User talk:OberRanks

TALK PAGE RULES

1) All posts left here must conform to WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Violation talk page posts will be removed without comment.	2) If you have come here to discuss matters on a specific article, please take your concerns to the article talk page. I will transcribe all talk page posts here about articles to the appropriate article talk page.	3) I have been on Wikipedia for over a decade. Please don't template a regular.

The talk page for my former account "Husnock" also redirects here

Blocked for serial copyright violations

I remember from earlier encounters you have a checkered past of dubious image uploads. It seems you have not heeded the warnings you got. this image, claimed as "own work", is quite definitely taken from here, a commercial news source where it is clearly credited to a named journalist. This appears to be from here or here.

Blocked indef, given the long history of recidivism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OberRanks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning. This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[1].
He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"
This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago. It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site. The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood. The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all. I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.
As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years. This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -O.R.^Comms 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not privy to the private information that Guy and NeilN have received, so if anything in there makes them see the case differently, they're welcome to unblock, as far as I'm concerned. That said, the first two thirds of this unblock request is one big WP:NOTTHEM argument, and the remainder apparently has factual inaccuracies regarding concentration camp image, inacccuracies that were repeated here despite strong evidence to the contrary, maintained a day later and only admitted to be mistaken (at least I assume that's what the mistake refers to) after Fut. Perf. presented evidence that the photo cannot have been taken at the claimed date. To consider unblocking, I'd say a community discussion at WP:AN would be the best way forward, with a new unblock request that cuts out the accusations against others and explains why you stuck to that false information even after multiple editors had pointed out the implausibility of The Guardian misattributing the image. Huon (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• FWIW ArbCom issued OberRanks a copyright warning in 2007. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 11 years ago. -O.R.^Comms 22:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Given O.R.'s history, I would very much advise against believing anything he says. He's a known, habitual liar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You're saying The Guardian has misappropriated your work? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Before an unblock is considered we need an explanation for the Guardian photo. It is not credible that you are implying The Guardian is falsely asserting one of their correspondents took the photo for a 2016 story and that you really took the picture in 2005 and never published it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello Neill, I just sent you a lengthy e-mail which I could not post on Wikipedia because of real world info about myself and my employer. I tried to explain everything as best I could. I hope this may be resolved. Thank you. -O.R.^Comms 23:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please copy me on that, Neil and I can compare notes. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I did so. Also, if it helps, I'll happily take a several months or even years ban on uploading images in the event I made a mistake here. -O.R.^Comms 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the original of the St. Louis photo in its original resolution? Your upload is obviously a cropped and zoomed version of this but the original obviously must be in higher resolution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

