Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 77

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

Redirect to an updated map is not working

Redirect of File:Map AP dist all shaded.png to File:Ap-districts.png (an updated map) as suggested in Help:File redirect did not work. It is introducing redirect text as part of existing description. Request User:Jcb or other admins to help.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc: That only works if the original file is first deleted. Is that what you want? If so, why? Why not convert one or both to svg?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Should I overwrite the file, as the content is outdated? Is there any other alternative to replace in all the pages linking to it by the new version.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: That should be discussed on File talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G., Thanks. I started the discussion at File Talk:Map AP dist all shaded.png.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: You're welcome. I started Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Maps of districts of Andhra Pradesh to spur production of more scalable versions in svg format.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeu Phim Viet

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Jaheen3alam

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 week block Gbawden (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Alberto279

Uploading and reuploading the same deleted images despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Gwenriche

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked again, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Lashgo

User:Lashgo is using Commons to attack a woman that has rejected him. I have blanked his userpage, but it would be nice if someone could speedy delete his uploads, some of which name the woman. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and all nuked. Some people... Rodhullandemu (talk)
@Rodhullandemu: should probably delete that user page history, too... 2601:601:4700:20E:38AD:B1B8:2ECE:17F3 05:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for reminding me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Noormohammed satya

Copyvios only. No useful edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked the user for a year. Uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Alleged abuse of admin power

No admin abuse was detected. Both contested files were restored and regular deletion requests were created. Next time please request undeletion via COM:UDEL on such cases. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting File:JokowiAmin.png and File:PrabowoSandiLogo.png without any nomination and notification to me as original uploader of the former and to @Juxlos: as the latter, thus avoided us the right to argue. Both images had been tagged as PD-logo like File:Trump-Pence 2016.svg and File:Clinton Kaine.svg. – Flix11 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The images were tagged as copyvios by @Kenrick95: , who is the one who should have notified you ("if you tagged any content for speedy deletion, be sure to notify its creator" (COM:CSD)). These are not unambiguous PD-logo cases (comparison to the Trump and Clinton logos is disingenuous); while I would not have speedied these, Moheen has not abused "admin power" merely because you disagree with their judgement. One notes you've not genuinely bothered to discuss the issue with Moheen (instead, failing to assume good faith--"you just deleted them right away for made-up copyright reason. Do not abuse your administrator rank with this nonsense." [1]--and posting here before even receiving a response, and without notifying @Moheen: ). COM:UDR is available to you; continuing to disparage other users in this manner is not. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Undeletion requests are still available to you. There was an issue of questionable notability, and you know it is not always practically possible to see every user's talk page to check about the notification. ‍‍‍‍~Moheen (keep talking) 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
To me, a borderline eligibility-for-copyright case is not “copyvio” if the uploader didn’t lie about the logo’s provenance. Regular deletion has to be invoked in such cases unless Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (other that copyvio) are applicable. The community should admonish the user who {{Copyvio}}ed images having disputable eligibility for copyright. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment File:PrabowoSandiLogo.png is clearly above COM:TOO, so not OK without a permission. File:JokowiAmin.png might be simple enough, but it is not obvious. I added a message to Kenrick95. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't inform the uploader regarding me tagging these images as copyvio. Next time I'll make sure to notify them. Sorry for the troubles caused and thanks for informing me. ...Kenrick95 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of files

Hello. Can you please delete my two files: "Bifurcationn.jpg" and "Bifurkacja.jpg". They contain edition errors and are useless. Third version, shown on "Simple bifurcations.jpg" is OK. NazwaNr1 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just edit them yourself and add the tag {{speedydelete|My error reason}} to them. If they're your uploads, they're recent and they're not in use anywhere, they'll get deleted pretty quickly. (I'd do it for you, but it's more obviously a valid deletion request if it comes from the uploader) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done by Gbawden. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oberynmartell

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Not everything was copyvio, so 1 week block is proper. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Till.niermann

User:Till.niermann hat mein Bild von Shuji Sakuma zur Löschung vorgeschlagen und ist trotz seines Irrtums nicht bereit, den Antrag zurückzunehmen (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Till.niermann#Foto_Shuji_Sakuma).--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Till.niermann will delete my image of Shuji Sakuma and he will not take it from the list even after clearing discussion, where his mistake was evident. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Till.niermann#Foto_Shuji_Sakuma).--StagiaireMGIMO (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shuji Sakuma.jpg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sloshwares and User:Lenindogs1

Socket puppeting, stalking, gross insults against the same user, treats of violence and sex violence. User should have the two accounts blocked and edits deleted and hidden. Tm (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Users blocked, edits hidden. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: they're back as Jerryedgar1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Idlesshea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I would recommend protecting File:GorillaWarfare 2017.jpg and maybe User talk:GorillaWarfare for a while. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment@4nn1l2: And Elulnina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Now, the same person, is trying to insulting and threatening violence against me in my talkpage. Keyboard warriors!!! Tm (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done All the mentioned accounts are indefinitely blocked, their edits reverted and mostly hidden, the file is fully protected. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:AnnabelLee-Poe

AnnabelLee-Poe (talk · contribs) is just another sockpuppet of Yahadzija. Uploading previously deleted photos. --Smooth O (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked and tagged the user and deleted the upload. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Rahibaa

Recreates the same deleted images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week blocked, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Transfer user's pictures

Not sure if this is the place to ask this... Long ago, I had a user called "Adrian198cm" which is associated to an email that does not exist anymore. The problem is that I did not remember that I had a Wikimedia Commons user associated to this email when I requested the elimination of that email. Later I created a new user (Yurakuna) and I wanted to know if it is pòssible to somehow move all the pictures I uploaded with the first user to my current account ? In this way I could still edit these pictures (descriptions) if needed and have all of them associated to one single account. If this is not possible, then let it as it is, but that would be great to have all in one account (the current one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurakuna (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Yurakuna: Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You may not have noticed: signing one's posts on talk pages here with ~~~~ helps people to find out who wrote something when, and it provides them with a link to one's user and talk pages (for further discussion).
@Yurakuna: Do you still have the password for @Adrian198cm?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Albe Albe460

Four months of copyvios and not one useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Endlesshessa

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked in accordance with standard block escalation practice - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Amir-Jundi

Reuploading the same image despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked in accordance with standard block escalation practice - Jcb (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

GTVM92

Uploads photos with PD-Iran tag without any evidence. Recent uploads: File:Valiollah Fallahi1.jpg, File:Behshti 1.jpg, File:Beheshti-10.jpg, etc. Kind of misuse and also possible copyright violation. Hanooz 06:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I added a warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Raf10liv

User:Herbythyme gave the warning. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jeff G persecution

Nonsensical report. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the past I already had a problem with Jeff G. overusing and misusing a template at the my talk page you could check here, you warned about the usage of templates. But:

So could pleas ask for him to stop this persecution, we know that he have a history of persecute volunteers, as we can read here Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 3, and he also have a history of bad of usage some templates, as we also could read here: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 3 and here Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jeff G. 2...

Again, could pleas request him to stop his hunting, I have a lot things to do, removing a aggressive warnings are not one thing that I want to do daily. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mara norah and pictures of naked infants

User:Mara norah has uploaded images of naked babies and is adding them to Wikipedia articles. I don't have a problem with nudity, babies, or nude babies, but their contributions on Wikipedia make me uncomfortable about this user. Can someone take a look at the uploads and refer this to the WMF if appropriate? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

At this moment the only used file uploaded by this person is File:Newborn baby boy.jpg which I DR'ed as a copyvio. Indeed we have better pics for the article where this is used. --E4024 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If it is a copyvio, DR is an inappropriate venue. In any case, I'm firmly on the side of delete first and ask questions later when it comes to child protection issues. The images have been removed. --Majora (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And just to be public about my actions and to avoid duplicate requests, I did forward one of the images to legal to cover all bases. I have not taken further action against the uploader due to the ambiguity of the situation. --Majora (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mara Norah here, I am sorry for the pictures and all the pictures were of me as a baby/child, it was me in those pictures. I want to make it clear that there is no child being used. I will not upload anymore pictures just edit text, I did edit some game texts before and will stick to that then.If you wish to ban me then do it, I will not argue it is clear that my pictures of me as a baby did not fit by me ending up here and I am sorry for causing trouble. {Mara Norah|04:08, 15 April 2019|Mara norah}}

Socks

This user Danieljre (talk · contribs) is sock of João Victor23567 (talk · contribs), created to infringe copyright once and again. More details here. Fabiano msg 03:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I'm not sure in sockpuppetry, but Daniel is indefinitely blocked and globally locked. I'll delete his last remaining contributions as copyright violations (all claimed to be PD-old, while they are younger than 70 years). Taivo (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Khalid Benjelloun‎

Abuses of multiple accounts to spam Category:Soulaimane Berrada (already deleted as Category:Soulaimane Abidy). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Rogel: Can you elaborate on how you think they're same? --Mhhossein talk 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Same wording in French here and in English here. Besides the 4 or 5 users who have uploaded in the past files related to fr:Soulaimane Abidy have been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Best is to fill up a request for checkuser. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Emma Stones

Emma Stones (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Flickrwashing again just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Nothing but copyvios, 3rd block, indef. Yann (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MSN12102001

MSN12102001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios in spite of previous warning. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a week. Copyvios are nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably well-intentioned, but generally ill-informed

I'm looking for a consensus: how should I proceed with an IP who is adding probably well-intentioned, but generally ill-informed captions to photos, many of which I uploaded. This person seems to have added captions to 30+ images I uploaded (and I'm sure many others I didn't). The first 5 I've checked were all either actively wrong or basically missed the point of why the photo would be of any interest. I'm pretty busy, and really don't want to have to slog through all of their contributions. If this were not from an IP, I'd just attempt to engage in dialog, but in my experience that is pretty futile with IPs.

