rights after you've created an account. Hope this helps! odder (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks. -- Hamilton Abreu (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done granted the GWT toolset on the beta cluster. Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Commons User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Colin, thanks for letting me know about this. I have contributed to a similar campaign in the past and I would normally contribute to this one, too, however I am very hesitant to do so due to the, quite honestly, shockingly astronomical fees attached to this campaign. Out of the total sum of US$953.90 that is being raised, US$465 is fees, including US$400 (41.9% of the total) of importation fees. While I think that @The Photographer will make excellent use of this new equipment, I am astonished at the level of fees charged by the Brazilian government, and I would rather spend my money elsewhere than give it to the Brazilian government, which Just Sucks™. odder (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very surprising high import fee (60%) and then sales tax (%18). I've been told the former is legally avoidable if one purchases the camera abroad and travels back into the country provided it is for personal use. Another photographer (RTA) made use of a friend travelling to the US to pick up a camera. So The Photographer is pursuing that option, possibly in combination with a WMF grant for an upgraded camera (his is very old). But I don't think, as yet, anything has been decided there. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this moment I am looking for a new friend that could help travelling from US to Brazil. BTW, I don't think that I can ask for a camera to WMF, because this kind of request,watching grant history, is always for a chapter or local group. Recently RTA requested a camera for the group from the same city where I am (São Paulo), it would be great to think that I can go there and simply borrow the camera, however, there are two groups in Brazil in constant conflict. On one side are those who say they are a group and create grants, on the other is the real group that does not create grants but works much more. This is only my opinion of what I have observed, I do not belong to any of the two groups, I have tried to stay away from those conflicts and focus on providing quality content. --The Photographer 10:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Photographer WMF have given grants directly to individuals and purchased equipment for individuals. In the past their grant system seemed to be a PITA and they were reluctant to give rather than to loan. But I don't see any reason why RTA's grant should affect yours. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Do you have some example case of that? (I am searching) --The Photographer 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems I am mistaken about the change of policy wrt grants. You may well have to go through your local chapter and the equipment regarded as a "loan" though exclusively used by you as long as you continue to produce images for Commons. I still think this is worth pursuing. However, you need to decide whether you can arrange travel/import solution for just the lens/panorama head or whether that would be best combined with the purchase of a camera abroad. WMF grant will want an exact amount so best "do your homework" on the likely cost from a retailer you will purchase from and also to approach your local chapter -- try to ignore the politics. Anyway, this is probably best discussed/moved to your talk page rather than Odder's. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OS handbook

[edit]

Hi Odder. I probably said it before, and then I'll say it again, but thanks for creating the oversight handbook. I've added it to the topic of the private irc channel years ago, but perhaps we should spread it more across current oversighters. Have you add it to m:Oversight policy already? With regards, Trijnsteltalk 13:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trijnstel, and thank you for the kind words. I think it's no surprise that I agree with you! I'm quite proud of the handbook. However, I'm not aware of it being well known at all, I think it's only us Commons oversighters who use it, but perhaps it can be useful for other oversighters, too, as I tried to avoid making it too Commons specific. It's been linked on Meta in June 2013, so there's some visibility to it already. odder (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas, Odder!
Hi Odder, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
   ★ Poké95 01:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pokéfan95, apologies for the belated response. Thanks so much for you wishes; I did have have a really pleasant Christmas, and I hope you did the same. Have a great 2017 and happy editing! odder (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Odder!

[edit]

Happy New Year!

Odder, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Hedwig, thanks so much for your kind wishes! Hopefully 2017 will indeed be a great story—and I hope it will be the same for you, too! Have a great evening, odder (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about

[edit]

