Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

 * Moved from WP:ANI - thread over 50k - D.M.N. (talk)

The above user has been removing problem tags from images that he/she has uploaded,   even using Twinkle in the process. I've twice warned the user,  but I got a response on my talk page not to issue any more warnings and the behavior has continued. The user is an administrator so I'm not sure how to proceed. Kelly hi! 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult situation, abusing Twinkle is serious, so I'd suggest maybe a 24 hr block or something along those lines, and if the behavior continues, perhaps requesting comment? For the record, I am not an administrator Chafford (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, so I'll keep this brief. He has gone through all my uploaded images, and is liberally tagging them, even when they're clearly PD according to the source, or have been explicitly released under a free licence and have OTRS tickets. Some of the legitimately tagged ones (e.g. of living people before we had such strict rules about them), I've deleted myself. But when it reaches the point of tagging the Eichmann trial for deletion when the Israeli government has released the images, and the source states that clearly, then it becomes make-work and lacks common sense. Add to which that this is his second post about it on AN/I, plus numerous posts to my talk page, image pages, deletion pages, and now "warnings" on my talk page, all of which I am supposed to respond to post-haste. I think an uninvolved admin should handle this, rather than Kelly, if anyone. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been away for a bit, but I will say the above is a complete mischaracterization of my actions and a blatant assumption of bad faith. I haven't posted about SlimVirgin on ANI before, this was the first time. To my knowledge, I haven't tagged any images incorrectly - the Eichmann image had a bad source when tagged. Others indeed have OTRS tickets, but a lookup of the ticket shows that it didn't necessarily apply to the images SlimVirgin placed it on. For SlimVirgin to think I'm out to draw him/her into conflict is distinctly tinfoily; I'm simply cleaning up copyright issues with images, something I have been doing for months. I've had no previous interaction with this user and know nothing about them - I simply noticed a pattern of copyright problems by chance and looked through their upload log for other problems. Attempts to work with the user in a friendly way to resolve this have been rebuffed. Kelly  hi! 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I advised you to watch out for SV's territory. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. For future reference, you might want to see the current ArbCom evidence page of C68-FM-SV for more details on why your involving yourself with her property is not advised. SandyGeorgia's experience is particularly relevant to your situation. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have listened to you, but I thought that abiding by Wikipedia policies would insulate me. Silly me! Kelly  hi! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked, no outraged that slimVirgin has been removing these tags, surely that's Crum375's job? Is Crum slacking or something? Buck up Crum, Slim needs ya. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comeon, RMHED, that adds nothing to the discussion, more light, less heat please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've given myself a damn good talking to, and I've assured myself that it won't happen again. RMHED (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being brought here? If anyone has concerns about images, please post a request with fairusereview rather than badfairuse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Maybe it would also be an idea to add to the documentation of both templates to make users of one aware of the other, and when each should be used. Also, it should be fairly simple to check where each is mentioned, and to make sure people aren't wrongly being encouraged to use one instead of the other. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use tags of any sort are inappropriate for public domain images. Durova Charge! 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be of interest. While I understand Slim's frustration, making sure images are correctly tagged to conform with our policies should not be regarded as make-work. In addition, this seems unhelpful to the process. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So Kelly, you tagged a large number of images uploaded by the same user, slapped them all into one discussion even though the tagging, source, permissions and licenses widely vary and you didn't expect that person to be a little peeved at the way you're handling things? I'm not sure how you expected editors to comment on that listing given the lack of commonality other than the uploader, and certainly the uploader has nothing to do with image licensing.