Unfortunately most of this is in an area where a lot of people would lack context for these photos (pre-1950 Seattle and, in some cases, other parts of the Pacific Northwest). - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Warn them for disruptive editing?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe. I don't think they are deliberately being disruptive, they are just not very good at this, and are adding mediocre-or-worse captions to otherwise well-documented photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call that disruptive. Certainly not deliberately and certainly not worthy of any sanctions in any case. Perhaps try to talk to them on their talk page? The mobile interface they are using may make it difficult to get a response but it is worth a shot. Thanking them for at least trying and prodding them into being a little bit more conscious of the way they are forming the captions perhaps? --Majora (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, I took a shot at this at User talk:97.126.23.84. If someone else wants to also keep an eye on this, that would be welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Man. I've now fixed about half of these, and I haven't found one yet that I'd consider to have been accurate and on the mark. Many of them very actively wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Did they switch IPs? It doesn't look like that one make any other edits since last night. --Majora (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If they switched IPs then they didn't hit anything among the 80,000 or so images on my watchlist, so they probably also switched subject matter area. It was one burst, all Seattle, and all between 1934 and 1936. I've now fixed all of them. Only three or four were even half-decent captions: probably 20% were actively misleading and the rest just missing the point (like no indication of a street scene being in Seattle or in the 1930s). - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

JerryFinley

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files going to be deleted. Yann (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the remaining images are actually under a free license, and sources seem to be correct. So please create a DR if needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Guerolol2001

Guerolol2001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by another. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hitherexyz

Hitherexyz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same uploads than Emma Stones indef. blocked 2 days ago (Constance Wu, Ellen Pompeo...), same License laundering too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by another. --Majora (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of files

I do not know how to delete my useless files existing in Commons: Bifurcation_analysis_1.jpg, Simple_model.jpg, Simple_bifurcations.jpg. Help me please. NazwaNr1 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@NazwaNr1: You can tag them {{G7}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but I do not understand what does it means "tag them". Explain me that exactly please. NazwaNr1 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@NazwaNr1: You can edit the file description, and add {{G7}} there at the top. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Frogo28480

Frogo28480 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, deleted the copyvio. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:社会我佩奇

社会我佩奇 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has been continiously uploading inappropriate content since last December, mostly no-permisson content. I prefer that all content he uploaded should be deleted in order to prevent copyright violation.

Also this user has been harassing Wcam by using "Ping" improperly recently.

--WQL (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Gave him a final warning. --Mhhossein talk 05:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Maninlinen

User:Maninlinen has changed many files' licences inappropriately, e.g. special:diff/332877545 and special:diff/332877332. Please help reverting the bad ones.--Roy17 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mostly done. After going through a few dozen of them and seeing that every one of them was either blatantly wrong or technically wrong I rollbacked every one of their edits that could be easily rollbacked. I spot checked as I did it and every one I checked was also incorrect. There may be some more in there that have to be fixed if the file pages were edited by someone else in the interim. Since this has been ongoing for a while I also blocked them. If they can explain themselves and promise to stop altering licenses inappropriately I would be fine to lift the block. --Majora (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Benugouma

Benugouma (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Recreates again and again the same deleted content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hedidthistome

Hedidthistome (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Alias Hitherexyz, alias Emma Stones. Same bad Flickr account used recently by Hitherexyz, same subject (Constance Wu). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indefinitely blocked by Herbythyme. Uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ulises Márquez Catamarca

Ulises Márquez Catamarca (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Recreated deleted content (logos) despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked by Herbythyme until end of May. Taivo (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Jaheen3alam

Jaheen3alam (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Third block. Indef'ed. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ttezaki

Uploading multiple copyright violations since 2016. Could someone delete the files and warn/block the user? Thanks, 153.229.39.184 03:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, You need to inform a user when you tag a file. Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
You also need to inform a user when you report them here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Chinese copyvio

@BevinKacon: this is a clear-cut “upload copyvio after warnings” condition, that is, B&P noticeboard. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads nuked, both accounts indefinitely blocked. --jdx Re: 11:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Tokota

  • several warnins to stop uploading copyvios
  • block for 1 week because of still going on with this by Sebari in June 2018
  • block for 1 month because of still carry on by Taivo in July 2018
  • after many deletions of logos uploaded by him he continued uploading protected logos with wrong declaration, such as File:Coleman-logo.png or File:Logo-sudameris.png
  • new warning by Yann today - Tokota's reaction: "You are wrong."
  • in defiance of telling him that the pic is not OK for commonsn here he uploaded it anyway
  • message on his talk page for this today uploaded pic without permission - Tokota's reaction: "This is nonsense."

What else is necessary to block him infinite? --Stepro (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stepro: Nothing, but the word we use here is "indefinitely".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I can’t see the whole picture. From the user_talk, the user uploaded several out-of-scope pictures and duplicates (which are by now all deleted) and has seemingly somewhat poor understanding of copyright. But Tokota isn’t a typical forger and liar whom we hunt daily. I mean the ilk of liars uploading Internet copyvio as own works. IMHO indefinite block is overly harsh in these circumstances. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I was just wondering when you would show up, to spread your usual nonsense... Yann (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just wow. Regardless of context, it’s apparently acceptable for an admin to calmly dismiss another user’s concerns using words such as «your usual nonsense» — and this from one of the “acceptable” admins, not from one of the several who are permanently on the verge of being desysopped and yet never are because of reasons. This only raises my admiration for the few admins who manage not to behave like this (some of them contributing on this very page), but that’s scarce consolation and really not firm ground to tread on, let alone build anything of worth. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This is third block. No improvement in behavior. I'll delete speedily some obvious copyvios with wrong license. Taivo (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Bioexalhum

Bioexalhum (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Uploads deleted. Final warning given. Next time a block will be issued. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Hoang42006 (II)

The user was already blocked for a week in March, but continues to upload several obvious copyvios. I appreciate that there may be a language barrier, maybe a Vietnamese (?) speaking user could try a more detailed and clearer explanation for this user. The user seems to try in good faith, but the excessive amount of problems should be handled somehow. Most glaring problems leading to copyvios: doesn't understand copyright of derivative copyrighted works and doesn't provide truthful source and author information. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Second block, 3 months. Yann (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 Info Changed to indef: all what the user uploaded by now seems to be either already deleted, or about to be deleted. This really isn't going to get anything useful. en:WP:COMPETENCE etc., you know... --A.Savin 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please undo a Category move

Hi. Can someone please undo THIS MOVE? It is not what I intended, and I really created a mess with that move. Thank you. (Please be sure that, after your undo, I will be able to manually create the Cat "Puerto Rico primary highway shields", the Cat that I did the move to. If this doesn't make sense, respond here or email me. thx.) Mercy11 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: My bad. Thanks a zillion! Mercy11 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lopezmarianap

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted and blocked. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elisfkc massive edit

Elisfkc (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Revert the massive edits that Elisfkc recently performed. They didn't read the documentation Commons:500px licensing data, and performed a batch task including an unnecessary {{Licensereview}} template in, I don't know how many, files that the 500 px tool was used to upload. The 500px tool verifies the license, as we already extensively explained already.

A pretty bad usage of the bad of the batch tool. Some volunteers shouldn't have the access to this tool... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SummerWinter99

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Continues copyvio: File:Terence Patrick Winter.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Harietharison

Anabellaanabella

Alias Lopezmarianap (talk · contribs). Same uploads for the Spanish Wikipedia related to Josephine Langford. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by User: Elcobbola. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jocer Blandino

Continues copyright violations after two warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Websteralive

I blocked Websteralive (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) for this edit. Impersonation while voting is not acceptable. This is obviously not a new user, but most probably a sock of Websterdead (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), indef. blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with indef block. Several consecutive FPC noms all containing sexual imagery or graphics depiction of sexual acts, with more listed on their userpage for subsequent intended noms. This indicates a user who is here simply to offend and provoke. The comments made in those nominations also indicate a "trouble-making" mentality. Does indeed appear to be a sock. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Would any administrators assist with tagging the user page of User:Websterdead with Template:Sockpuppeteer, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why PD-ROC-Traffic Markings in Template:PD-ROC-Presidential Office Gazette

Continuing from a stalled talk [3] I do not understand why Magog the Ogre wants to track files at Category:Presidential Office Gazette of the Republic of China with hidden category:PD-ROC-Traffic Markings that would risk violating Commons:Categories#Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization when thousands of gazettes are uploaded. As both of us are administrators, would any uninvolved administrator please intervene? There must be much better category to track files.--Jusjih (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please review [4] that would add irrelevant category.--Jusjih (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Teungku Ampon

Continues copyvios after block and warning. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Second block, 3 months. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Pizza margarita

Repeated copyright violations despite numerous warnings. ›› Fugitron - 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Uploads deleted. Final warning given. --Majora (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Вуртах Газизов

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked one week and uploads deleted. Эlcobbola talk 12:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Federicolovallosa

Federicolovallosa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Alias Anabellaanabella (talk · contribs), Lopezmarianap (talk · contribs). Same uploads for the Spanish Wikipedia related to Josephine Langford. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 12:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Around Abderrahim Berrada... Multiple accounts abuse? Deletion debate forced closure?

Hi,

Driss Bennis sounni account seems to have been created only to remove deletion request tags from files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Khalid Benjelloun. This account seems close to Khalid Benjelloun & Farid Tazi mezain. On each of the 3 files touched by Driss Bennis sounni, the history is:

  • Khalid Benjelloun uploads on 6 April 2019‎;
  • Patrick Rogel nominates for deletion on 14 April;‎
  • Khalid Benjelloun removes deletion tag on 17 April;
  • Patrick Rogel sets his nomination back on 24 April;
  • Driss Bennis sounni removes it again on 28 April;
  • Farid Tazi mezain tags the file itself "deletion debate is now closed" using {{Delh}} on 28 April.

Those debates don't seem to be duly closed. It might be ignorance.

I didn't find any direct link to easily explain that 3 random users could be interested in both Abderrahim Berrada and La Comédie de Tanger at the same time. It might not be sock-puppetry, just several relatives, for example to Soulaimane Berrada (aka Soulaimane Abidy) from La Comédie de Tanger's troupe.

They may have full permissions for this images and the potential credit issues might be fixed through COM:OTRS.

COM:GOODFAITH become harder to assume when people say that Soulaimane Berrada isn't Soulaimane Abidy...

Patrick Rogel gives as reasons COM:SCOPE and the fact that Soulaimane Abidy was deleted from the French Wikipedia for lake of notoriety. Khalid Benjelloun replies that Soulaimane Berrada isn't Soulaimane Abidy, and gives https://www.theatre-contemporain.net/biographies/Soulaimane-Berrada/ as a reminder of who Berrada is. But Google got some https://www.theatre-contemporain.net/biographies/Soulaimane-Abidy/ pages in cache like https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hvkZ_uvRfksJ:https://www.theatre-contemporain.net/biographies/Soulaimane-Abidy/presentation+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr

This "Berrada ≠ Abidy" was already used before in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Christine Lebrée; Which add a fourth person to the team: Christine Lebrée. "unacceptable and very detestable", "détestable, inadmissible" (en: "detestable, unacceptable"): Same vocabulary.