User:Dr. Bernd Gross? Please send a mail to: schlesinger@wikipedia.de thanks. --Schlesinger (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Bernd Gross? Same question. --Dat doris (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schlesinger and @Dat doris, and thanks for your messages. I'm not at liberty to discuss the issue of Dr. Bernd Gross at any length at this moment except for saying that it is still under review. I do hope to be able to provide you with more details without much delay. Thanks, odder (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello odder, I read about this now. It's good to know that the case is under review, because an infinite block is no easy thing after such a long time. Nevertheless, I've got some questions about this, even if you can't say much at this moment. Perhaps it's possible just to tell some basic informations now.
  1. Could you provide information, which of the 4 cases (or 5 with 2. a) and 2. b)) of the global policy in COM:Oversighters#What is an oversighter? applies in this case? I think this should be possible without discussing it further at this time.
  2. Is the case under review within the group of local oversighters or within the m:ombudsman commission because of a request or within the WMF Legal Team? And is it a request of Bernd that is in review now, is it possible to tell this? May the ombudspeople also review blocks because of oversight cases and not only the oversight itself? I'm reading there: "In addition to official investigation, they will mediate between the complainant and the respondent (usually a CheckUser, oversighter […])." Is this maybe such a mediation case?
  3. Can you guess, how long this review will need approximately, because it's nearly 2 months ago already?
  4. I think there's a difference between an infinite block and an indefinite block, the latter in case of need to prevent things getting worse and as long as things aren't clear and discussed. Is this block meant as an infinite or an indefinite block at this time? An infinite block would be harder than an indefinite one. In the block log I'm reading "indefinite", so I hope that the block has never been meant as a block without an end. Maybe that's the reason for Bernd not talking about it until now at de-WP. Is this right? You should know that at de-WP, there is nearly never an indefinite block, blocks without a defined end are always seen as infinite, so I've read there that he has been blocked infinite which matches with the long duration of the block until now, but not with the entry in the block log saying "indefinite".
I hope that some basics can be told at this time to understand this better also without details about the issue itself. Thanks in advance, --Bjarlin (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bjarlin: These are good questions, but unfortunately I can provide no detailed answers, particularly to question no. 1. As for the other questions, the case is under review by the local oversight team; we are looking into how to allow @Dr. Bernd Gross to contribute to Commons again in a way that would satisfy all involved parties. This review was initiated from within the Commons oversight team (by myself), and I am not aware of any other reviews currently taking place, be it by the Ombudsman Commision or by the Foundation's legal team, nor am I aware of who might have initiated those other reviews (if at all).
As far as your question about the scope of the Ombudsman Commision goes—and this is just my own understanding—I do not believe that they are in the position of being able to review local blocks, like this one. My understanding of the first paragraph of the OC page on Meta is that they are able to investigate complaints about the infringements of the privacy policy, the access to nonpublic information policy and the oversight policy. This limited definition does not include the ability to review local blocks, even if placed in relation to the above-mentioned policies—and important ommission, it appears—however you are correct in saying that the Commision might be able to mediate between a claimant and a functionary (usually a checkuser, oversighter or bureaucrat), and I see no issues with having the ombudspeople review the block and all related evidence.
As for the other questions, I am unable to say how long the case might take, perhaps a couple of weeks. It is quite unfortunate that it has taken this long, and I wish we could all put it behind us as soon as possible. And anwering your final question: no, the block was never meant to be infinite. It is indefinite in that I wasn't able to specifiy how long it would take for the Commons oversight team to assess the situation and come to a conclusion; it wasn't my intention to block (in effect, ban) Dr. Bernd Gross on Commons till the end of time. Hope this helps, odder (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ein langjähriger Mitarbeiter der Wikipedia, der vor allem auch im Denkmalbereich (Wikimedia loves Monuments) führend tätig war, wird hier einfach mal so regelwidrig unbegrenzt gesperrt. Wo sind wir den hier? Ich halte diese Sperrung für einen kapitalen Fehler, der dern Wikipedia schadet. Der Account Odder hat sofort alle seine Rechte abzugeben. Liesel (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liesel: I do apologise for answering in English rather than German, however I have to say that I'm simply shocked that you would make such a comment. As far as I am aware—and see below for more detail on that—you do not have all the facts about this case. Why would you then jump to the conclusion that the block was placed against the rules ("regelwidrig") and that I ought to resign from all my roles? I am very disappointed to see long-term Wikimedians make this kind of judgements when they clearly know very little about the case. odder (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As others. There is no way to make someone commendable disappear. If you think, you are in god mode, then stay back. Immediately. As a payed autor for WMF and as a Admin, Oversighter and Buerocrat. Wikimedia needs participants, not autocrats. --Hubertl 09:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: You will excuse me for not answering this, for the lack of a better word, "message". I find this level of hostility demeaning and upsetting. You are in posession of exactly no facts about this case, yet you allow yourself to call me an autocrat; I wonder why? I am first and foremost your colleague, a fellow contributor, a volunteer of over 10 years, and I do not appreciate being spoken to like that, let alone in a situation where you have no facts about the case at hand. I really think you ought to step back, cool down and think hard about whether I (or any other Wikimedia contributor, for that matter) deserve this sort of treatment. odder (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Odder, I am not at all impressed from your selfdeclared 10-year-participation. Quite the opposite. There is nothing special. Maybe in your own eyes, but that doesn´t count really, you have 10 years experience with wikipedia, but this is not everything you need to learn as a human beeing. The only issue that count is, that a very merited person has been killed by the decision of a young man, not older than any student in one of my classes. Death penalty by mood! Thats the fact, nothing else. First, a few people with special functions collectively attack someone until he is grounded and can not fight back. Then the perpetrators expect that the man who has been kicked down and his defenders should make their complaints politely without emotions. What a twisted world!
We are investing thousands of hours against real vandalism, with no effect. Isn´t it better to invest in people like Bernd and accept him as a valuable person? --Hubertl 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

The discussion is escalating and the number of ad hominem attacks sky rocketed. I can understand that people get emotional when someone is blocked but that is no excuse to start attacking Odder.