 * The first item you're complaining about is SlimVirgin expanding the fair-use rationale for an image -- why is that a problem?  She also reverted your tagging on the Eichmann Trial image pointing out that it was public domain - you don't appear to have given any explanation as to why you feel the image is not in the public domain as claimed?  I'd say you need to go back through and give clear reasons you believe the images aren't free - if some have an identical reasoning, it makes sense to group them, but the way it is now, whether or not you meant it, this looks like you're picking on one uploader.  Shell    babelfish 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the PUI listing - with the exception of the Eichmann image, which has been struck through, the images all had a similar problem...free licenses are claimed for the photos, but there is no evidence of the free license. It probably does seem like I'm picking on one uploader, but it's typical to look through a user's log for issues when a pattern of copyright problems is noticed. I did my best to consolidate the problems into as few messages as possible, as some people get very, very irate if spammed with a lot of image notification templates on their talk page. Kelly  hi! 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SV was right on the first diff you show. As for the second ones, if she has a good argument to keep it, then she should put it on the PUI page rather than removing it. So long as she understands what to do from here on out it's no big deal either way. Wizardman 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time that Slim acts like she thinks rules, policies, and standard ways of doing things are for the "little people", not for elite administrators like herself. Having to deal with a talk page full of annoying notices about image uploads for which some user, admin, or bot thinks that not all the fair-use hoops have been properly jumped through is a pain in the butt, but it's a pain in the butt that all who upload images must go through (I've had to deal with heaps of those myself), so Slim shouldn't think she's too special to be put through it.  She's a she, by the way; I have no idea which gender Kelly is. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the main thing I was hoping for a response from her on was some details regarding her statement that good images are being deleted from the Commons, perhaps by someone with an agenda.  If true, it's a serious issue that needs to be investigated at Commons. But now I'm starting to believe that maybe this user sees bad faith where none exists.  Kelly  hi! 01:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any concerns about agendas, Commons does have a bit of a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for seemingly moving the goalposts on what's considered "free", and in particular on public-domain issues, so it's reasonable for an uploader to want copies retained on enwiki. --Random832 (contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before we speculate too much about the practices of a sister project, could someone supply specific filenames? These are serious accusations indeed.  Durova Charge! 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Commons policy is pretty static. It's here if you're interested. The fact that people don't read it, don't abide by it, have their images deleted, and then complain of Commons being teh evilz, is not actually Commons' fault. giggy (O) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be a surprise to me too if anti-animal rights deletions occurred at Commons. If it did happen the problem would be easy to trace once we get the filenames.  It comes across as odd that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin would resort to hosting valid free images here if she really thought Commons practices were that seriously flawed.  About half of overall Wikipedia site traffic goes to non-English editions.  It deprives 252 other languages to host at en:wiki if the material really is copyleft or PD.  Durova Charge! 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, in my experience, tends to be a combination of: (1) people failing to put the tag on pictures here when we need to keep copies here, or where it is already known that it is free here but not on Commons; and (2) other people (ie. not the original uploader) being too quick to transfer images to Common without checking that it doesn't fail the more strict conditions there. People do get confused when they realise that Wikipedia labels some images free that Commons does not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any cases where images are free here and not free at Commons, with the exception of PD-US-1923-abroad or PD-US-1996, and even that is debatable. Kelly  hi! 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked Kelly, if he copies images to the Commons and tags that they may be deleted, to add instead that local copies should be kept, but he refuses, and says I have to do it myself. This alone indicates that he is out to cause me work for no reason, and as people who post on Wikipedia Review are now involved, and Kelly is posting to Cla68, it is very difficult for me to believe that, by chance, he just happened to decide to go through all my images. He is also claiming that images are not PD when they clearly are -- some of them were sent to me by e-mail by the copyright holder and released and have OTRS tickets; others (e.g. Eichmann) were released by a govt, as is made clear on the image page. Kelly will not say why he thinks the images are not PD.


 * He has been trying for the last 24 hours to drag me into whatever this is, with various "warnings" to my talk page, and I'm just not going to be so dragged, so this is, I hope, my last post on the issue. If Kelly feels that an image is not PD, or that a free licence or OTRS ticket is not valid, he must say why he believes that. If any admin wants to discuss this with me, please e-mail me. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the reason why you're removing the PUI tag is because you think WR and others are out to get you? ...I'm hoping I'm misreading that @_@ That made my head hurt. Like I said before, if it's actually PD (which it seems to be) then the PUI will come and go with the image kept, just leave it be before this escalates. Wizardman  19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people find the alleged "evil WR conspiracy" to be just as useful a smear tactic to distract attention from their own behavior as did the Clintons with their allegations of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and for that matter the Bush administration with its insinuations about the evil anti-American left. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to business: this is taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities rather than copyright. Image issues are difficult enough to stay on top of without senior volunteers generating extra work for other people. SV: if you think Commons does improper image deletions, please give examples. Kelly: if you think there's a problem with SV's uploads, please ask a neutral party to review. I've got two restorations to complete for FPC and an image restoration module at Wikibooks to write, and I'm willing (reluctantly) to push back those plans and look into this if the soapboxing comes to a halt. If there are genuine licensing issues at hand I'll look into them: please document the evidence in a straightforward presentation. Durova Charge! 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did made a request for neutral review, here. Please take a look and offer an opinion. Kelly  hi! 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking on the appearance of a dispute about personalities uses passive voice to describe what actively happened right here, when SlimVirgin said: Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me, ... and it's a pattern.  You're right dealing with image issues is hard business, and someone doing it shouldn't be discouraged with this kind of personalization of the issue.  I was earlier willing to cede that SV might be able to change with a bit of self-awareness of the effect she has on other editors; perhaps I've been had once again by my inner Pollyanna.  I've seen many editors get multiples of hundreds of templated messages on images; SlimVirgin isn't exempt.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved two cents- I just want to point out the notion that Kelly is "targeting" Slim's images is rather silly. Kelly is simply going through images, fixing problems, tagging inappropriate licenses and transferring them to Commons. Prior to working on Slim's images, Kelly recently went through all of my image contributions and did a lot of nice work in transferring them to Commons and helping me out with some Flickr issues. Some of my images were deleted because the flickr license change but I didn't feel "targeted" at all. It is just part of the continuing process of trying to bring everyone onto the same page with Wikipedia's image policies and getting more truly free images over to Commons so that other Wikis can benefit. AgneCheese/Wine 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've seen Kelly's work on images, and she does good work there. Kelly reviews images, and going through other images that people have uploaded when reviewing one of them should be encouraged, not discouraged. From what I can see, the other incident was co-incidental. Sometimes people aren't out to get you, despite what you might think. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin still removing problem tags
This behavior is continuing. The status of this image is still being disputed here. We don't tolerate this behavior from other editors, why is this admin violating policy? Kelly hi! 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Say why you think it is not PD, or leave it alone. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh* Kelly, don't template the regulars. Slim, leave it up. Let it run it's course, if it's PD then it will be kept. Maybe that particular image should be put on PUI separately, it may solve the problem, it may not. Just let process run out. Wizardman  18:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That particular image is in its own section on the PUI page. Kelly  hi! 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the template spamming of my talk page by Kelly continues, this time to do with Israel-Palestine.  SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, you need to cut this out. You're warning SlimVirgin for edits she hasn't even made, probably because of the image dispute above. Drop it and move on please.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make false allegations, Ryan. She has edited the page in question, look at the history. Also see this - my mian point is to make sure all parties in that dispute are aware of this decision. I myself am uninvolved in this dispute. Kelly  hi! 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No chance Kelly - you're harssing SlimVirgin now because of the dispute above. Slim hasn't even edited the page since the arbitration case, yet you warn her? Not buying that - carry on like this and you'll end up blocked.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Ryan here, you were fine until you threw that up. Plus, read Don't template the regulars. Both of you have made this far more dramatic than it needed to be. Wizardman  20:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, there's a really strong appearance here that you're just interested in creating more drama. I'd suggest that you find something else to do. When you go from arguing over image templates with someone, to digging something out of old history and templating that person, it really looks like you're doing it out of spite. FCYTravis (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, this is looking more and more like harassment. I don't know much about the back story here but if it keeps going down this road a block is not out of the question. I think it needs to stop. RxS (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly definitely must be blocked if he adds a template to SV's talk page once more. Beit Or 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, SV is no more special than any other editor. If the regular editor has to put up with the template spam due to a certain group's determined jihad against fair-use, SV should too. Perhaps she could actually use her clique for something useful, say like changing and owning the NFCC pages? If there is one thing I know, you can't beat the SV clique at edit warring on policy pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) struck through misplaced comment --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * errr, this was nothing to do with images - she templated SV on a completely unrelated subject that she was not involved in at all. Please, take your comments to the section above because this doesn't have anything to do with what you've just said.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is what I'm not getting. I was monitoring the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article before I ever discussed copyright violations with SlimVirgin. To make a long story short, I initially was watching BLP violations on Geert Wilders (I have added many articles to the BLP watch category, including that one), which led me to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which led me to Pallywood, which led me to Muhammad al-Durrah. There is a nasty dispute there that I read about on this noticeboard (here), and SlimVirgin showed up there after I did, where I was attempting to offer a neutral opinion and defuse the dispute. Part of the problem at that article seems to be that the Arb decision is being used as as hammer against some editors, and not others. So, in an attempt to neutralize the situation, I ensured that all parties were made aware of the decision, and logged the notification at the Arb case page. I also logged notifications of SlimVirgin's "opponents", ChrisO and Nickhh A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told, but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted  and I am being threatened with blocking  for logging the notification. Would somebody please investigate and get these admins, and their threats, off my talk page? Kelly hi! 