Can someone take a look to this deletion request where there might be few more license problem and to this 4 users?

I think that, at least, Driss Bennis sounni (talk · contribs) should be blocked for disruptive edits.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour @Patrick Rogel:
When responding here, you said that File:Soulaimane Berrada.jpg and https://lacomediedetanger.wordpress.com/ are comparables.
I can't see deleted files. If you remember this moment, could you tel me if File:Soulaimane Berrada.jpg was https://lacomediedetanger.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/un-un-dans-la-chambre-final.jpeg ?
I'd like to know if File:First performance of the play Un an dans la chambre by Gérard Levoyer 2019.jpg is a "re-upload of already deleted content" or just a regular "possible copyvio".
Merci et bonne fin de dimanche,
Cordialement, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Several others accounts involved in spam related to fr:Soulaimane Abidy (a.k.a. Soulaimane Berrada) have already been blocked in the past (I've not the name of the different aliases in mind). I had requested too a few times ago a block of Khalid Benjelloun for the same reasons exposed by Lacrymocéphale. I hope this time an RCU is launched. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I blocked the accounts below for socking. Could you please fill up a check user request? --Yann (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: : it's reserved for Administrators only. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: Of course not. You can do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: It is indeed: This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators.--Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: You shouldn't need to edit this page. Requests should be done from COM:RFCU. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mb13Tkc

Mb13Tkc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio, recreates deleted content despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User: Rabbisnots

I am bringing the editor who posted this to your attention. I've received similarly worded messages from -- now blocked -- editors on en.wiki.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Davo Ortiz

Davo Ortiz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

User:UIaka lsmith Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Already blocked by ‎Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexitoni

Sexitoni (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Really a lot of copyvios, but not everything was copyvio, so I blocked him only for month.. Copyvios are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Araz Yaquboglu

Araz Yaquboglu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warning. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Ser Amantio di Nicolao is now liable to his commitments. — Racconish 💬 11:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bad use of F2C? This is a prolific contributor, it would be nice to have an explanation of what they are going to do to change how they do mass uploads to avoid packaging related copyright issues. With regard to warnings, care should be taken that the behaviour is for new uploads between successive uploads. I would be surprised if SAdN is unwilling to discuss the copyvios, it would be unfortunate if a block is needed. --Fæ (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)"
What I try to do? I know what sort of things to avoid on Flickr, and I try to avoid them. I will admit to forgetting about packaging from time to time - it's not immediately obvious to me that a simple photograph of a package doesn't meet the criteria. I apologize for that, and will attempt to keep myself from giving in to the temptation in the future. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, stop using F2C or take more care which Flickr photographers you are targeting. If the intention is to mass import from Flickr, you need to restrict the uploads to Flickr albums that you believe avoid copyvios, or at least that you sampled to a reasonable level to have confidence in the photographer's judgement. F2C has few options for filtering based on content, like Flickr tags, Flickr title, Flickr description, and you would be better off finding tools or methods that give you options for pre-filtering before upload. Failing that, you should be able to post-upload have ways to filter probable copyvios, like packaging or billboards, which might be easier to sort out.
If, as Jcb argues, your error rate is very low, it would be worth reviewing some stats for your recent uploads to demonstrate that. Clearly 50 copyvios in 5,000 might be acceptable, whilst 50 in 500 would not be. --Fæ (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I've been OK recently - I've been doing a lot of work with one particular Belgian photographer. I've uploaded his cosplay photos et. al. with minimal trouble before, so if there is a problem I'm not aware of it. (There are some of his albums I do try to avoid, based on past experience.) Regardless, I'll set F2C aside for a bit, to be safe. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I fail to see the problem. This user has uploaded a huge amount of files, including a lot of self taken good quality pictures. In general this user does not have a high error rate. Given the huge amount of files I am not impressed by the DR. We have some mass uploaders around here who often create a mess, Ser Amantio is not among them. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think problem is in blind uploading of mass batches. Proper procedure should be manual selection of files that confirm to Commons:Licensing, Commons:Derivative works, Commons:Freedom of panorama, Commons:Project scope, etc. and then giving job to bot(s).
    It's also very reasonable to expect that this user will weed out problematic files from own uploads. I just found another 70 of them in food batch, but I had time to walk only on 1400 files today.
    EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support a block of 7 days or more for this user, because careless mass transfers are doing harm to Commons. A user who is willing to help Commons to have more useful content, will take care of categories and copyright issues too. A user who is transferring just everything where they see a "CC" tag, is only taking care of their upload count, and not of encyclopedic content. But uploading just for the sake of the upload count is out of Project Scope of Commons. Commons is about content that is useful for educational purpose, and not about "who has the biggest balls". --A.Savin 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose a block, per Jcb. But please, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: , keep a tighter eye on packaging. Strakhov (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Easier still, I'm going to avoid F2C for the time being. Too easy for me to lose sight of the goal with it sometimes. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Block should not be a punitive measure. I strongly oppose any block but support stern warning that future occurrence would result in an indef block. Regards T CellsTalk 11:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    SAdN is clearly engaging and open to discussion of how to improve their work. This is a well established and respected Wikimedian, no threat of future action is needed here. Let's allow this thread to be archived. --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter don from milan

Peter don from milan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings (especially reuploading 3 times the same deleted file). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

М. Омельчук

М. Омельчук (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings, removes deletion templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for 3 months, the next block must also be the last one.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Something didn't worked as intended? "You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of {{{1}}} for the following reason: {{{2}}}" --- [Tycho] talk 21:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedabdelraziik

Ahmedabdelraziik (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Nothing but copyvios, 2 weeks. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Goumi90

Goumi90 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Already warned for copyvios, removes deletion templates. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Maria Barros

Maria Barros (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Out of scope personal images, blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for the same reason. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Nothing but copyvios, 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Shedidthistome

Shedidthistome (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Escape block by Emma Stones (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Lucy Liu and Constance Wu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RazDum

✓ Done --Majora (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Official mocking

Suspected socks repeatedly uploading out-of-scope files.--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Elcobbola. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulfajaco12

Bulfajaco12 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Elcobbola. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2 and the licensing policy

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2} having voluntarily commited to the terms of the proposition below, no further action taken. He is now liable to his commitments. — Racconish 💬 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Events

Repeated attempts to delete own works by Commons users, or works ineligible for copyright at all, e.g. Revision of File:Кривая Минковского.png, Revision of File:Штамп прямоугольника 1.png. Anyone trying to lecture the user via his (or other) user_talk meets frivolous replies, sometimes also deletion requests not based on evidence; all conduct indicates an unbearable weakness of judgement. For instance, this photographer, working for decades, in ديفيد…’s opinion uploads photos which

“ are historical and seem to be from the internet and not "Own work" ”

—ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Kynnap

(emphasis mine)
“ I see they need to Confirm via OTRS ”

—ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Kynnap

Without verifiable arguments, of course. This isn’t staunchly Incnis Mrsi’s cause; multiple experienced Commoners such as Polimerek, Billinghurst, Alexis Jazz, Roy17, Racconish and few others already are involved to some extent.

References

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2019 – 15:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And a fresh revelation:
“ the images are old and the author is not the uploader ”

—ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Revision of User_talk:Aberdonian99

as a reply to my query about File:Adam Roberts, Oxford, April 2006.JPG specifically. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the facts established above, I hereby propose the following editing restriction as a remedy.

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 is not allowed to use:

  1. any speedy deletion procedure related to licensing,
  2. any “no … since” thing,

unless the rights holder for the file in question is indicated explicitly and verifiably.

Expires: after 1 year
Appeal: after 3 months


Explanation of terms

Speedy deletion related to licensing includes criteria F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, as well as G4 for cases related to licensing. Templates which ديفيد… may not use in the namespace 6 include {{Fair use}}, {{Permission}}, {{Screenshot}}, and those similarly stating that the file is non-free. ديفيد… may use {{Copyvio}} only specifying the presumed source, which in turn can be verified without much effort.

“No … since” things include {{No permission since}}, {{No OTRS permission since}}, {{No source since}}, and {{No license since}}. They may include any other tag potentially leading to deletion without discussion.

Explicit indication of the rights holder include cases of a copyright notice on the linked Web page, but may not require any deep inquiry or guesswork by the deleting sysop.

This editing restriction is short of a topic ban. It does not hamper ديفيد…’s ability to nominate files for regular deletion, ask authors about source(s) on their user_talk (albeit without use of {{Image permission}} message boxes), or participate in relevant discussions. Tagging evident (that is, having source links dated before Wikimedia upload) copyvio, or using {{subst:npd}} for files manifestly from external sources, are permitted as well.


