Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Take Me Higher

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

1) Statement of the dispute

User continues to upload poor quality images like the one pictured right. He often takes images of cars from their back, which does a bad job at illustrating the article, in poor lighting, cars that are damaged, or have bojects blocking them, are covered with snow, or have people in them. We have talked to him many times, and have given him tips on how to improve his images, but he continues to contribute the same poor quality images, completely ignoring us, and has been causing big headaches upon many wikipedians. --Karrmann

Building on what Karrmann has added on above I would like to add the following, which builds upon his introduction,

User:Take Me Higher began contributing a large number of self-taken images of automobiles in early 2006. Immediately, problems arose with licensing of the images and content and quality issues. After numerous requests in February for correcting the licensing issues, User:Take Me Higher began to use the correct licensing procedures and made a good faith effort to comply with Wikipedia policies.

The reason for the Request for Comment however involves the quality of images and the content of those images, which now number over 200.

In order to contribute images for the Wikipedia automobile project, Take Me Higher has been shooting pictures of automobiles parked in driveways and parking lots; the images seldom illustrate the subject (the particular model of automobile) with a level of quality that one would expect in a Wikipedia entry. Problems with the images include, but are not limited to:

• Obstructions – Despite being asked to reduce the amount clutter in the images that are uploaded, recent images include obstructions that block portions of the cars which he is taking the picture of, including but not limited to other vehicles, fingers on the lenses of the camera(ex.Image:Firebird '80s.JPG), garbage cans (Image:Cutlass Ciera.JPG). Early images (ex. Image:Pontiac Sunfire 2000-02.jpg) still on Wikipedia contain automobiles that are hidden or partially hidden by snow piles.
• People – In some images, which appear to be take while cruising parking lots for specific automobiles, several images include bystanders (Image:Mazda 626 1988-1992.jpg) and an actual owner of a car (ex. Image:Chrysler Dynasty.jpg) that is the subject of the photo.
• Low lighting – a sizable percentage of Take Me Higher’s images are underlit (ex. Image:Sable Wagon (Pre-1995).jpg, Image:Windstar 97-98.jpg
• Incorrect lighting – A number of the images also have incorrect lighting issues (ex. Image:Honda Civic Sedan '06.jpg)
• Privacy issues – a number of early images have ongoing issues with potential privacy issues because the images contain license plate information and were taken in the driveways of private homes. (ex. Image:Sunfire Sedan 2000.jpg , Image:Jetta Sedan '98.jpg, Image:Accent Hatchback '03.jpg) (Note: I should also note that Take Me Higher has also begun to blank out the license plates of vehicles taken since early March, and that we all appreciate that show of good faith).
• Cropping – In some instances, more area of the image is devoted to the surroundings, than the subject itself. (Image:Toyota Echo (4-Door Hatchback).jpg
• Other composition problems include cars in motion (ex. Image:Hyundai Excel Hatchback.jpg), out of focus images (ex. Image:Toyota Sienna (Old).jpg and Image:Chevrolet Malibu 2006.jpg). A large percentage of the images were taken while the subject car is parked in a parking lot - resulting in visual clutter, etc.

And while I understand that this next matter is somewhat subjective, a large percentage of the images of vehicles uploaded are covered in road filth and salt to the degree that the even under the best of circumstances, the image is more distracting than illustrative.

Several members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles have attempted to discuss the matter with the user, however we receive no feedback from him regarding the images, or comments on the feedback left for him on his discussion page.

I believe that Take Me Higher has nothing but the best of intentions when he/she contributes to Wikipedia, however the failure to acknowledge attempts to communicate with him/her makes a two way discussion impossible. Speaking for myself, I am more than willing to help discuss some of this issues to help improve the quality of the contributions. Stude62 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Stude62 and Karrmann, I have repeatedly warned the user about his images, but he has so far been silent about the issue. Surprisingly enough, the user actually posts on his talk page, but for some odd reason refuses to talk to us about his images.

When the user starting posting images around January of this year, he did not provide tags or sources for his images, and so that has resulted in a large number of his early images being deleted. I have also had gripes about some of his early images, such as including people who probably didn't want their faces shown on the Internet, and the large amount of grime and snow covering the subjects of these images.

Ever since then, the user has made efforts to improve his images, such as censoring license plates and providing tags for his images, but the overall quality of the images themselves has not improved, if at all. Like Stude62, I do believe the user has good intentions, as shown by his numerous text edits, but if he will not listen to us about this issue, then I'm afraid action will have to be taken against him. --ApolloBoy 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia Image Use Policy
2. Wikipedia Auto Project Discussion on minimum standards for images
3. Wikipedia Auto Project, image standards

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Request for signature on talk page requests
2. Continued issues with image content
3. Notification of a possible RfC exists and request for dialog to avert RfC
4. Second request for dialog

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Stude62 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ApolloBoy 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Karrmann 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Bravada Talk to me! 19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Scott Grayban 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. DonIncognito 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Tuesday]], [[April 25]], [[2006]] @ 14:06 (UTC)
5. Signature^brendel 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Sgrayban

User clearly shows lack of quality images and after repeated attempts to talk to the user have gone ignored. He should be blocked from uploading any images until he/she learns how to follow the guidelines. --Scott Grayban 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Scott Grayban 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Jaranda

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This RFC is just stupid. Only because a user uploaded some bad images. If they are copyvios, maybe an RFC is in order but it's not copyvios. Some of the images replaced unacceptable copyrighted fair-use images like in the Honda Civic article. Honestly if the images are bad, why you don't take new ones yourselfs. There are plenty of cars in the streets so images can be created for that purpose. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. ×Meegs 14:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC). All of these images are preferable to copyrighted ones.[reply]

Outside View by Hetar

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

While uploading ugly or poor quality images is not necessarily a violation of Wikipedia policy, failure to provide adequate source and copyright information (including copyright tags) is, and causes undue burden on the rest of the community as we sort through his endless string of untagged and unsourced images. User should be contacted and thoroughly explained the importance of including relevant information. --Hetar 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Hetar 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.