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, just back out now. Drop it.  Let others deal with this.  If you continue to tangle in this in any way on any level whether right or wrong, you could end up blocked. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Sandy, thanks. It seems I have stepped into a minefield, thanks for giving me a map. Kelly  hi! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These notifications are to be used when users are being disruptive on the page so they are aware of the arbcom sanctions that are in place. They are not given to every editor who edits a talk page, or in fact the article itself, unless there's problems. You are yet to show one diff that merits SVs inclusion on that list. I still don't believe for one second that this was just an unlucky coincidence - you were in dispute with a user, then chose to bait them by templating them for something completely unrelated.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Kelly posted at Talk:al-Durrah at 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC). SV posted at Talk:al-Durrah for the first time in ages at 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC). I think you need to rethink your knee-jerk assumptions. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo others' confusion about just what Kelly intended here; as far as I can see, Slim hasn't even edited that article recently, let alone did anything that's worthy of warning given the ArbCom sanctions. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Slim for (as seen in the current ongoing ArbCom case, as well as the valid concerns Kelly expressed regarding images) without bringing in something as dubious as this. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention was to ensure all parties discussing the controversy there were aware of the ArbCom case. But apparently making the notifications is controversial, apologies. I would make the accusation that SlimVirgin is stalking me (as opposed to vice versa) but I am out of tinfoil. Kelly  hi! 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert war at Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles seems to me a separate issue, albeit tangentially related to the image licensing dispute Kelly and Slim are in. There is no evidence Slim edited a P-I article after the arb case, and the consensus here supports that. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the templating, as unnecessary, but may I point out that the wording of the ArbCom remedy isn't "editing" but "working in the area of conflict". If defending a version that one largely wrote extensively and enthusiastically on the talkpage isn't "working in the area".... -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)As I said, it was only a notification based on the fact that she was discussing the dispute on the article talk page, and I notified the other parties there. Could someone point me to the consensus that only disruptive editors are to be notified? I re-read that decision multiple times and didn't see that. So far as templating goes, the decision seems to encourage that. Kelly  hi! 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page to end the revert war. FWIW, I think we should consider stipulating that only uninvolved admins should make the notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, except replace "admins" with "editors". Kelly  hi! 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think notifications should be restricted to uninvolved admins to minimize drama. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just to note that Rlevse edited through protection to revert the logging. (Possibly on an inaccurate reading of the remedy, as I note above.) Also, I understand any editor can make the notification, but only uninvolved admins can block, and changing that would require a request for modification to be submitted to ArbCom. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Relata refero, yes I guess it would. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why edit directly when you can have your very own meatpuppets do it for you? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read wp:sarcasm is really helpful? PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging of images (ie, licensing) is a separate issue. Also, Kelly, you are involved in this, and the remedy says P-I "range of articles". You're using the P-I case to get at Slim. And if I'm not mistaken, admins should normally give arbcom warnings, your involvement in the issue clearly taints this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)OK, please read the above. I was involved in the particular P/I article before she was (at least in the recent time frame). I notified all major parties in that dispute, including her. The fact that I also found her copyright violations during a similar time frame is coincidence. SlimVirgin is the person who made this a personal dispute, not me - so why am I getting all the negative publicity? Neat trick - allege fake harassment and get a free pass on everything else. Kelly  hi! 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Any user can give a warning, the remedy uses the passive. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but exactly which part of the remedy are you talking about, pls quote it. Regardless, Kelly is stretching the bounds of it and using the arbcase to get at Slim. The arbcase clearly refers to a "range of articles", not image tagging. In fact, I can't recall any arbcase that included image tagging. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "...the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.." Nothing about adminship. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who Dragon695 comment is directed to, but I can't recall ever being involved with Slim or Kelly before and I have a lot of experience with arb cases, and I have to agree it's best to leave the arb warnings to admins, and even if editors make them, they should be uninvolved and Kelly is clearly involved and at the center of this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without reference to the statement about Kelly, which I have no opinion on except that the timing does not add up, I'd like to point out that ArbCom did not appear to intend the notification be left to admins alone, and doing so would severely hinder enforcement in difficult areas such as AA and EE. --22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even given that, the warner should be uninvolved and Kelly is not uninvolved and that clearly taints the warning, and in my opinon invalidates it, esp when considered in light of the scope of the arb ruling. Also, making a talk post is no justification for being added to an arbcase warning list. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a "warning", but a simple notification of the decision. I'm really not seeing the problem in logging that a particular user has been notified of the decision. Kelly  hi! 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting someone on an arbcom warning list (notification list or whatever you want to call it) is a warning and makes them subject to those. Plus, you're involved and shouldn't have done it anyway. Plus, you're stretching the scope of case beyond all reasonable bounds. Image tagging is not part of case and talking on talk pages is not disruptive, at least no in the issue at hand. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom ruling specifically defines "involved" as relating to editing in the area of the dispute, not the interpretation you are giving it. This is also for good reason, to prevent problem users from claiming that uninvolved editors or adminstrators are stalking them, an accusation that is common in areas subject to such discretionary sanctions. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Apparently I misunderstood the ArbCom decision, and I see that others are being added at will to that list for reasons I don't understand, but whatever. SlimVirgin is not allowed to be added to that list. I don't know why you're saying I am "involved" because I am not, I went to that article to try to help by offering an uninvolved opinion, apparently that simple action makes me involved. To conflate this issue with totally unrelated copyright violations by SlimVirgin is dumb, I think, but all right. I'll trust other editors to handle this. Kelly  hi! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why.  This is clearly no longer about images, if it ever was. He has also removed warnings from his talk page, so I'll link to them here in case they matter later.   SlimVirgin  talk| edits 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. I see nothing that requires an administrator to be "uninvolved" for the purposes of notifying editors about a general sanctions regime. Moreschi, Fut.Perf. and I are heavily "involved" in the general area of Balkans articles (since we monitor them regularly, work with editors to resolve problems and deal with the nationalist silliness that regularly arises there). Does this mean that we are not allowed to notify editors or block them, assuming that we are not engaged in conflict with them? Some clarification would be helpful here since the log of notifications, blocks and bans is very long already and getting longer by the week... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RV, it wasn't about you, sorry if it gave you that impression. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About General sanctions notifications
Ok, this definitely requires some clarification, probably from the Arbs. The template itself very clearly states that "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." and later that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator ". To me this means it is not at all a warning given for disruption, but merely a notification, but one which can only be given by an admin. If this was not the intent, and it really is a warning that only an uninvolved admin can give, then (a) the template should be changed to reflect that intention and (b) several of the recent logs by ChrisO, a heavily involved admin who has been edit warring on these article he "notified" users on, and did so in a one-sided fashion, should be immediately removed; just like SV's notification has been removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as official notice of ArbCom sanctions goes, my understanding is that to actually template someone and log it at the case page, is something that should only be done by uninvolved administrators.  The exact wording at the P-I case may not put it like that, but it's pretty much standard procedure at other similar cases such as Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and General sanctions.  Otherwise pretty much any editor could use these templates and case-logging as a "club" to beat up opponents.  It's still fine to post casual reminders about an ArbCom case, but official warnings should be done only by uninvolved administrators.  For more, see WP:UNINVOLVED.  Administrators dealing in an area of dispute as administrators are not therefore "involved" in the dispute. --Elonka 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, would you please undo all of ChrisO's recent logs related to his edit war at Muhammad al-Durrah, and sternly warn him about abusing his admin privileges in a content dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, I don't know the circumstances here, but to answer your question: you're uninvolved if you have not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing provisions of a decision is not considered participation in a dispute. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples -, , , ,) and at the same time, warned all those of the opposing viewpoint on the artcile, and logged that warning on the ArbCom enforcement page, while claiming he is just "notifying" them of the case. Needless to say, he did not similarly "notify" his fellow edit-warriors who held a POV simialr to him. In light of Elonka's comments above, this seems like a very inappropriate abuse of admin power. If that is the case, his logs need to be undone, and he should be warned about this behaviour. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is getting pretty far off-topic, but I did look into ChrisO's efforts here. On the one hand, he is definitely an involved editor, so should be cautious about using admin tools in the dispute at the Muhammad al-Durrah article.  Then again, I think he was acting in good faith, as the rules at the P-I case page are indeed ambiguous about who can or can't log cautions there.  I would recommend that ChrisO not add any other names to the page, but instead alert other uninvolved administrators about the issues, so that they can make that determination.  As for the three editors that ChrisO added, I looked into their contribs, and I agree that a caution was appropriate for all of them. So even though ChrisO may not have been the right person to make the warning, the log should stay, since even if he removed it, another uninvolved admin, such as myself, would reasonably just add it right back. --Elonka 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I have absolutely no intention of using admin tools in that dispute, since I'm clearly involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[restated and clarified below] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the best solution. About the ambiguity in the term "warning/notification": Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given WP:ARBMAC-related warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight in that field and that if I ask for sanctions, it's more likely than not they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.