Enforcement

Any Wikimedian may use rollback and similar tools against edits in the namespace 6 (File:) satisfying conditions of the restriction. Related sections in the namespace 3 (User_talk:) should be blanked (with a sensible edit summary) if contain only ديفيد…’s postings; otherwise a link to this restriction should be posted. Repeated infractions may lead to blocks and loss of other privileges.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I can stop using these templates forever but is there an alternative to objecting to images? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Yes, posts on uploaders' user talk pages and COM:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2's (from here on to be called "David") comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Владислав Молдован which was made after the events on User talk:ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2#CV claims sadly tells me David doesn't understand his mistakes. Not understanding them, he's currently unable to avoid them in the future. Because of that, I  Support this proposal. David can raise DRs instead where he feels the need. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be honest, having COM:DR flooded with bad-motivated requests is not good either. Uploading pictures, creating categories... is nice work. Creating 30 competence-lacking DR's per day... isn't. Strakhov (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    My hope is that David will get, at last, that doing bad deletion requests could eventually leave him without access to regular deletion as well. It is easier to tighten an existing restriction rather than to enact a restriction from scratch, upon a user deemed “established” and “in good standing”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Strakhov: are you suggesting to also include DRs in the proposed edit restriction? I think if David starts to produce many competence-lacking DRs, DRs could be added to the edit restriction. Or they could be included from the start. I have no problem with either way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Neither do I. Strakhov (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the thought process

I find that many users do not like my edits, which question exactly? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, can you please explain your thought process for tagging as {{No permission}} File:Adam Roberts, Oxford, April 2006.JPG after the start of the current discusssion? With reference to the non deleted files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Владислав Молдован, can you please explain precisely why you considered these to be {{Fair use}}? With reference to File:高音の奏法.jpg, File:低音奏法と高音奏法.jpg and File:低音の奏法.jpg, why exactly did you propose them for speedy deletion as {{No permission}}? More broadly: what do you take from the problems raised here - aside from other contributors possibly not liking your edits - and how do you propose to deal with it? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Exokey

Exokey (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Copyvios after numerous warningsBuckaroo bob 91 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Exokey uploaded only one file, File:Escudo Partido Justicialista Argentina.png. Everything else is from 2015-2017. I don't know if a one week block is really effective here when years pass between uploads. I mean, they may not even notice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
So, what do you suggest? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
One week block is a proper decision in such circumstances. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I'm not sure, someone who only contributes here once or maybe twice a year probably won't learn and may not even notice a one week block. Especially if you don't leave any message on their talk page. I guess I would personally only block someone if they uploaded another copyvio within a month of the last warning, that way the block may also be effective. But that's just me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: In my opinion, when you get blocked, you should receive a red notification by the system (and you should not be able to disable it just like user talk messages). I just tested the system by blocking my dummy account (User:4nn1l2test) but found out that this does not happen. I would like to create a Phabricator task and propose that this new feature be added to the software. What do you think? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I think Yann should have left a message on Exokey's talk page anyway. A talk page message triggers a notification that will also be seen if Exokey visits another wiki and it gives them a chance to dispute the block. For example, if they believe their last upload really wasn't a copyvio. A clear on-wiki notification also helps, but it should be possible to disable it so one can continue browsing Commons without being disturbed. Logging out disables all custom preferences and typically logs you out of all Wikimedia projects, so that's not really an option. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes, notifying the blocked user is required by COM:BP. I think @Yann: has forgotten to do that.
Of course, user should be able to get rid of the red notification by just clicking on it. When I said user "should not be able to disable it", I meant by tweaking preferences. There are some grey boxes which cannot be enabled nor disabled. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done User notified. I do it all the times, I don't know why I forgot here. Thanks for noticing. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: That sounds fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Phab:T100974 already exists. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

PQ77wd

PQ77wd (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has again responded to a deletion request with personal attacks solely. S/he has done the same to me before in Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoengGaaiSeoi.jpg and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 75. I gave him/her a few reminders on the user talk page, but they didn't work apparently.

S/he has also attacked other users who nomitated his/her files, e.g. special:diff/203882861, special:diff/255428559.

It should be noted that this user received a final copyvio warning in 2016, User_talk:WKDx417#Copyright_violations. Some blatant copyvios (images taken from the net, screenshots, etc.) from his uploads have been deleted after that. Yet s/he still responds to deletion requests by way of personal attacks instead of learning the mistakes. I don't think this attitude is conducive to contributing here.--Roy17 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for two weeks for making personal attacks against which we should follow a zero-tolerance policy. Uploading too many deleted problematic files (after the last warning for copyright violations) was also a contributing factor. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Miros Dursselev

Miros Dursselev (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings. Doesn't get it (or doesn't want to get it). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Sweety Diya persistently uploading copyrighted images

Sweety Diya (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is a new user today who keeps uploading obvious copyvios in the form of obvious non-free promotional images for Indian TV programs. I've tagged all so far and left notices as well as a couple of personalised comments on his/her talk page but they've all been ignored. At en.Wikipedia an IP is then adding them to articles. I assume the IP and Sweety Diya are the same person. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done files nuked, user warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Jcb and no source tagging

Let it be clear that while I see this as a problem, I'm not seeking punitive action. The issue should be discussed though, I think.

Jcb tagged a bunch of images uploaded by SecretName101 as "no source since", like File:Frederick William Mansfield (1).png. Thing is, those files do have a source. It's.. in the description. But it's there. On the assumption of good faith, I assumed Jcb had overlooked that and pointed that out to him. In response, Jcb doubled down and "no source" tagged some more of SecretName101's uploads.

And he responded: "If your transfers end up e.g. in Category:Images without source, you can expect a 'no source' tagging."

If SecretName101 were on vacation or retired and their talk page wasn't on my watchlist, these files may end up deleted. In fact, SecretName101's uploads are extracted from files uploaded by Fastily like File:Frederick William Mansfield.png. Those are also at risk, but strangely, Jcb didn't tag them.

This isn't really new. Magog the Ogre had a conflict over the same thing when a script he used wiped the source field, resulting in deletion. Ankry didn't understand the tagging either. And around the same time, File:Lizhongren.jpg was nominated for deletion by Jcb because OgreBot 2 had wiped the source field.

If we wanted this, we'd insert {{No source since}} in {{Source missing}}. Is that what we want? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SecretName101 is responsible for not creating a mess when uploading files. The tags are for if they do, so that they can fix their own mess, which they already did for most of the files, demonstrating that the tags are effective. Alexis Jazz on his turn, is quite disruptive. From the moment they came back from a few month of absence, they have not stopped stalking me. I think most active users are well aware of there never ending campaign against me. In the months that Alexis Jazz was absent, the working environment at Commons was much better. Unfortunately they came back to flood us with drama again. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The files are still in Category:Media lacking author information after the fix, so at some point you'll just tag them again. The tagging isn't that effective: you could have simply asked SecretName101 to patch up their files without any imminent threat of deletion of public domain content. And when someone doesn't respond for whatever reason, you do follow through and delete free content. And that damages Commons, at least in my opinion. I'd like to see you apologize for your neverending accusations of stalking. I'm not stalking you, and I'm lost for words regarding this personal attack. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It is probably worth reminding everyone what COM:Administrators does not say:
  1. Administrators are not required to delete public domain files that they clearly know are public domain
  2. Administrators are not required to flag files with sources neatly described with a source as "no source", even where the optional information template does not have a "source" parameter filled in
  3. Administrators are not required to respond to valid complaints about their conduct by attacking the complainant or to create tangents with unsourced allegations of misconduct
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding this issue and for fixing it, @Alexis Jazz: It pains me to see this attitude toweards uploaders — that they are responsible for their files and if they forget / overlook… well too bad and nobody else should care. That’s clearly against the COM:NOTHOST principle and illustrates the problem of admins reducing themselves to the role of bot-with-a-mop, leaving aside the fundamental notion that every admin is also a user and users are here to create a free media repository, and therefore should care not to delete files that are in scope and in public domain.
This section is a textbook case of a wider problem in Commons, too: One about people who should not be admins and yet are allowed to go on, and, for other people, the very opposite situation.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case the cropped image was watched by an active user, but the File:Frederick William Mansfield.png original could easily have been tagged too. I think we need the community to decide whether having missing/empty source parameter should require automatic deletion after 7 days of noticing by an Admin, even if the account (FastilyClone) has not edited for two years and the image was uploaded three years ago. Or whether we require the Admin to investigate if source information is available elsewhere in the page or can otherwise be easily obtained. User:Jcb we have had this problem before with tagging that causes a speedy delete where the only person watching a file is long gone or was so bot transfer tool or otherwise not going to be actioned. I think we should have a community opinion on this that all admins can be held to, and the appropriate tag be documented as to what is agreed. For what it is worth, I don't think it is acceptable to tag an image merely for being in a maintenance category -- I expect admins to make a bit more of an effort to save images, or at very least, attempt to make contact with the uploader. Deleting an image we have hosted for 3 years does not require a 7 day urgency. If we have this category, can we not have a bot send a message to the uploaders -- such a bot would have notified the uploader three years ago. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A bot that tags new uploads with empty information fields would be a good idea. In practice, new files in e.g. Category:Images without source are flooded into this category sometimes with more than 100 at a time by a handful of users who repeatedly refuse to check their own uploads/transfers. Please be aware that the owner of FastilyClone has been active just a few days ago and that another of their upload accounts has been blocked in 2017 for this exact issue. The block was discussed at the time and not a single admin saw reason for an unblock. So as early as 2017 at least there was some consensus that mass transferring/uploading files without properly filling in the information template was unacceptable and even blockable. Jcb (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"transferring/uploading files without properly filling in the information template was unacceptable and even blockable", I won't argue with that. However, that's not a reason to delete PD content. A case could also be made for a bot that tags new uploads immediately, that could be voted on at VPP I suppose. Details would have to be worked out and consequences be considered. Having a bot notify (without any threat of deletion) uploaders who have images in maintenance categories is also a nifty idea. But tagging images that are quite clearly PD for deletion is not productive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary flooding of maintenance categories is in fact particulary disruptive and damaging, because it frustrates maintenance works and prevents blatant copyright violations from being discovered, some of them being burried for over a decade under such careless mass uploads. Jcb (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, the file you tagged was created by the crop tool -- surely you aren't requiring that anyone using that tool is required to first address any possible issues with the file? The file I'm referring to was uploaded 3 years ago. I'm talking about general rules, not about your complaints about specific users. Nobody is suggesting these files are non-free, so why are you sending them to the bin when either (a) you could fix the source (b) you could move them to a category "Files with source in description but not in the source parameter" for someone else to fix or (c) you could have a human-to-human conversation with the uploader. Instead you tag them for speedy deletion. I don't think there is community consensus for your approach that "empty source parameter -> speedy delete" is permitted when the source parameter is missing but the information is in the description. I think you are confusing user-policy (is someone being disruptive) with deletion policy (we delete non-free files, which these are not). You have been repeatedly brought to AN/U for exactly this problem. You are deleting free-files, which is disruptive. The uploader is also to blame. But two wrongs don't make a right. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not tag any of these files for speedy (=immediate) deletion. I used a problem tag with notification to the uploader, after which the uploader already fixed their own error for most of the files. So the tag worked and any problem made out of it is in fact imaginary. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Colin, "you could have a human-to-human conversation with the uploader."
Alexis Jazz, "If we wanted this, we'd insert {{No source since}} in {{Source missing}}."
Template:No_source_since: "This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. Edit the file description page to add source information." The template is intended for files missing source information, not for malformed/empty/misused {{Information}} tables. Plain and simple.
Suppose a file so tagged is not fixed after all, are you @Jcb: gonna fix it? Or expect another admin going through the nsd maintenance category to fix it? Or let it end up deleted? You said, "Unnecessary flooding of maintenance categories is in fact particulary disruptive and damaging." You are doing exactly the same thing by flooding Category:Media without a source as of...
Wasting everybody's time is a relatively minor issue, but sending useful files to trash is most damaging to this project.--Roy17 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No. While files may be undeleted (and routinely are), Commons is desperately short of resources by qualified volunteers. They can sometimes rectify all this crap, but they may not do it all the time, and it would be better to delete a hundred of clueless uploads than oblige people to fix after the uploader’s cluelessness. As a side note, while Jcb and JuTa sometimes aggressively edit-war over source= and permission=, nobody (including these two) did anything about bot-vandalism in File:Lizhongren.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Exactly. So it makes no sense to me for Jcb to stick "no source" on files because they have a malformed information template. To answer your question, no, Jcb probably won't fix them. He'll delete them, unless another admin beats him to it or the file gets fixed. Actually getting fixed is no guarantee for the file not to be deleted by Jcb anyway, but maybe those were incidents.
@Tuvalkin: actually I hadn't fixed anything. I have now though. And Jcb was wrong when he said "after which the uploader already fixed their own error for most of the files. So the tag worked and any problem made out of it is in fact imaginary." SecretName101 had only "fixed" a handful of files, and those were still sitting in Category:Media lacking author information so they would be tagged again in the future. That handful was fixed by hand, I noted one file had the date set to 191. 285 files were affected in total, too many to fix by hand this way: Category:Source and date for Wmcewenjr uploads (check needed). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again.. File:Horton hospital admin 2009.JPG. Clearly the file has a license. So Jcb tags it {{No license since}}, because it's in a maintenance category, and those maintenance categories must be empty damnit! Empty! Now, I don't know why {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} isn't registering as a license, but anyone who actually looks at the page and isn't a bot would have seen there's a license. So far, Fæ, Tuválkin, Colin and Roy17 agree that obviously free content shouldn't be deleted. Incnis Mrsi seems to agree with Jcb. Maybe I should make a proposal on how to deal with cases like these.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I also agree that obviously free content shouldn't be deleted. How does a template get registered as a license?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t endorse Jcb’s mass-service style of job (visible e.g. here). I only argued against Roy17’s “sending useful files to trash is most damaging to this project”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The tagging for deletion of obvious public domain files on strictly bureaucratic grounds isn't very helpful for Commons - see this file from 1865. Comments on that practice are wiped away without an answer. Vysotsky (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