@Schlesinger: please refrain from referring to Odder’s nationality. This is rude.

@Hubertl: please walk away for now. The last comments you made are pretty much blockable. Also, discrimination by age is against the non-discrimination policy the WMF has developed. If one of my teachers would speak to me the way you did to Odder they would likely be sanctioned as would I if I would speak this way to one of my teachers. And using inflaming language like killing for a block at a website on the internet? Please behave.

I don´t understand, what your problem is, Natuur12, when I question the decision-making ability from someone who has the same age as one of my students? I know their abilities pretty well, I have to! Questioning this is not at all a discrimination issue in any way. It´s simply a fact. Do you really believe, that a five year old boy have the same intellectual abilities as you have? Or that you have those of a student starting his master thesis? Does a 26 year old student have the same knowledge than a teacher with 30 years additional learning and life experience. Tell me, were is the discrimination beside the facts. --Hubertl 10:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hulbert, someone in his twenties can be perfectly capable of handling difficult situations. Odder has proven more than once in the past that he is capable. What is irrelevant is his age, the fact that you are a teacher or that Odder allegedly has the age as our students. Using his age as some kind of reversed ad verecundiam is rude.
And I didn’t tell you what kind of student I am, what kind of school I go to or which year I’m in so I would kindly ask you not to ask me to compare myself with a master student since the answer would make me reveal personal information I don’t which to share. Natuur12 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@All: We don’t know why this block was placed but oversighters are one of the most trusted groups of users and sometimes there are situations that shouldn’t be handled in public or by a basic admin. Putting pressure on someone surely isn’t going to work to get this situation resolved. Please clam down and please give Odder the time to do the review he is talking about. That’s the proper course to come the best solutions possible, not turning this into a mud fight. Natuur12 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odder 'pushed the button', but it was not simply a unilateral act on his part.... what Raymond said on dewiki is about all that 'can' be said publicly, under the limitations of the privacy policy regarding the disclosure of personal information. If you really want to know why he is blocked here, ask him yourself. We cannot tell you, and attacking Odder for this is completely unfair. Frankly, it's none of your business unless Dr. Gross himself chooses to tell you. - Reventtalk 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full  Support the indefblock of "Brücke-Osteuropa" aka "Dr. Bernd Gross". Thanks Odder for the block, and thanks in advance for not lifting it. --A.Savin 22:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOL.