On PDF file at work, yes, from the material that was published about it. I had cropped the PDF to get the photo used here. The original from 2002, which I took with my own camera, was over 16 years ago so no I don't have that one anymore. I also think there is a possibility the website located actually used the photo material from our article, as it was distributed pretty widely in the St. Louis area. I hope that helps. -O.R.^Comms 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: - I sent you everything I have on the images as well as confirmation from my professional account. I hope that is helpful. -O.R.^Comms 00:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting on Guy's input via email. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. I've provided most everything I have about those pictures. -O.R.^Comms 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Gmail is diligently hiding it from me :-( Guy (Help!) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: , do you need me to resend you anything? -O.R.^Comms 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I find OberRanks' explanation plausible. I guess a release via OTRS would help, but this does not seem to be a copyright problem. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So, what story did he come up with this time, another mysterious "colleague" who "e-mailed" him the files or what? He's been telling that one a few times too often by now. And don't tell me he found a way to talk himself out of the thing with the Brněnec photo, it's as clear a case of copyright theft as it gets. If you consider unblocking, please be aware I remain vehemently opposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) By the way, it is entirely implausible that he took the Brněnec photo "13 years ago", in 2005. Compare the two authentic pictures from 2004 that we have in de:KZ-Außenlager Brünnlitz, with the two photos in Robert Tait's Guardian article from 2016. You are clearly looking at the same pair of buildings, but in an entirely different state of delapidation. In 2005, the site was still working as a factory, the buildings were still in a useable state. This photo was clearly taken long after the factory finally closed down in 2008, i.e. in 2016, by Robert Tait, as stated in the Guardian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Future, I shared with Guy and Neills more personal information that I ever have before with any other Wikipedia user in order to clear this up. I gave contact information for my employer as well as detailed information on who I am in the real world as well as the research I was working on when I obtained both of those images. I am not a chronic liar or whatever else you called me. And to allude to the famous Husnock account, which people often like to do, that was a long time ago when I was much younger in my 20s, deployed to the Middle East, newly married, and under a lot of stress. I made some very poor choices back in those days, now almost a decade in the past, and apologized for everything and tried to start this new account and follow the rules. Holding grudges from something that happened years ago seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of this site. I am sorry you have such a negative opinion of me. To Guy and Neills, I thank you all for your review of this case. -O.R.^Comms 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Sorry, no, there is a copyright violation here. OTRS is not an option for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: - Neil, I sent you one further e-mail with information about that image. Yes, it was a copyright violation and I made a very big mistake. The e-mail I sent you contains all the details. -O.R.^Comms 08:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The version of the St Louis image hosted here comes with metadata. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that metadata states the image was taken on May 21, 2005 (with a Fujifilm FinePix A340, which for all I can tell was introduced in 2004), not in 2002 as indicated by O.R. when it was uploaded. So unless O.R. asserts that someone took his image and faked the metadata, his explanation regarding that image seems to be mistaken, too, like the one for the concentration camp image. Huon (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Involvement of DRF User

@NeilN: & @JzG: I had really hoped to avoid getting into a discussion about the user DrFleischman; however, as this user has now pretty heavily interjected into this discussion, as well as apparently contacting both the reviewing admins on their own talk pages, I feel it necessary to cover the history between our two accounts. First of all, Dr. F. and I had one encounter on as single article months ago and he and I have never worked on World War II or military history articles, nor has this user ever been involved with any of my image uploads. The article was Lion Guard which I created around 2016 and, to date, is my first and only attempt at writing a modern political science article. The subject matter is also barely sourced, with mostly online material, as this group was founded during the 2016 presidential election, and disappeared quickly afterwards. When writing the article, I had first contacted the Maryland Republican Party asking for information. A response came simply stating this group was not recognized by them and they included a brief list of online sites and articles with a brief (one to two sentence) summary of what the articles entailed. To this, I attempted to write the article. About a year later, Dr. F. appeared and began to blank large parts of the article. I naturally asked why, to which he responded these were not reliable sources and some of them couldn't be verified. I agreed with most of what this user was saying, however the conversation soon took a downward spiral. The entire exchange may be found at Talk:Lion Guard, however here are some highlights

• The user was very demanding that his questions be answered quickly, often on the same day posts were made to the talk page and in the space of a few hours. I received multiple messages to answer questions and, after one period when I was away from computer access for few days, thsi message was left on my talk page [2]. After this, I choose to take this article off my watchlist.
• At one point during the debate, I asked Dr. F a point blank and frank question as to whether he had a conflict of interest with this group. In my opinion this made Dr. F. very angry and from there, I knew that it was best to leave both the article and this user alone. Shortly thereafter, an unregistered account from Baltimore made a similar statement [3]. Dr. F. immediately proceed to file a sockpuppet investigation, which was pretty baseless as I had no common edits with this ip and, I believe, it was probably someone out of the Maryland Rep. Party office in Baltimore adding to the conversation, albeit somewhat crassly.
• I have seen Dr. F. referring to statements that I refused to answer questions and lied on the talk page, and this is simply not true. I tried to be as open as I could about where the material came from, and at one point, gave him an e-mail address for one of the contacts. [4]

After the direction the article was taking, I removed both Dr. F.s user and the article from my watchlist and went about my business. I had no contact with this user, who mainly edits political articles, and went back to my military history work. About a year later, Dr. F. suddenly appeared again, apparently after seeing this message from another user on my talk page [5] in reference to this talk page post Talk:1st SS Police Regiment (section "Higher Command"). The conversation was not only civil, but non-controversial as the other user. Yet, in what I saw as an attack of Wiki-stalking, Dr. F. posted this message on the other user's talk page.