 * In any case I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. It's a "list of blocks and bans", not a "list of notifications, blocks and bans". However, if people want to log these, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say this makes a lot of sense - its pretty much what I was pointing out earlier - and should be clearly set out as the customary approach in an essay somewhere, perhaps. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some clarification. Notifications are give to new editors who won't be aware of the relevant case. They are also give to old-time editors who may not be aware of the case. They are never given to old-time editors who are certainly aware of the case. Notification does not mean you have done anything wrong, and hence the logging of the notifications should be done using neutral wording. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Logging the notifications seems a bit like overkill, but I supposed it is needed to ensure people are aware. Is there a time limit though? It would seem a bit harsh if someone hadn't edited the topic area for a year or more, but had a year-old notification waved at them, followed by a block. About notifications in general, I think this is one area where a personal note can help more than a templated message. Overall, though, it seems like the system is slowly evolving into a more structured version of what already exists - a series of warnings and then a block. I suspect that it is the structure and formality, rather than anything new and exciting, that is helping these processes calm certain areas down. That and people seeing that they can get a fair deal - that is absolutely crucial. If people think they won't be treated fairly, they are more likely to react badly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said was not quite what I wanted to say - so I'll restate and clarify what I meant here.
 * Moreschi has summarised what a notification is - making someone aware of the decision/'regime' with neutral wording. A warning is where the user is told something like "you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you because...." - obviously, sometimes both are combined.
 * Involved administrators should from now on not give any further warnings (of course, they strictly cannot give sanctions) - they should bring it to the attention of the appropriate administrators' noticeboard so an uninvolved admin takes any necessary formal action. This is a step that must be taken if you've been editing in that area so that the warnings are taken seriously in the way in which they were intended (when this was added as a provision in the remedy). The purpose of this process is to ensure impartiality and to avoid the chilling effect, among other adverse effects. Admins should be aware of their abilities, feelings, passions, agendas etc. to avoid making any ill-considered actions that (even potentially) do not comply with this purpose - where an admin gives a warning, particularly where they are involved, it is interpreted very differently from if it is given by any other uninvolved user. Gaming the system is not on. On the other hand, notifications by any user is ok - but they must be worded appropriately, particularly if you're an involved admin.
 * However, I'm suggesting the problems in this area have gone on long enough - an uninvolved administrator should investigate and give warnings to those editors who are have recently not complied with the principles of the decision, while notifying all other involved editors of the decision. This way, ALL editors editing in the area have absolutely no excuse for 'not being notified or warned by an uninvolved admin'. These should replace the logging of formal warnings or notifications by involved administrators and would clear up a lot of the issues. This applies to all warnings or notifications that were made during or after an administrator became involved in a dispute - see above where I have defined what an uninvolved admin is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd still maintain that pure "notifications" in your terminology (i.e. without the "your actions are disruptive!" part) are quite useless, and I doubt it was the Arbcom's intention to make us use those. The pure "notification" just boils down to saying "it is forbidden to be disruptive". Great. Everybody knows that anyway. But what counts as disruptive? The definitions of disruption are so vague that it's perfectly possible for a user to be disruptive and never become aware that they are being perceived as such. In fact, barring trolls and vandals, we should assume nobody is disruptive intentionally. So, being aware of the rule as such, in the abstract, won't help. "You can be blocked if you are disruptive" is useless. It only becomes meaningful if it's coupled with a concrete message "... and you will be blocked if you continue to do XYZ". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a point since I recently received one of these notifications from an admittedly involved admin.  It says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem;..."  and "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." Clearly the letter of the law does not require an admin to be uninvolved in order to give a warning.  I agree with Fut.Perf. that the warning should be for specific defined behavior, and also with Elonka that it would be nice to have some helpful   dialog at the user's page.  The original log, said that I had been "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research."   I also suspected that the notification was merely a bureaucratic necessity on the part of the admin, and that that would shortly be followed by the involvement of friendly uninvolved admins who would support a block or ban. This turned out to be the case.  I have been racking my brain (from as objective a perspective as I can) as to what can be done to improve this situation, (not my personal situation, but the general one being discussed above) but all I get so far is a painful brain... ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions and comments about images
The status on a number of disputed uploads hinges on whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Animal Liberation Front release all their images to the public domain. I see no confirmation on either site that they actually do, and I did find a PETA statement that strongly implies they do not. I also found a statement from ALF that said some (but not all) of their site's images are fair use reproductions, and no indication which images they own and which they do not.