On User:Shiizhang

Yesterday I received 6 mails concering echos from this user, on deletion requests e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hong Kong Disneyland 1398.JPG, all containing the same comment, which could be harassment:

@WQL: Please avoid copyright paranoia, and see these discussions Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rabbids/2 in 2011, Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan in 2010, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Rabbids in 2009, and wiki lawyer Mike Godwin's explanation, thanks. I believe it can be kept legally. Regards,Shiizhang (讨论) 01:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, this user add comments on other person, suggesting that other user is doing censorship on Wikimedia Commoms, which is not the user's intention. (At the same time , this user claims on Chinese Wikipedia that other user is 为虎作伥 (helping the tiger-like evil people to do evil) on Commons, but that is not a case on Commons.) --WQL (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Shiizhang has engaged in some questionable practice with another DR, but 6 pings do not equal harassment imho.. Copy-pasting comments between similar DRs is common. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I gave User:Shiizhang a warning about civility: Special:Diff/350950347. That should suffice at this stage. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Russia unrecognized borders on the map

Hello. There is a problem of POV-pushing by author of this file File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg and derivatives (see discussion page). User:Cherkash begins edit war there as in many other places, as I can see. Please, stop user's misconduct. Thanks. --Brunei (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg #filehistory shows that Cherkash does not “begin edit war”. Dismiss. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SZemo JP zanosita

Please nuke user and upload per CPP. 68.2.80.173 13:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user blocked, WMF notified per child protection policy. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

El Del Flow Autentico

El Del Flow Autentico (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Out of scope images, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done spammer, blocked indef. -- 1989 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Орфорак

Орфорак (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Elenanextstepper

Elenanextstepper (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Alberto el93

Alberto el93 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite two blocks and warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No estoy para nada de acuerdo. Todas las fotos que he subido han ido referenciadas, de la fuente de la que son extraídas, con los enlaces web y todos los datos posibles, con el fin de completar páginas con fin académico. En ningún momento he subido fotos con "copyright" para fines difamatorios o de trolleo. Lo que tampoco comparto en absoluto es la sistemática de borrar estas fotos sin, ni siquiera, pasarse por los enlaces a ver el uso que se da de ellas. Las fotos que me borras son extraídas de documentos PÚBLICOS, de PROGRAMAS ELECTORALES, de webs OFICIALES y un largo etcétera. En caso de aplicarse sanción, tomaré las medidas oportunas contra este usuario. Muchas gracias. --Alberto Espinosa 21:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alberto el93: official websites etc are also protected by copyright. By default, everything is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alberto el 93: Se pueden infringir derechos de autor "incluso" citando la fuente. Da igual si algo es "oficial", si lo consideras un "documento público", etc. Como te han dicho... las imágenes que te encuentres en internet no pueden subirse a Commons, pues por defecto debes considerar que el autor se reserva todos los derechos, entre los que se encuentra el derecho a que alguien como tú no publique su fotografía en Commons con una licencia CC BY-SA que permite la utilización comercial y la modificación de su obra. Son excepciones a esta regla de no subir nada hecho por otras personas entre otras:

  • Imágenes de obras cuyo autor falleció hace más de 80 años (en el caso de España, en muchos otros países son 70. Normalmente debe evaluarse también el estatus de copyright en los EEUU). COM:PD (ejemplo: fotografías muy antiguas, cuadros muy antiguos,...)
  • Imágenes de obras demasiados simples, que no llegan a generar derechos de autor. COM:TOO (ejemplo: logos sencillos, un título, etc).
  • Imágenes de obras que el autor ha publicado explícitamente bajo una licencia compatible. COM:L (ejemplo: imágenes que en flickr son liberadas con CC0, CC BY o CC BY-SA, imágenes de organizaciones que explícitamente publican su contenido con licencia libre, etc).
  • Imágenes de obras que están acogidas a alguna excepción de copyright. COM:FOP (por ejemplo, puedes publicar fotografías "tuyas" de edificios modernos en España gracias a que en ese país existe una excepción legal con obras alojadas permanentemente en la vía pública. En Francia no la hay y hay muchos problemas para tener en Commons fotografías de arquitectura contemporánea, aunque tú seas el fotógrafo)

Por favor, no subas más imágenes de las que no seas tú el autor sin tener claros estos conceptos. Si tienes alguna duda puedes preguntar en Commons:Café. Un cordial saludo. Strakhov (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator Jcb

I'm just gonna go ahead and close this as misplaced and obviously not a problem for this board. COM:OTRS/N is that way. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have a problem with this administrator. I put many images to Wikipedia with a strict accordance to Wikipedia rules. The author confirmed his consent with publishing these photos and his consent in in the OTRS queue with this number: Ticket:2018110510009133. I have done it right!

Jcb could 1. double-check the OTRS permission before deletion 2. confirm the situation with me and ask me to clarify the status. Instead he has just deleted my work. No sorry, no attempt to help me to restore the images which he wrongly deleted. I spent several days translating captions to several languages, categorizing it etc and boom! He has just deleted it without regret.

I insist that

1. He will apologize for his wrong actions.

2. He will restore the images.

3. His administrator status should be recalled because normal admins try to clarify the situation before deletion.

Please help. Vedenei (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vedenei: in which language can you understand “the permission was invalid”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
What is wrong with Ticket:2018110510009133? It is in the OTRS queue, the author agreed, all was done with a strict accordance to Wikipedia rules. What is wrong? Vedenei (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should desist from referring to either OTRS or Wikimedia Commons “as to Wikipedia”. Vedenei can be currently perceived like an alien from Venus complaining to a court in the U.S. about non-compliance to the law of Sharia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is. Seems your interest is just to make "funny" jokes instead of explaining the situation what was wrong with the pictures. Very strange attitude. Vedenei (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei, Wikimedia-Commons or, short, Commons is a sister project to Wikipedia and has similar, but not Wikipedia-identical rules/policies.
WRT to permissions: the people working on permissions in the so-called OTRS system are all unpaid volunteers, who only can spend their spare time. This and the too low number of volunteers in this area regrettably have resulted in a queue (lag) of currently 175 days, which is unacceptable, but there is no easy solution for it and it's neither the fault of the OTRS volunteers nor of the admin volunteers such as Jcb. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, let us go to the thing. These images were deleted incorrectly. How can we restore them? Vedenei (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily agree with your "incorrectly". But anyway, we have to wait until the sent-in permission is validated by a OTRS volunteer.
By the way: your translated captions aren't lost; they will be back when the file is restored. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So does it mean that these images will be restored? Vedenei (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If we receive a valid permission, they will be restored after the permission is validated. As you were noted, the permission received in November was invalid and the sender was notified why it is invalid. Everything is up to the copyright holder at the moment. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked the author and he told me he received no mail (maybe blocked as spam or something like this) so we both don't have an idea what is wrong with the permission. Can anyone explain? Vedenei (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that he/you received at least 1 mail from an OTRS volunteer, I would recommend to re-contact that person and ask for the above mentioned statement about the "invalidity" of the permission (ideally with a CC copy to you), just in case the original mail had gone lost. --Túrelio (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that no mail was received from any OTRS volunteer. This is a problem. That's why no idea what's wrong. Vedenei (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei: I think that the OTRS noticeboard is the right place to ask what has happened. Ankry (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vedenei, but from whom did you get the ticket # 2018110510009133? --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User GreenMeansGo. Quote: Ticket:2018110510009133, received 05 November 2018. GMGtalk 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Vedenei (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, then you have an entry-point, contact him directly, he is OTRS volunteer: User:GreenMeansGo. --Túrelio (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Vedenei, the message was received but was not sufficient to license the media, and we needed additional information. If you are in contact with the subject, they should have received a follow up email with further instructions. If they did not, or they've since lost it, let me know and I can re-send it. GMGtalk 14:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vedenei: If you continue this aggressive behaviour, you will soon find yourself blocked. Also be aware that it's mandatory to notify a user if you report them here, even if the report is blatantly mistaken like in this case. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Company accounts