My conclusion about DrFleischman is that they are not here now for constructive reasons. I think they are harboring anger and a grudge from the Lion Guard article, especially the suggestion that they were a COI editor. I have had virtually no other contact with this editor, yet they see fit to say I am a liar and that what I write should be taken "with a grain of salt". I think the edit histories I have provided speak for themselves as I hope this editor's presence here now do not distract us from the real issue which is the copyrighted Schindler factory photo I uploaded. -O.R.^Comms 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I harbor no grudge. I only want to help other editors avoid further disruption by advising them that they should expect solid backup before relying on your representations, which have often proven to be grossly inaccurate. If your representations are accurate then that shouldn't be a problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

One more tidbit. Just for kicks I tried sending an e-mail to the address OberRanks provided. It got bounced back with: The e-mail address you entered couldn't be found. Granted it's been a while, but these sorts of government e-mail addresses rarely get removed; rather, when they're decommissioned, e-mails get auto-forwarded to the updated address. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: - Dr. F, I think i still have this right since I am not banned and still have talk page access. Per talk page guidelines, I would like you to cease making any further posts on my talk page. Any comments or evidence about my actions on Wikipeida feel free to post directly on the talk pages of the users and administrators you wish to share them with. If this matter is reviewed by Arbitration in a few months, I will make a note to alert you so, you can comment there as well. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

I see lots of people I trust, saying that OR is a problem user. However, the idea of copyright recidivism is not really supported by the deleted contributions log. I note that OR puts his hands up tot he copyvio above. I think it highly unlikely that any admin will unblock without wider participation. I think we should take this for review to somewhere (FSM knows where, though). Guy (Help!) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG:Thank you Guy, I appreciate your comments and will withdraw for a little while to allow you and Neill to come to a final decision. I've also been contacted via e-mail by others, including some admins, who have suggested letting this process conclude and either revising the case in a few weeks on IRC or taking the matter to Arbitration Committee. I am not sure if I will do either of those things but will keep it under consideration. I think now that you have the real world information about who I am, how this image came about, as well as my history on doing this type of research, I would hope its obvious I didn't do this on purpose. As I explained over e-mail, this is still entirely my fault, and I'm willing to take a years long or even permanent ban on uploading images in order to resolve this. As to these comments by others that I am a lair and a serial copyright offender, these statements simply aren't true as I take pride in my work and have integrity. I think such comments are distracting and I have nothing further to say about them. In any event, thank you and Neill for your review of this case and I look forward to its conclusion. Please contact via e-mail if you need anything else. -O.R.^Comms 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