Ach jetzt wird auch noch die Rassismus-Keule ausgepackt. Mit fällt dazu nur ein "Was ich selber denk' und tu' traue ich auch dem anderen zu". Liesel (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A block of Dr. Bernd Gross/Brücke Osteuropa was correct. Ha made the same "mistake" simply too often. But it was not OK, to block him indefinite. e have to start here with an short time block, maybe a month. Everything else is not OK and not fair. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond's explanation is fine and the (temporary) ban seems certainly justified based on that. However the general problem looming in the background here is the unnecessary lack of transparency, which has lead to this temporary escalation in the first place. If a shorted version of Raymond's explanation had been given with original ban (by Odder), there would have been no problem at all. But without it it is for other Wikipedian/Wikimedians very difficult if not impossible to assess what's going and members of the community might suspect anything from a justified ban to misconduct by an oversighter depending on their personal experiences or knowledge of the involved people. So the lesson here should be, be as transparent as you can to community in administrative decision and treat transparency not as an option or afterthought but as an obligation that sort of comes with the job description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this assessment, @Kmhkmh, is that the job actually does not come with any obligation regarding transparency. Quite the opposite: as oversighters, we are obliged by the privacy policy, the access to nonpublic information policy, the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and the oversight policy to keep the cases we handle as intransparent as possible. An effect of this is that we hardly ever discuss any details relating to cases past and present here on Commons; in all honesty, that I actually left a message on Dr. Bernd Gross’s talk page—both in English and German—is in itself unheard of and was only done because of Dr. Bernd Gross's many great contributions to Commons.
I understand it might be frustrating for people not to have any details about the block, and that some contributors might suspect that the block might have been the effect of someone's misconduct (in this case, mine). As you will be aware, oversighters are trusted members of the community, recruited from the admin corps and voted on by the community over a two-week period, and identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. This generally ensures that no misconduct is possible, however we also have another layer of assurance: the fact that oversighters are accountable to one another through the logging of all actions in the suppression log. In this case, the block had been discussed by two oversighters before being placed, and was later reviewed by the other two oversighters (at the time) and @Revent who joined the team in December, with the conclusion that it was placed correctly.
Oversight (or suppression as it's technically supposed to be called) is a tricky beast in that it stands in direct contradiction to our value of transparency, as mentioned above. You will, however, note that I of all people have gone to great lengths to bring as much transparency to the role as possible: I authored the publicly-available Oversighter's Handbook and, in November 2012, introduced the rolling six-months suppression statistics to Commons, and have been updating them every month for over 4 years now—so I hope you will appreciate the unease I feel when I am being accused of possibly abusing my rights or of coming to a wrong decision because of my age (see below for more on that). Thanks, odder (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody was accusing of abuse or a wrong decision. The complaint was about the complete lack of transparency regarding the decision in the beginning. And while I must admit you are much better versed with the concerned policies, I disagree with your reading of the privacy policy. At least I don't see where it blocks one providing a short explanation in general terms or more concretely concerning this case I don't see any policy argument that has kept you from providing a short information of the type that Raymond did. As far as the missing obligation for transparency is concerned, note that I used the conditional ("should") above, i.e. I stated what the policy imho ought to contain not what it currently does. If the current set of policies indeed demand of oversighters (or even other people in administrative functions) to be "as intransparent as possible", then from my perspective we have an internal culture and policy problem. The idea should be to be as transparent as possible without violating the concerned set policies. Completely opaque administrative decisions are from my perspective aside from rare exceptions (due to legal concerns) a clear no-go. They always should come with some short explanation (in rather general terms if necessary) and simply arguing that the decision makers are elected and control each other is not sufficient from my perspective.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmhkmh: The 'intransparency' of Oversight actions is something mandated by the WMF, and required by the various legal agreements those with access to nonpublic information sign. In many (probably most) cases where Oversight is involved, the mere 'disclosure' of the fact that suppression was done, or a public statement about what 'criteria' was applied, would itself either disclose nonpublic information or itself be an oversightable statement about the editor involved. We have, literally, said as much as we can about this case... we can give no details without violating the privacy of involved persons, and that 'explicitly' includes (and almost always does) the right of Dr. Gross to not be exposed to specific allegations that cannot be proven without either exposing nonpublic information or violating the privacy of other people. We attempt, as much as possible, to handle such situations quietly so as to avoid either a 'Streisand effect', of unrelated people searching for the removed material in caches, or damaging the reputation of people involved with accusations that cannot be publicly proven.
We replace the 'public' transparency with an extremely high level of transparency between those with access to the information. Literally, by 'the rules' every oversight action must be explicitly announced to the private mailing list, and we review all such actions 'en banc'. Any oversight action taken (and not later undone) can be fairly assumed to be the 'responsibility' of the Oversight team as a whole. The attacks on Odder, as the person who 'pushed the button', are completely unreasonable. We act as a group.
While this example is 'completely' unrelated (it's not only not about Dr. Gross, but specifically chosen to be as unrelated as possible) I invite you to consider the example of a recent (and ongoing, unfortunately) case, where a public figure was accused of being a terrorist, copies of identification documents uploaded to Commons, and the 'complaint' about the uploads made publicly. The oversight of this required not only the edits by the uploader, but also the removal of the complaint itself, because the complaint (explaining why it should be oversighted) itself repeated the accusation.... even the 'filenames' of the removed images had to be oversighted. This is a case where ANY public transparency would have involved oversightable information.
As I have said before, Dr. Gross is quite aware of the nature of the issue (it was discussed with him, in person, by a Commons oversighter). We cannot tell you, beyond the actual 'block rationale' that he reuploaded previously oversighted content, anything about the nature of the content or why it was oversighted. We simply cannot. To do so would be a violation of legally binding agreements that we have signed, as a disclosure of nonpublic information.
We have attempted to handle this as quietly as possible, but (and I know people will hate this statement) oversight actions are explicitly not appealable to the community, as they involve non-public information. They are appealable to the Ombudsman Commission, and inquiries for more specific information from third parties will simply receive the response that the information cannot be disclosed.