--BevinKacon (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
All accounts globally locked as spammers (except last one is a dupe) and all files deleted. In future, please report such accounts at m:SRG. —Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The following related spam and sleeper accounts have also been locked: MabelM1292710328, Whoosowl, Burlybartender, Enigmalifelife, Aqfuciousproductions, Daluaaustralia, Daluaaustralia, Oxgallstoneshq, Reptileshouse, Bethanysevents, Sleepezshade, Shireit, Verdantecospa, Mygrammar, Innovategates, Wolfdrilling. —Green Giant (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible spam bots

--BevinKacon (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Two accounts blocked by Materialscientist; three accounts globally locked as spammers (except last one was active a long while ago) and all files deleted. In future, please report spambot accounts at m:SRG. —Green Giant (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The following related accounts were also locked: Skylineeducation, Ialigners, Shahsdental, and Eduscationseo. —Green Giant (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

BevinKacon

Neglecting to notify the subjects of their two reports above (despite later edits of theirs), using {{Vandal}} in those reports, edit warring, relative uncommunicativeness at their user talk page (77 posts by others, only 16 replies), and neglecting to notify uploaders of their COM:CSD#F10 tags per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#BevinKacon and CSD F10.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree and disagree with Jeff. Suspected spambots and spam-only accounts should really be reported at Stewards requests/global because of the possibility of cross wiki spamming and sleeper accounts, which can only really be checked for by stewards. Personally I don’t believe it is necessary to notify spambots. If they are promotional accounts, then perhaps notification is good practice but as these accounts have been locked, their discussion is better placed at Meta. Green Giant (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ankitgolu04

Ankitgolu04 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Blocked for 3 days for spamming last Oct. Uploaded 3 personal photos after that.--Roy17 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him for a week and will delete his last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Euamppid

Euamppid (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Per this declaration this is a collective account. Please advise whether it should be blocked on this rationale. I do not see anything of this in COM:BP. Ankry (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ankry,
No, the account should not be blocked. I am only saying that this account is linked to an official EUAM Ukraine email address, which Wiki page I am trying to create. I am simply asking to undelete a photo of our Head of Mission (used on the EUAM web-site) that was deleted for copyright violation reasons - which it isn't. Thanks--Euamppid (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Using such accounts may be in violation of section 5. of ToU. Ankry (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: using the name of an organization is prohibited on enwiki, not on Commons. See also Commons:Role account. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The account cannot be considered "role account" until authorized. The mentioned page is not a Commons policy but its existence is the reason why I took the case here. There is no clear rule which account should be accepted as a role account and which should not. Note, that according to the template documentation, a role account cannot use {{Own}} template (which assumes personal authorship). Ankry (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I linked the essay on purpose, because it explains how unclear the situation currently is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Mahdi 2019

Mahdi 2019 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio (except one image PD by chance). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

IBionicBoy

IBionicBoy (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a month and nominated uploads for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MCC214 and Allthingsgo

I have problem with MCC214, see User talk:Taivo#Some page create to Allthingsgo and the sock of Allthingsgo in commons. MCC214 asked me information about globally locked sockmaster Allthingsgo (both Chinese), which I declined. Maybe I should fulfill MCC21-s request? But maybe I gave him/her too much information? Taivo (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Drbaseball95

Drbaseball95 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Does anybody understand how did this user, who was indefinitely blocked in 2012, manage to upload several dozens photos in 2019? Another questions, should we nuke all these photos? They were just blocked on the English Wikipedia indef for repeated copyright violations (with all of the uploads nuked), and none of the files they uploaded here contains metadata.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. Files have been imported from the English Wikipedia [7], not uploaded to Commons.
  2. I don't think mass deletion would be the best course of action. Why not opening a DR? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed this indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems User:Nyttend already nuked the files. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

L3l4l5926

L3l4l5926 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploadsand reuploads already deleted files, Flickrwashing too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tm is deleting my DRs again

Situation has been resolved. --Majora (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, as far as I know every user can comment a DR / speedy DR, but not delete them without being an administrator of this project. So I told user Tm this on his talk page. Instead of doing this he has deleted my speedy DR again with an impertinent statement (he just reversed my reasons and presumed me stupid things): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I think he presumes decisions that only an admin has to make without being chosen as such.
Please restore or decide the speedy DRs. --Stepro (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely none of those remotely qualified for speedy deletion. Please read COM:SPEEDY before nominating any more files for speedy deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I think they do, because I'm the author and I put the speedy request on the file pages 5 days after upload, so <7 days. --Stepro (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not the uploader of the cropped image. Your rationale is completely invalid. You cannot stop people from making crops. Period. --Majora (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment First, Stepro, you cannot stop others from making derivatives of your works, and in Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA is being discussed if your images with {{User:Stepro/UEFA}} have an no derivative and no commercial use restriction. You argued that this images were being nominated to speedy deletion due to y«tis being an "DR by uploader", but you are not the uploader of this versions, merely the author of the originals, that these images are an "unacceptable crop, quality is much too low" but this is merely your opinion, that "personal rights of depicted person are affected", but if the personal rights are affected by these images, so are those rights affected by your original photos, that this images are an "copyvio due not declaring the edit", but as i stated in my talkpage, since the initial upload, the files had that you were the author and, in some images that the uploader made an edit, before you deleted that info. Also all images have {{Extracted from|}}, file upload history and all of that the part of"indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". Tm (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
At first, I find it indecent to constantly mention the UEFA template, even though I've already told you on your user disk that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. You always accuse me of wrong things.
As I also mentioned on your user disk: In the license is stated: "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". A link to the original file on "other versions" is not doing this. The field "author" has to be changed of course.
At least - and the most important thing - those crops are defacing of the depicted people.
BUT: All this is the not to discussed here, this is in my opinion the wrong place for it. As I wrote: Feel free to comment my requests, but don't delete them as long you are not an elected adminsitrator of this project. --Stepro (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
First of all, please learn the difference between DR and speedy deletion. You continually state DR but you nominated them for speedy. Which is invalid. Even if you were to nominate them for deletion via deletion requests there would be no valid reason for deleting the images. {{Personality rights}} is a non-copyright restriction and there is no "defacing" as you claim anyways. Tm's removal of your speedy tagging is completely acceptable considering you were completely in the wrong here. If something is invalid you can remove it. Admin or not. --Majora (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Now editwar by Tm. I have without any doubt the right to delete my name and the references to it. Re-adding some of this is a violation of the CC license, section 3(a)(3): »If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.«
So please stop this immedialy! --Stepro (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to block you. This is your fair warning to stop this nonsense immediately. Your misuse of rollback is also noted and the right has been removed from your account. The use of {{Image extracted}} is done by the tool itself and is necessary for attribution purposes. Enough is enough. This is your final warning. I'm not messing around. --Majora (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Reping, Stepro as the first one didn't work. --Majora (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of the CC license, section 3(a)(3).
It is absolute unacceptable, that you are threatening me with blocking, instead of stopping the editwar and the license violation.
I'm not going to accept this. --Stepro (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment @Majora: I´ve readded the info about derivatives in the original sources. In the the derivatives besides the links to the sources in the derivatives, i´ve also added the info about the original author of the original photo and the author of the crops. However, as claimed per Stepro, we says that the info about the original authorship can be deleted by him or if requested by him. Is it right in his assessment? Tm (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tm: Technically the copyright of the new crop would not belong to Stepro anyways if I'm recalling things correctly and my tired brain isn't messing up copyright tenants. It would belong to the person who cropped it. Crop decisions can be transformative and can create a new copyright, again if I recall correctly. The source parameter needs to stay. Stepro's removal of that information is pure disruption as the source links back to prove that the image was originally under an acceptable license. That is not negotiable in my mind. However, I do not see why the author switch in the licensing template cannot be removed or changed to the person who cropped the image. Attribution is different from source linking. One is required by the license. The other is required by us. --Majora (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Sorry to tell you but, at least about copyrights tenants, your tired brain is playing tricks on you. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., an work to be copyrighted has to have originality, and not a "great deal of skill, experience and effort". Cropping might need a "great deal of skill, experience and effort", but is has not an originality per se and has no a single drop of transformative. Forgetting transformative aspects, can you see that per your rationale i could edit (crop) any blockbuster movie and claim copyright to it? Or crop an Getty Images photo and do the same? About atribution of authorship, Stepro quotes section 3(a)(3) of CC-BY-SA 4.0. Tm (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Eh I thought that might be the case. Thank you for setting me right. Apparently I need to refresh and get some sleep. In any case, I still don't think it would be harmful to remove the author switch on the licensing template. The removal of the source link, however is still disruptive. As is deleting all the original images which is where we are now apparently. --Majora (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I'm going to go ahead and remove as much original authorship information as possible while still maintaining sourcing information. Hopeful that can move this closer to a resolution but I'm not deleting the image, cropped or original, and I'm not removing sourcing information. --Majora (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Stepro, Majora is right. Please stop this, or you will be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This case is a prime example of how to distribute photographers, no respect for the authors' performance. --Ralf Roletschek 06:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Who needs qualified photographers on Commons, as long as we have "flickr2commons"? Let us threaten them with blocks instead of listening to their arguments, or even offers to check their files to find better and more appropriate files. No! We bite them off, because the World Wide Web is so vast, and we can always harvest from outside. There is lots of talk about Community and acting with good faith with each other, but all I see here is the chasing away of another valuable contributor. --Wuselig (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • While it can be argued that Commons needs photographers, this case showcases very well why we mostly need contributers who/to understand basic copyright and licensing matters. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It isn't arguable that "Commons needs photographers". Without photographers, Commons would consist of SVG diagrams. Clearly some folk would rather that the content creators were not able to edit here unless they have a PhD in copyright and licensing. You seem to be ignoring that admin Majora was ignorant of whether a crop generated new copyright (very basic copyright law: no) and that Stepro does have a right to dissociate himself from derivatives that he feels do not show him or his subject in good regard. So this was a learning experience for several editors here, except of course any learning experience of basic courtesy and respect. Admins need to learn how to handle the "angry customer" in their "customer service"-like role. We had an angry customer here who was upset and going about things the wrong way. And we had some admins who were just making it worse. And of course the non-admin gets threatened with the block despite all parties edit warring furiously, when really there is no rush. This could have been handled much better. Now you've pissed him off enough that he wants to courtesy-delete his recent uploads. User:Stepro/gallery suggests admins here should swallow their pride and attempt to work with him rather than against him. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you didn't happen to notice while typing out such a thing, I did work with them and the photos aren't going anywhere. Human beings can also, shockingly, be wrong. As I prefaced my comment with and which I corrected immediately after being told I was wrong. I frankly don't give a damn if you have been here for 1 week or 10 years, whether you have uploaded 10 photos or 10,000. I will treat everyone the same and if you are being disruptive I will block you. My not threatening Tm with a block doesn't mean the action wasn't available either. When we allow people to have some perceived immunity because of some arbitrary notion of "usefulness" we descend into toxicity that I will not allow. Did you happen to notice that I didn't actually block them? No. Because they stopped being disruptive. Did you notice that this section is now resolved and will be closed? Perhaps not, but it will be. Their supposed retirement from this project is unfortunate but not something I can really control. If they want to come back they will be welcomed but they cannot continue to be disruptive and expect nothing to happen to them. Keep this in mind for the future. I don't do immunity. For anyone. --Majora (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ahmedabdelraziik