STLArmorDPRC.jpg Photo

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:STLArmorDPRC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Huon (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: - I provided the two reviewing admins in the block case above extensive non-public data about where that photo came from, and when it was taken, which was actually done at the time through my employer. As far as closing the block discussion, I would have preferred Neill or Guy take that action, since they have a large amount of material about this case which I couldn't post on Wikipedia. However, I was advised the matter would most likely have to be forwarded to a higher level in any event, so it's a non-issue. -O.R.^Comms 20:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You listed the St. Louis image as a "Personal photograph from 2002", more precisely 2002-10-13. That doesn't seem accurate unless you can explain why its metadata says it was taken in 2005 with a camera that wasn't on the market in 2002. You listed the concentration camp image as a "Personal photograph", stated "Previously published: N/A", and dated it "17 May 2005". That also doesn't seem accurate unless you can explain how The Guardian published it in 2016, crediting it to one of their staff, and the buildings look much more dilapidated than in the 2004 images. I don't know what non-public information you may have sent JzG and NeilN; the public information is pretty obviously wrong. If the non-public information confirms that you're the copyright owner, WP:OTRS is the way to go. Huon (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: - I would say delete that photo, and in a few months I can provide OTRS information in an undelete discussion. I am not too concerned about that photo as I can provide ample evidence it was taken through my work, but to do so now would reveal even more private information about my identify and occupation. The information I provided to Guy and Neil is more personal information than I have ever given to any other Wikipedia administrator. Yes, I uploaded a copyrighted image, but it was a mistake and there are numerous mitigating circumstances, again tied to non-public information about myself and occupation. I really appreciate your comments and review, and will respect them. It was suggested via e-mail, by another pretty senior Wikipedia administrator, that I let this lie for about six to eight months and then contact Arbitration Committee directly. I think that's a good idea, as it will also show that I am non-disruptive during that period and will not try to evade this block. I also appreciate your comments about WP:NOTTHEM; my main trouble about this situation has been the personal attacks that occurred during this discussion, comments about being a liar and a serial offender, as well as this effort at canvassing by an editor who was completely uninvolved with these image uploads [6][7]. Anyone who knows who I am outside Wikipedia would know I am not that type of person. That too is a matter for ArbCom to consider, when and if this goes before them. In the meantime thank you for your time and maybe we will talk again in a few months. -O.R.^Comms 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

OTRS

@Huon: - I was advised this afternoon OTRS was sent relevant information about this image and where it came from under ticket #2018040510007327. I am unable to post this info to the image discussion page because of this current block, but maybe you can. I hope this clears this up about this photo I took nearly 16 years ago. I also appreciate the concerns about how similar this photo is to others on the Internet; as stated in previous posts, I think this is due to the location from which it was taken, which was a common vantage point from which the entire building could be seen across a public highway, and therefore used by a lot of photographers before this building was torn down. Its demolition was actually a widely covered event as it was a very historic building in the St. Louis area.

Regarding the Schindler factory photo, I plan to contact arbitration in six to eight months as the circumstances of how I came about that photo are deeply intertwined with my real world identidy and employment. -O.R.^Comms 17:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are private; I'm not at liberty to discuss them here. Huon (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Outing attempt / Blank Main Page

@Huon: - Since you were the administrator who declined the above block request, can you please permit the blanking of my main user page until this matter is resolved. This past week there was a somewhat serious outing attempt where someone with full knowledge of this situation contacted my employer, attempting to determine my identity, and also brought up that I was committing copyright violations on Wikipedia and should be investigated. I have no proof of who this was, only suspicions.

I would like the main user simply blanked as there is information about myself on there (age, location, employer, etc) that I do not want visible. I understand it will be in the page history, but at least not openly visible, beyond my control to edit. If it is allowed, I could also have one of the IT personnel at my office to blank the page, but did not want to break rules about WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. I would like to add there were some legitimate concerns here, especially about the Schindler photo which I did make a mistake about, but it is disturbing that some have seen fit to now take this into the real world. I may not wish to file any further unblock requests after this, or return to Wikipedia. Thank you. Copying @JzG: & @NeilN: as other involved administrators. Thank you for your consideration. -O.R.^Comms 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blanked your user page. Let me know if you'd like it deleted (that is permitted). If you want it deleted, it can be restored at any time at your request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Emergency War Order for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emergency War Order is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency War Order until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 19:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

block review

The ultimate cause of this block seems to have been a succession of 3 or 4 copyvios spread out of 11 years. From the information given, and some seem to have been defensible borderline cases, some errors in understanding the data--none of them seem a downright attempt at defiance of our rules. I do not consider that a particularly terrible record. There are also charges of :lying" 0-- I simply do not see this, though I do see a continuing quarrel between two editors.

At most this might justify a short block, but an indefinite block seems altogether excessive. I'm unblocking. There's been a month time serced, and that is sufficient. I give the advice, and it's just advice , that OR and FPAS might do well to avoid each other on WP in the futture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)