Any third parties wishing for more information about this should ask Dr. Gross, privately. Any wishing to question this oversight action should contact the Ombudsman Commission, again privately. - Reventtalk
@Revent: Let me reiterate again - I think - we have have a policy and culture problem. Aside from that I'm getting the feeling we're arguing beside each other. I'm not not arguing for "total transparency" or to make "non-public information" public, which are obvious no-gos. I'm arguing for being as transparent as possible within the current set of policies rather than being as intransparent as possible on top of the current set of policies. Total opaqueness of administrative decisions (in particular of bans) is imho a big problem and can become the base for a lot of problems down the road. In that context my issue is that, the "block rationale" as you call it was not given in the original ban and not really even upon request nor that people could ask Dr. Gross himself. Now if that had been an individual by some as awkward perceived action/ban, I wouldn't see any problem and with the "block rationale" now revealed by others everything thing should be fine. However Odder seems to insist, if i reading him right, that total opaqueness (including no block rationale) is a policy requirement. If that is indeed the case, than from my perspective we (and/or the WMF) have a policy problem. If that is not case and it is due by overly strict interpretation of policies by Odder, then we still might have a cultural problem (that is (some) oversighters (or more general administrators) not being used to always provide a rationale for their administrative actions. The latter should imho be a requirement (and in doubt explicitly stated in a policy).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmhkmh: I understand the point that you are making, I think, but it's not something that can really be resolved on an editor's talk page... it's a discussion for meta. I will say again, though, that a major problem with 'announcing' oversight actions is that doing so would create a Streisand Effect, prompting people to search for cached copies of the 'juicy information'. Even stating publicly in some cases (such as where a person requested oversight of an accidental upload of the 'wrong file' that contained their personal information) the criteria that was applied would imply that in other cases the reason was 'something else', and invite speculation that could be damaging to the person involved. This is the same 'practice' that the WMF applies under the meta:WMF Global Ban Policy, where "to protect the privacy of all involved, the Wikimedia Foundation generally will not publicly comment on the reason for any specific banning action." The logic applies to oversight actions as well. - Reventtalk 09:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: yes, i agree. As suggested in an older posting below, this is discussion that nothing to do with Odder in particular and therefore belongs on some project page for discussig policy or meta.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, pls keep in mind that this block affects a user who is known to the German community as being a very busy contributor who puts loads of time and effort into the project. In these cases, transparency is one of the most important issues: others could otherwise be demotivated and of course disappointed. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaS.aus I.: The user in question was given a lot of leniency because of his contributions to the movement; in fact, the possibility of blocking him was already considered as far back as April 2015. We also explained the reasons behind his block multiple times over the Internet and also provided him with the rare courtesy of having a member of the oversight team explain the reasoning again in his native language and in person: something that, to my knowledge, has never happened before. Also, to underline the seriousness of the situation, there are suggestions he should be banned permanently not only from Commons but from all Wikimedia projects due to a whole variety of reasons, however I'm hoping it will not come to that. odder (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my english is very poor, so i write in german. Statement: Ich bin davon überzeugt, das die Oversighter ihre Arbeit auf commons genauso gut wie die in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia machen. Zusätzlich müssen sie die Gesetze der USA berücksichtigen, nicht alles was in DE erlaubt ist, kann auf commons hochgeladen werden. Zum Fall: Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, stand Bernd Gross kurz vor einem Global Ban, da er mehrfach gegen die Regeln von commons trotz Hinweisen in seiner Sprache verstossen hat. Sogar bewusst, da er selbst per oversighting gelöschte Dateien neu eingestellt hat. Oben steht: We also explained the reasons behind his block multiple times. Ich lese das so, das die Oversighter auf commons diesen Fall mehrfach diskutiert haben und schlussendlich zu einem Ergebnis kamen. Dann wäre der Ausführende dieser Entscheidung nur der Bote, der jetzt hier von Wenigen, aber Lautstarken der DE-Community geköpft werden soll. Ich halte es für sinnvoll, wenn die übrigen Oversighter ein Statement (einfach nur +1 oder so) zu dieser Entscheidung abgeben würden, das würde den Druck auf Odder etwas abmildern. Ich weiss auch nicht, wie es weitergehen soll, möchte aber deeskaliern.
Please translate this in english, but not with google. Das gibt nur neue Missverständnisse. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hi Nightflyer, thank you for your correct statement; somebody else should make the trtanslator, however -jkb- (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder: Just in order to clarify my post: I didn't want to judge your work, meaning this ban. I have no idea why it had to be realized. I have no doubt that you are doing your job properly. I just wanted to point out how transparency (and I know that there are restrictions to publishing) could maybe have avoided demotivation, disappointment or anger about this block, as the user is quite known for his engagement ref. Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Users ask for more info and IMHO loose confidence in TPTB whenever they assume info was hidden. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plain translation commenteds, please somebody to improve it, -jkb- (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few bits, and put it in a box, so now it's open to read Sänger (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC):[reply]
Translation of Nightflyers post:
I am convinced that the oversighter on Commons do their work exactly as well as those in the German language Wikipedia. More over, they have to consider the law in the USA as well, which can be different, and doesn't allow to upload everything that can be uploaded in Germany. Concerning our case: if I understood it correct, Bernd Gross was on the verge of a global ban as he repeatedly violated the guidelines of Commons even after he has been warned in his own language. He did it deliberately as he reuploaded the deleted files once more. I cite from above: "We also explained the reasons behind his block multiple times". I understand it this way: oversighters discussed the problem several times and they finally took a decision. The user who carried out the block was only a messenger, who is being attacked now by a small but quite noisy group from the German community. I think it would be useful if the other oversighters would make a statement to this decision (just a +1 or such), which would lessen the pressure on Odder. I do not know what to do about this, but I would like to de-escalate.
+1 While I cannot directly read the German version, this translation is a reasonably fair description of the situation. It would be more appropriate to say that he 'uploaded oversightable material', rather than 'violated the guidelines of Commons', however... we do not publicly disclose 'why' specific material was oversighted, other than that it was under a criteria for use of the tool spelled out in the meta:oversight policy. I will say, however, in the most generic terms possible, that other parties (outside of the Commons oversight team) with access to details of the case have been consulted, and have agreed that the block was appropriate. - Reventtalk 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dekselpot met lange lijzen (Rijksmuseum AK-RBK-16254).jpg