Ahmedabdelraziik (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything is copyvio. Indef'ed after the previous block didn't do anything. --Majora (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruby131

Ruby131 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Extremely rude personal attacks by User:Snowdawg

User:Snowdawg repeatedly inserts entirely wrong type categories into aircraft files. In July 2018 I had asked him to be a little bit more cautious if not familiar with certain aircraft types. Unfortunately, he continues to "vandalize" files with wrong categories.

Therefore, I asked him once again now not to continue that practice.

He replied with extremely rude personal attacks, first on his own user page and then on my talk page.

May I suggest to give him some cool-down time to adjust to Wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:No personal attacks as well as Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Thank you very much for (hopefully) some support. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week because of unacceptable personal attacks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Allrightnow1970

Allrightnow1970 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

In his hurry to illustrate en:Paul Kossoff's page user forgets everything about licenses and should be given time to read (and understand) Commons' help pages. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Allrightnow created an inadequate unblock request. I declined his/her previous unblock request, so in my opinion this request should be handled by someone else. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor overwriting after warning

A ba gazc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A ba gazc has continued to overwrite files even after being warned not to, and now they are revert warring on File:Maps of China 1912-Now.gif (even though they will be blocked). It is clear this editor does not want to collaborate, since they have not responded to myself[13] and @LX: [14] who have left messages telling them to cease overwriting. Bidgee (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Only know have they finally left a comment, though it seems they fail to understand that overwriting to something that they view as incorrect is in itself something that you shouldn't do. Bidgee (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done One week block. Hopefully the message will get clearer. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bilawalh01

Bilawalh01 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Not everything was copyvio, so I blocked him for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Φρικηπαίδεια

✓ Done He gone. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we search for the master of this disposable sock? Its username sounds as a deliberate offence in English; also compare against this logo. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Totally lost, I apologise if wrong

Hello! Very nice to meet you! I need immediate assistance regarding a picture I uploaded. Is this this section. I profusely apologise if not. --LLcentury (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: What assistance do you need with what picture, exactly?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: This picture, I took it from Wordpress which allows use under the license below, but they took it from Reuters, so I am confused as to who owns that picture. I profusely apologise If I messed up in anything. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Oops, i't been deleted, guess I was wrong sorry. --LLcentury (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That image is explicitly copyrighted in its EXIF, so I've deleted it. PLease read COM:LICENSING before going any further. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I will try to understand how can I go further with the picture without breaking any rule. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hamza Slaoui

Hamza Slaoui (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics

Liverpoolpics (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Seems unable to recognize a good Flickr account to a bad even when it's obvious. May user be welcomed again to use Google reverse search before upload or asked not to upload from Flickr? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, obvious copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex Neman has been warned a few times about copyright violations. File:Long, straight blond hair, rear view.jpg was deleted last year as a copyright violation, but Alex Neman seems to have uploaded it again in February. File:Long, curly brown hair, rear view.jpg is another obvious copyright violation from the same source. This user uploads a lot of car images from Flickr, which are fine, but also has some kind of obsession with the backs of women's heads which seems to lead to the copyright problems. Time for a block?. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And File:Long, messy brown hair, rear view.jpg. There's probably more. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Simon waziri msika

Simon waziri msika (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Almost everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Jocer Blandino

Jocer Blandino (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef blocked by 1989 (talk · contribs) Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Eddaido

Eddaido (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

In my humble opinion it is not acceptable to call another user's arguments "rubbish". Roxedl (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfriendly comment: yes. Personal attack (which would be the reason for administrative sanction): clearly no. --A.Savin 06:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roxedl and A.Savin: I warned the user to be more civil.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
If so, then you missed to warn Roxedl for "stalking" too. Btw, stalking = real criminal offense in Germany where Roxedl probably is from. --A.Savin 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Antoniorosset

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uploads files which are same, or at least similar to those deleted accordingly to Commons procedures. The user dismissed the grievance about wrong authorship information; his user page contains some promotional fluff in Portuguese but provides no explanation why may he possess rights for numerous photos certainly taken by a person other than Antonio Carlos Rosset Filho. See also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-04 #File:Mr._Antonio_Carlos_Rosset_and_the_Vice_Prime_Minister_of_Russia_Mr._Igor_Shuvalov.jpg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of them nominated for deletion. — Racconish 💬 06:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit conflict

When i saw that the last edits of User:Verdy p destroyed the layout of Template:T/doc I asked him to stop that, and reverted with some labour to a format which displayed well. The user does normally good work, I cannot understand why he tries to alter the complicted documentation (obviously he does not understand all of it). Because he continues to destroy my reparations, and keeps to be unreasonable, I plea for help at this noticeboard. -- sarang♥사랑 06:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not break it, I fixed your own error (using incorrect parameters with unclosed tags was YOUR error, not mine), and I repaired it, also I replied to you to explain that before even you posted this notice here. and your "obsviously" remark does not apply, I perfectly understand all of it and I have kept all your additions, and made them work as you wanted. verdy_p (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And it's not my fault if this doc is a highly complicated 'mess'. It is highly unstructured, and very difficult to read for most users (notably everything added after the template box, that should probably be in a separate subpage, given that it will not even be transcluded in other template pages that don't support all these quirks.
Also I asked you waht was the problem, but you did not reply, I had inspected it several times (but had not seen the rendering problem that was caused when showing the doc in other templates: this was a minor bug that YOU did yourself and it did not work either with several of your attempts (even after your revert). Using unclosed tags in template parameters is unsupported and very likely to break. But it's not what I did. verdy_p (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
None of your changes brought an important improvement of the docu; some changes clarified the source code, but finally the layout is broken - I do not yet know how and why:
  • Your new list at parameter 4 works well, but it is not reasonable structured.
  • at parameter "incl"
  • at parameter "case"
both lists are broken: after my edits the always worked well (last at 05:18 and 05:44). If you want to add more whitespace to increase the readability of the code, please don't change again the format. -- sarang♥사랑 06:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cuatro Remos

Cuatro Remos (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Todas las fotografia subidas a Commons, dice la norma que deben tener una categoría a lo menos
Pueden ver algunas de sus reversiones siguientes:

Aquí 1
Aquí 2
Aquí 3
Aquí 4
Aquí 5br/>

y en general todo lo que categorize lo revierte casi inmediatamente . espero la sanción respectiva , un saludos--Historiadormundo (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Te dije, en tu discusión, que las categorías no corresponden porque en ellas no aparecen ni Domingo Santa María ni José Manuel Balmaceda. Una solución sería crear una categoría para los ministros de Balmaceda y otra para los de Santa María, pero ¿qué tiene que ver Florencio Valdés en la categoría de José Manuel Balmaceda? Nada. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 22:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Florencio Valdes también fué ministro de Balmaceda y no existe nada de lo que tú indicas en ninguna discusión , un saludos--Historiadormundo (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sección "Redundant categories", en tu discusión. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
En esa sección no dice nada con respecto a lo lógico de hacer con respecto a los ministro de Balmaceda , unos saludos --Historiadormundo (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin Florencio Valdes también fué ministro de Balmaceda; pero lo que no puedo compender si no esta creada la categoría exacta , no se puede categorizar con las más ajustada correspondiente o se queda sin categoría??, Un saludo --Historiadormundo (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Historiadormundo: Sooner or later it would have been tagged as uncategorized, so would never be really “lost”. On the other hand, wrong categorization can persist unchecked for years. Si no hay la categoría correcta — entonces añádela y créala, o déjala roja. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It is very simple, isn't it? --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin estas tres reversiones de ayer tambien estan bien??? Ella es la esposa de Rodolfo Errázuriz Ovalle. A mi modesto entender estas fotos cumplen con toda claridad que pueden tener estas dos Categorias.
Estas fotografias han recibido más de tres reversiones cada una por este usuario, por favor aclarar si esta bien o no ? un saludos--Historiadormundo (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive DRs by Strepo