OTRS has been filed for quite a few of these, but the documentation has been done in a manner that raises concerns. For instance, Image:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg is an obvious copyright violation. Yet SV asserts the image is ''under a Creative Commons Attribution licence by e-mail. E-mail to permissions.'' That doesn't explicitly say whether OTRS has been filed or not. The photograph may be copyleft, but the plaque it depicts is not. And the Flickr source link goes directly to the image file rather than to the hosting page that would specify the license.

Another example is Image:KeithMann1969.jpg, which has a clear OTRS ticket statement. Yet the accompanying text is contradictory. The photograph was shot in 1969 before the Animal Liberation Front existed and the public domain argument is Released into the public domain, as are all images originally owned by the Animal Liberation Front. Obviously the Animal Liberation Front cannot be the original owner of this photograph. Although OTRS is generally trustworthy, this raises an eyebrow--particularly so since the previous example demonstrates a weak understanding of derivative work.

Third example: Image:JerryVlasak.jpg. The uploader claims this is public domain, but the source website clearly places a copyright mark and the words all rights reserved on its website.

Fourth example: Image:DavidMertz1.jpg. Simultaneously claims PD and fair use. Assertion of PD release is unverified, and no indication that OTRS has been filed.

Fifth example: Image:GushKatif1.jpg. False license claim. Site clearly declares full copyright.

Sixth example: Image:PABombeat3.jpg. PD rationale is invalid. ''From an old Toshiba catalogue; catalogue out of print, model no longer made. No copyright issues.'' None of these factors amount to an expiration of copyright or a public domain release.

I could go on, but this is enough to convey the point: there are weaknesses in the rationales for these uploads, and there are enough weaknesses of enough different varieties over a long enough period of time to cast a cloud of doubt over much of the remainder, despite OTRS. Although I have not been informed which items were deleted from Commons, it is not hard to imagine why the site rejected this material. Had I seen these on the Commons deletion board I would have contacted the uploader not with templates but with notes (which I have provided for every image at the discussion Kelly started). Yet it is disturbing that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin not only created so many problems, but made a public insinuation that Commons deletion standards are either inconsistent or politically motivated, and that she transferred those problems from that site to this one without seeking better information. I would like to host much of these on Commons if the copyleft/public domain status were clear because these are valuable encyclopedic images, but frankly I don't want this problem. And Kelly could have articulated it much better. This was not well done. Durova Charge! 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to discuss whether images of dubious provenance would be Images for deletion - people seem to ignore IFD a lot these days, instead preferring to tag things and leave them. If Kelly believes these images have ropey rationales or tagging, they should be taken to WP:IFD, rather than creating a big fuss over this, and I would suggest she does this now, if she hasn't yet. Agree this was not well done. Neıl  龱  09:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Kelly listed them at WP:PUI and/or IFD from the start. The big fuss started only when they got into a disagreement over Slim removing the tags out of process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They were listed at PUI, yes. When SV started removing the tags out of process, they should have gone to IFD, rather than here. Neıl  龱  10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would one want to shift them from one forum to the next, from PUI to IFD? The right thing is to have them run their course where they are. (That said, I can never understand why those are two different fora anyway. We should merge them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IFD is for images that are obsolete, orphans, unencyclopedic, low quality or copyright violations, where further discussion is needed as the addition of a speedy tag is either inappropriate or disputed, or the user is unsure if deletion is warranted. PUI is for listing images where fair use is disputed.  I agree the two fora might be merged, but this is not the venue for that discussion. As it is, based on Durova's six eamples above, PUI isn't the appropriate venue (the disputes aren't about fair use).  They're at Possibly_unfree_images anyway, though, so this is moot, I guess. Neıl  龱  10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no. PUI isn't for disputing fair use. That is indeed done either through a speedy channel (Dfu) or, in less obvious cases, through IFD. PUI is exactly for these types of cases: images where free status is claimed but the factual basis for that claim is in doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always appropriate to address the central issue of a long ANI thread. The bottom line is that Kelly's concerns are substantive, although poorly expressed. I stepped in principally because of an unsupported allegation regarding Commons, a project where I am a sysop. The person who made the allegation failed to respond to two requests to substantiate it, so I took time away from other matters to examine and note each of the images in Kelly's list. This subthread summarizes highlights of those findings in enough detail to halt the he said, she said-ishness that stretched the thread to absurd lengths in the first place. Now I'll return to those other priorities. Durova Charge! 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Kelly's talk, I was under the impression that the FBI considered ALF a domestic terrorist organization. Are terrorist organizations even granted intellectual property rights? IP rights are not a Constitutional right, they are a privilege granted that can be revoked by the government. For example, consider the fact that convicted felons loose all ip rights to anything associated with their crime. I highly doubt that news organizations have to get permission from terrorists to use their content to report on stories, I imagine the same standard applies here. Let's apply a bit of rational logic here, ALF has no standing with the law seeing as how I imagine that anyone involved with them would be arrested as co-conspirators. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting line of reasoning. I wouldn't call myself qualified to comment on it.  Even without going down that path, two points look quite clear:
 * The ALF website grants generous reprint permission, but I see no statement placing the material itself in the public domain.