[edit]
Pay attention to copyright
File:Dekselpot met lange lijzen (Rijksmuseum AK-RBK-16254).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hubertl 20:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, @Hubertl! As I did something you do not like, you decided to take your revenge and target me by by tagging as a copyright violation a picture of a vase… created between 1700 and 1720! Well done! odder (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Odder, the picture is made between 1700 and 1720? Or the vase? Funny to see, how the rope club is working! --Hubertl 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? odder (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dekselpot met lange lijzen (Rijksmuseum AK-RBK-16254).jpg

[edit]
File:Dekselpot met lange lijzen (Rijksmuseum AK-RBK-16254).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hubertl 22:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist"?

[edit]

Hi Odder. I know User:Schlesinger as a very helpful account who fights against racism in the De-Wikipedia. Could You please explain what You want to express by insulting him as a "racist"? --JosFritz (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JosFritz: Not that I can answer for Odder, but presumably it relates to Schlesinger choosing to 'randomly' bring Odder's ethnicity into the discussion on dewiki. - Reventtalk 09:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, if Schlesinger did 'not' intend to imply that Odder's actions were less legitimate merely because he is Polish, then there was absolutely no reason to mention it in that context. - Reventtalk 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I don't care about this metawiki-kindergarden, but calling Schlesinger as racist based on [this statement is a severe and reasonless offense and might even have legal consequences. I think, Odder just misunderstood something and should apologize. @Revent: In a discussion within the german-speaking wikipedia, it is not obvious that an involved admin is not from a german-speaking country. Hence, to mention his nationality is quite justified. --RobNbaby (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood nothing, I will apologise to no one, and indeed, I would be very happy to stand my ground in court. Interested parties can contact me via e-mail to obtain my address should legal action against me be necessary. odder (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Retracted. odder (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Du entschuldigst dich nicht für die Beleidigung einen anderen Menschen als Rassisten bezeichnet zu haben? Und so jemand ist Admin und Oversighter, der hier ungeahndet andere Benutzer mit strafrechtlich relevanten Titulierungen bezeichnet. Liesel (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling somebody "racist" because he mentioned a nationality of somebody else in a neutral way is just so ridiculous, that I can't take it seriously. Don't worry, probably nobody is interested in wasting our time in court. So feel free to continue insulting people without reason. --RobNbaby (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A national affiliation has nothing to do with ethnicity. Nothing at all. You all should learn the great difference! For example, my mother was born as a czeckoslowakian with polish descent, my father as an italian with a slovenian mother, later my parents were Reichsdeutsch. And I was born as an austrian. What am I? I found out, that odder declared himself as polish. And polish people are well respected as member of a strong and great nation in Europe. Where do you find racism, @Revent: ? This topic is too critical to play with it! --Hubertl 10:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually who should step back is an oversighter who produces an edit and edit comment which itself should be oversighted. I recommend you to resign from the OS function. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: I did not say the comment was racist, I was just pointing out what Odder was obviously referring to... he linked it, after all. I do think that Odder's nationality is completely irrelevant, however, and I don't really why there would have been any reason to mention it in that context. - Reventtalk 22:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear odder,
also I am a bit confused about using this racist "title" for User:Schlesinger and I only can assume that this is the result of a bad misunderstanding - and you can trust me: he is not, more the opposite. I don't want to discuss or judge on the topic of Bernd Gross, where I am sure it will be handled in the team of oversighters and that there is a good reason to act like you did. On the other hand I am really stunned on the declaration of someone being a racist only because he did mention a nationality which is not implicating any "race" or "ethnicity" at all. For me (as German) telling someone about my syrian friends or my indian, dutch and italian colleagues is something I do without any negative implication and nobody would name me a racist for this, and I also see this in the use of Schlesinger concerning his mentioning - the only point in this case wa to make clear that you as an acting admin and oversighter are not an active user of the German Wikipedia (where - as you can imagine - Bernd is a well known user) and that it may be complicated to discuss with you in the German language on this topic; and that's it. In this case, naming you a polish admin would have been unnecessary but it does not implicate your nationality as a negative point and it would not been different if the admin had been american, arabic or french. To come to an end: I really would appreciate if you would delete your reply to Schlesinger in this point and try to come back to a polite and factual discussion on eye-level with him - even if it is hard after a lot of very aggressive and in my eyes also unnecessary dicussions on this page in the last days. All the best - Achim Raschka (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Achim (and -jkb- below).--Mautpreller (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - and I'm so what not a friend of Schlesinger. You can blame him for a lot of things. But he's not a rassist. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Henriette (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 (and you have email by me ;), regards --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, I myself would have called you a polish admin or oversighter in that context without any negative attitude, and you can call me a german user anytime you like. We fight existing racism in our projects and should neither dilute that term nor insult people causeless. --Superbass (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think (and hope) this here is a big misunderstanding because of language barriers. Regarding Dr.Gross: "Dr. Gross re-uploaded previously oversighted content after being warned not to do so, and that he can be unblocked when the issue is resolved.". --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also assume a kind of misunderstanding. Concerning the block I trust the oversight-team to have a good reason for it and hope that the issue can be resolved in a good way. --Superbass (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you linked here ("Dr. Gross re-uploaded previously oversighted content after being warned not to do so, and that he can be unblocked when the issue is resolved") should have been given in the original ban and nobody would have objected or question it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Achim and +1 to Kmhkmh.
Schlesinger is everything but racist, and a lonesome block of a very prolific author with a good behavioral record and a good standing without giving even a hint of reason can't be treated as anything else but dubious. It's never ever good to block someone without even giving a hint for a reason, nobody here is trusted that much. Sänger (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Succu (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Achim --Don-kun (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, racism is a topic too serious as to bring it wrongly into discussion - we should all fight it together. There are misunderstandings whenever people of different cultures come together and it's not a major issue if s.o.misunderstood sth - it is however if one doesn't want to revalue the case. Schlesinger is an active fighter against racism. You should maybe take a break, step back from this topic and re-read it again. I'm sure that you'll change your mind and you really should apologize, odder. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No comments about this incident but I can say language is playing as a big barrier for smooth communication in Commons. From my experience, people having a difficulty in English communication frequently run into troubles. I'm not a native English speaker; but can read and write without using a translator. But the situation is different for many other people here. So we should be more careful before evaluating one comment whether it is insulting or not. Jee 16:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, nice, and thx, I know this from the Oldwikisource as well :-) -jkb- (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat disagree, while it might be true that a part of the escalation and perceived offenses may indeed be due to languages issues, the underlying core issue - the lack of transparency - is not. That one is Wikimedia/Wikipedia culture and attitude issue and has nothing to do with languages difficulties at all. You could consider it a communications issue though of course, but none caused by language problems.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are privacy issues in play here and therefore transperency (while we do agree it is nice) is not recommended, not allowed per our (WMF) privacy policy, Overighters confidentiality agreements nor in good taste to the the people (who may be) involved. Please let the oversighters deal with this issue, and stop bashing the user who enacted the team decision. This bashing by multiple users from dewp has gone too far. I've seen nasty comments, I've seen POINTy actions and I've seen ignorance. This is not COM:MELLOW. Please assume that the OSers know what they are doing, and assume such good faith. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the privacy issues; but the problem is that our blocking policy is not updated to mention it. We made a lot of noise when WMF acted without disclosing anything; now we try to defend when our team acted without disclosing anything. Now one oversighter is telling that "Dr. Gross re-uploaded previously oversighted content after being warned not to do so, and that he can be unblocked when the issue is resolved." I assume there can be more serious reasons; but anyway our blocking policy should explain these types of blocks too. Jee 18:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: , @Jkadavoor: That was my point exactly (which has nothing to do with Odder in particular), that there is a general culture and policy issue regarding colleagues with administrative functions. I can see no good reason for unnecessary intransparency and our privacy policy doesn't require that either. Administrative decisions should (always) come with a short understandable explanation for the community (without violating privacy regulations) and that should imho be part of the "job description" for administrative functions. An approach a la "I'm telling you shit, just assume good faith and let me do whatever" is not workable neither in real life nor in Wikipedia. However this general discussion doesn't really belong here but on some appropriate project page (or meta).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moin WP:DE: Jetzt macht doch bitte mal Schluss. Das Ganze ist ein fürchterliches Missverständnis, vielleicht durch google-translate oder sonstwie hervorgerufen. Die Sau immer weiter durchs Dorf zu treiben, ist sinnlos. Schlesinger sagt selbst: ...Und nun sollte man den ganzen Kram vergessen.. Da stimme ich zu. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