 * The ALF website states that some of its images are fair use republications of other people's/organizations' copyrighted material, but does not specify which ones. So a visitor cannot determine which images are covered by their republication permission.  Durova Charge! 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no law which removes intellectual property rights from organizations or persons which may have carried out criminal acts. There are some laws in some states restricting the ability of some people who have been convicted of crimes to profit from their intellectual property, but that doesn't address the issue at hand. FCYTravis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly OT, but if I remember rightly the Allies had to pass special legislation to abrogate the copyright of the German Nazi government's intellectual property (papers, publications, photos etc) so that it could be freely redistributed. This was even after the Nazi government had been declared a criminal organisation. If this is so - and I think it is, though my memory is hazy on that point - then I would guess that the principle you describe has been in force for a long time. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without getting into novel lines of reasoning, the customary lines of reasoning already raise significant doubts. The ALF license statement fails a fundamental test: it permits generous republication without specifying which images it owns. This is an indication that the site is operated by people who have a weak understanding of copyright, so we should proceed with extreme caution about reusing anything from that source. Durova Charge! 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it is a matter of ignorance so much as it is a matter of not caring. There are quite a few on the far left who do not believe in so-called intellectual property rights. I happen to agree with this crowd on that stance, but I'm not going to get into a debate about information freedom here. I suppose caution would be warranted, but my intention was only to try to obviate any problems where one might apply some reasonable common sense. Documenting raids, a.k.a breaking & entering, seemed to be one of those cases to me. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion copied from another thread
I've just been tidying up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Kelly block review and marking it as resolved. There were a few loose ends there that should be dealt with elsewhere, so I am copying some of the relevant bits here. See the subpage subsection here where these posts were copied from, and my note after the quotes below, for the diffs and full context. Note the timing of the posts as well (they are out of sequence with the above). Discussion should really carry on elsewhere or in the section above. This is just recording this part of the subthread here for the record. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ...people do get upset when images are questioned, especially when they're legitimate and have OTRS tags, so people doing this kind of work need to show a bit more tact than is usually needed. I'd suggest that Kelly focus on some other area of the project for a while, or perhaps someone who's experienced with images could act as a mentor. SlimVirgin talk| edits 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * start quote:


 * Wait what? A fair number of the images you have uploaded, even those with the OTRS tag on them have issues... . Viridae Talk 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Quite why SlimVirgin is saying that the images are legitimate escapes me. There are genuine concerns about the images, confirmed by people other than Kelly. For SlimVirgin to say otherwise is disingenous. And from what I have seen, Kelly is already experienced enough to more than adequately deal with a wide range of image issues. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rather worrisome that SlimVirgin continues to characterize the situation this way. I spent hours double checking each of the disputed images, then reverifying with an OTRS volunteer.  Out of respect for SlimVirgin, who did not contest my report at the previous thread, I have until now refrained from reporting that many of her OTRS submissions had invalid rationales.  Anyone who understands copyright and examines the set in detail could infer that these OTRS claims were dubious.  Kelly was acting with due diligence in the interests of the site.  I respectfully request that SlimVirgin address the problems with her own uploads, seek a mentor regarding copyright issues, and strikethrough these inappropriate aspersions.  Kelly's communications could be better, but she is doing necessary work competently.  Durova Charge! 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * end quote

The relevant diffs for the above are here (not quoted above}, here (not quoted above), here (only partially quoted above, see diff for full context), here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)