Hi everyone, thanks for your messsages—I have to say it has been quite overwhelming to follow everyone's messages left here in addition to all the other discussions taking place in other places, but I'm really glad you came here in your numbers. I'm leaving this note here to let everyone interested know that I have personally apologised to @Schlesinger for calling him a racist, and that I retract that comment. As I left my message in public, I think it is only fair that I apologise for it in public, too, which is why I'm leaving this message here.

I was quite upset that my nationality was being brought up yet again in the discussion surrounding my block of Dr. Bernd Gross, and I mistakenly assumed that @Schlesinger mentioned it on purpose to suggest that my block was placed incorrectly because my nationality somehow affected my decision-making ability… and I'm sorry for doing so. I also understand that my comment has derailed the whole discussion about my block of Dr. Bernd Gross's account and made it even more heated than it already was and that it caused harm and upset among the German Wikipedia community; and I apologise for that, too. odder (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dziękuję -jkb- (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke und thank you! --Henriette (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Odder; this is a good move to reduce the heat. I think we should be more careful not to bring off-Commons discussions here as it is not helpful and we have no authority to sanction people on matters happened outside. I just go through a link provided by jkb below; and the comments by many admins there are same (they can't sanction you in DE for a comment you made in Commons). Similarly there is no merits or use in discussing User:Hubertl's or any other's comments in DE here. Hope this will end the frustration and we can be back to the topic. Jee 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this response and move forward. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Danke, Dziękuję! Sänger (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder: I would also like to apologize for my harsh reaction above. --RobNbaby (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Odder, Thank you for your apologizing words; thanks to User:Schlesinger for beeing able to accapte; think we working alltogether@thesameproject, lets discuss all open problems with care, attention and respect to each other; beeing proud to work with all of you. --Commander-pirx (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a statement

[edit]

As by Log entry you blocked User:Dr. Bernd Gross indefinitely and did not comment in the logbook and as it is stated "(contact oversighters for information)" I ask you, please, to give me an reliable comment / explanation about the blocking reasons. Thanks a lot. br --Commander-pirx (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered a similar request last night, and my answer hasn't changed since then. odder (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry did'nt see it. Did read - o.k. now. It would help a lot to reduce "rumors " if the review date of the block decision could be noted to (WM/WP:de) public ... (just my suggestion).
And as/to the section above, please read the comment of user Hubertl; you do not need to see the naming "polish" as offending; I would call the person back: "you are right; I'm polish, but mostly I'm only human on this planet". Your recall as racist to user Schlesinger was very offending, an defamation not quite the state of art - an oversighter should act as... br --Commander-pirx (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipedia is a public and transparent project. I see a violation of this principle in this block and its communication (especially). And it is also impossible fo me to unterstand "racist". I strongly recomend a re-thinking Brainswiffer (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soon I'll have to be ashamed for these dubious comments. Yep, if you have a question, so ask. But do it in a normal civilized way, not that aggressive as some user from dewiki do it above. That's bashing. -jkb- (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to -jkb-, Stepro (talk) from Germany. 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in german WP:Kurier

[edit]

You are a child? You're only 15 years old? Poisoned lies about you? --87.179.10.57 13:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should ask this, Anonymous! I can neither confirm nor deny this rumour. Interestingly, there is no one who can officially confirm my age at this point, so I believe we can reasonably assume I actually might be 15 years old. odder (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
don't mind the oddy talk of children in dewiki. Awfull :-) -jkb- (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, Shocking :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite awful. I am shocked that this ageism (ie. discrimination on the basis of age) is being allowed to stand in that discussion. In 2006—almost eleven years ago—the Foundation adopted a non discrimination policy specifying that they "(…) prohibit discrimination against current or prospective users (…) on the basis of race, color, (…) national origin and age" yet in 2017, I see no one so much as bats an eyelid at seeing someone accuse another Wikimedia contributor of not being able to make rational decisions because they might be too young. Truly, truly awful. odder (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You better ignore User:Hubertl. He's not worth to really think about this all. Most users in de:WP ignore him or don't take him serious. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only him - -jkb- (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a wikt:binky, Odder? :P - Reventtalk 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve never said, odder is 15. --Hubertl 12:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herb Straszyński 1.svg

[edit]
File:Herb Straszyński 1.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

UAwiki (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I have nothing against deleting this file if it's invalid, broken or includes raster elements. odder (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder/Archive_013&oldid=231674793"