This DR is nothing more than a disruptive nomination by Stepro who is insisting that no one be allowed to create any crops of their images that they don't agree with. Since I am already pretty involved with this would another admin please take a look at this. Obviously the image is clearly within our scope and clearly follows copyright so deletion is plainly unwarranted. This is starting to become ridiculous with the amount of destruction being requested by this one person over some crops which are allowed by the license they choose when uploading the image here. Hence why the report here, at ANU. The harassment of TheSoccerBoy continues unabated here and needs to be stopped. All they did was crop an image. No one should be forced to go through this when they did something they are allowed to do. --Majora (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed a neutral admin should look at. I feel massively followed by Majora and badgered.
I made a completely legitimate deletion request for a qualitative bad crop here, after being kind enough to search my hard drive for a better portrait again and upload it to Commons to make the bad crop obsolete.
This is not only legitimate behavior, but absolutely in the spirit of our project.
How I am being treated by Majora here is not only extremely demotivating, but simply harassment.
Please see also User:Stepro/2019-05-27 (unfortunately only in German) what he has done already.
Regards, Stepro (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Stepro: can you comment on my suggestion at Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I choosed to be as near as possible to the UEFA wording there, but yes, I have no problem with your suggestion. For me it's just the same in other words.
To avoid misunderstandings: The template has nothing to do with the DR mentioned here. --Stepro (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a bad quality crop. Wikimedia Commons is not the place where we need crops from every image. There are (also here on Wikimedia Commons) much better pictures of the player, this picture is not used. – This is the justification given by Stepro in the DR.
And he's right about that. The picture has a bad quality, because it is a small part that was cut out of a big picture. We don't need dozens of more crops from every picture, especially not if they are problematic from a personality rights point of view. Wikimedia Commons also has to respect personality rights. --DCB (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. That's why I mentioned a block in the previous thread. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: In this particular case, I voted delete on the DR because the crop is potentially misleading. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) First, I'm not following you. You are just predictable. I knew you were going to go back and try to get the crops deleted so I watchlisted them. I just happened to be at lunch watching my feed when you decided to do so. That's not following. That's just common sense watchlisting. Second, the only one breaking the spirit of the project here is you who are insisting that you get the prerogative to decide what crops of your images are acceptable and what are not. By uploading here you agreed to let others modify your work. Period. This thread clearly shows that you think you can control derivatives. You can't. And the repeated attempts to get these images deleted do nothing more than give the wrong impression to anyone else who wants to create a crop of an image whose license plainly allows such things. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
To be short: It is legitime to make a DR to let the community here discuss, if the quality of a photo is good enough for Commons or not. I choosed to do so. It's irrelevant, if this photo is a crop or not. Bad quality photos have no right to be here. The community has to discuss and decide it, not just you. Your repeatings of wrong things don't make them true. --Stepro (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Crops are allowed by licence. No one denies that. Stepro did not make a DR on crops because they're crops. He has already contributed over 5000 pictures, of which numerous crops have been made, without any problems.
  • The controversial crops turned into bad photos. The persons depicted have distorted facial expressions because they were photographed under extreme athletic strain. This is ok in a whole picture, but completely useless as a portrait and above all disrespectful of the person photographed. This was not mentioned at all, only the licensing situation was pointed out again and again. There are rules regarding the handling of photos of living persons: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. On Commons, we are not allowed to defame people: "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject". (...) "The subject, photographer, or uploader of an image may request that it be removed from Commons. The reasons for removal may include such things as "It causes embarrassment"
  • Reasons to delete embarrassing photos can be the protection of the person depicted, the photographer's reputation and finally the project's reputation.
  • If it turns out that we produce and publish horrible portraits through crops, commons photographers might no longer be accredited for events. That's another good reason to request that a photo should be deleted. I wish this argument would be taken a little seriously instead of just focusing on the license. We photographers can get a serious problem with a bad reputation.
  • Of course it could be that Stepro can not succeed with the DRs and Commons will keep the pictures. He would have to accept that and adapt his future uploads to this situation. He has however for the reasons mentioned every right to speak up vehemently for a deletion. --Superbass (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought "the situation has been resolved", Majora? Guess not. Today Stepro uploaded about 20 high quality sports photographs to Commons and improved the Wiki articles using them. He created one DR which is indeed about a bad crop (it looks like the arm and hand belong to the subject but in fact belong to another player, so it has no reasonable expectation of educational use, unless one is really really desperate or are stuck for finding a very mildly funny photo on the internet). How is creating one DR so disruptive that you require administrator action? Give your opinion on the merits (or otherwise) of the image for Commons on the DR. I am boggled that Tm is criticising the "no longer in use" DR argument because Stepro "removed the image" when in fact Stepro uploaded a better image and substituted that one on the article. That sounds to me like a valued Commoner improving content on our sister projects. The only people causing disruption here today are (again) Majora and Tm. If Stepro is wrong about the images being deletable, then they will be kept-closed and Stepro will tire of nominating others. Suggest uninvolved admin close this and Majora trims their watchlist. -- Colin (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just thought I would mentioned that this is why this behavior needs to be brought to light and stopped. While TheSoccerBoy does not want to participate in this thread, and I'm not going to notify them of me posting this link here for that very reason, it needs to be read. Crops of people are use all over Wikipedia. Yes, many of them are not the best quality, but to have them is better than having nothing at all. This is the foundational purpose of Commons. To provide free images to illustrate the free encyclopedia. Having the regular, uncropped, image sometimes isn't acceptable for use in an infobox and the cropped image, even if worse off in a photography sense, is better for that particular article. We should not be forcing people to choose between a full image or none at all. That defeats the entire purpose of allowing derivatives and goes against everything we should be standing for. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you're standing for, I (among other things) stand for this which resricts the usage of embarrasing photos. And so should you. --Superbass (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
And if they wanted to contact us via OTRS and claim that it is embarrassing I would be right there with you. As I have been, multiple times, with multiple tickets that do the same thing. There is even a link to Commons:Contact us/Problems in the section COM:BLP#Removal requests for this very purpose (even though it is also mentioned in that same section that that reason is not grounds for removal in it of itself). This is a small group of people, here, claiming something when the person in the photo hasn't done so. Also, you missed the entire point of my comment. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
No, that guideline does not require the person depicted to contact us. It doesn't say, "Post whatever you want until someone complains." We are basically obliged to avoid embarassing pictures. The photographer and the uploader are explicitly granted the right to ask for deletion ("The subject, photographer, or uploader of an image may request that it be removed from Commons."). Please read the linked text completely. And even if you disagree with the quality of the image, Stepro has every right to propose its deletion if its content is questionable. --Superbass (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
(sigh) I never said it requires them to contact us and I'm fully aware of what it says. "Embarrassment" is simply a subjective quality and the person in the photo has a much better grasp of what is embarrassing to them than anyone else does. It also says that while admins are normally sympathetic, "I don't like it" isn't a valid reason to delete something. Normally I would be sympathetic. Like I said, I've dealt with many many tickets on OTRS for this very problem. I'm simply not in this case because of the vehementness of Stepro that they can control their uploads in such a manner and the repeated actions against another editor's uploads when they were perfectly within their right to perform such actions. --Majora (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I, also with OTRS for years and contributing photos for more than a decade, say it IS embarassing. The same is said by others in this debate. So there are different opinions - a classic case for a discussion about deleting the image. Therefore, there is no reason to accuse Stepro of having a DR that does just that: To initiate a legitimate and necessary discussion so that the community can decide on a controversial picture. --Superbass (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The combination of recent actions by Stepro, e.g. here, gives a strong suggestion that their intention is not just to clean Commons from bad quality files. Apparently they are trying to enforce some ND restriction, which is incompatible with COM:L. I propose that Stepro:
  1. gets banned temporarily from nominating files for deletion in cases where the file is a crop from a file that was originally provided by Stepro.
  2. gets banned temporarily from nominating their own upload.
During this temporary ban Stepro and others can try to come to an agreement/understanding on how to interprete e.g. our licensing policies, without having the pressure of open DRs. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily calling for a ban here. And frankly I don't really support such a thing. If they want to go through and nominate their other uploads for deletion, more power to them. I'd even process other G7s of their if they wish to remove recently uploaded, unused, images. But these particular images appear to be a problem. It started with them repeatedly tagging them for speedy deletion and then proceeding to speedy tag the originals and when that didn't work to DR them. Derivatives have to be allowed. Crops of images have to be allowed. There cannot be a continual assumption that photographers own their photos to such a degree here that they can dictate what happens to them. Copyright is one thing. But we simply can't allow such actions to dissuade other editors from cropping images when that is clearly allowed by the license. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Majora and TheSoccerBoy: (also pinging TheSoccerBoy as I have some advice) In this case (I can't speak for any of the other cases as I haven't looked at them), the crop is too narrow. Showing Ada Hegerberg's arm as if it were Andrea's. (especially when you view a thumbnail of the cropped image) So any crop in this case needs to at least include Hegerberg's torso. Infobox or otherwise. Or crop even more so the arm isn't visible anymore, but that would result in a rather small image and focus even more on the facial expression out of its context. When nothing better is available or the resolution is too low, sometimes it's better (even in an infobox) to use an image with a somewhat wider angle. Or skip the infobox image and simply only add an image to the article. Stepro hasn't attacked my crops so we're not forced to "choose between a full image or none at all". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm tired of refuting the same wrong arguments again and again. Therefore here and now a longer statement of me:

The slander, I would like to restrict the license with a kind of ND, and generally want to ban crops of my photos, is absolutely wrong. This is proven by the fact that I have no problem whatsoever with 2 of the 7 crops created by TheSoccerBoy: 1, 2. I did not want to delete them, nor did I criticize them. They have a reasonable quality and are therefore fine for me.

But I have a problem with poor quality, or the athletes distorting crops. That's why I proposed 5 of the 7 for deletion.

To the procedure: I put speedy requests on these 5 crops. The day after, Tm came and removed them. When I saw that he is not an admin, I politely addressed him on his disc and asked to comment on it but not to remove it as a non-admin. I therefore restored it. He removed them again. I call that a) assumption of authority and b) editwar.

So I turned to this page here and asked an admin to restore or decide the speedies. Please note: In contrast to Tm, I did not edit any more, but asked for an administrative decision. Majora came and decided that the speedies were "invalid" (which I still find questionable), and that regular DRs would not stand a chance (which I find too arrogant to decide this by himself and deny regular DRs).

I took note of this decision and considered my deletion request completed.

However, I claimed my right to refrain from naming as an author, and removed the references to me as an author from the crops. In the summary line I pointed out extra carefully: "by Section 3(a)(3) of the license". As soon as I finished, Tm reverted me. I actually got angry, and reverted on my part. I felt (and still feel so) right. Tm started an editwar again, and put my name back to the file description pages. (Example: diff). When I saw that, I stopped again, and turned back to this side to express my legitimate desires, instead of editwaring.

The reaction of Majora: The 2x an editwar starting Tm was not sanctioned, I was deprived of the rollback right without any warning. Do I really have to say what I think about it?

Since I was denied by Tm and Majora to my license-given right to refuse to be the author, I saw no other option but to delete the 4 original files. The speedies were converted by Majora into regular DRs. Here we are.

I summarize: Tm started 2x an editwar, he was not sanctioned. I was deprived of a user right. Majora, as well as the added Yann and Jeff_G., started to threaten me.

How can we solve the whole drama now? I would like to try to make a constructive proposal:

  • The two crops 1 and 2 are deleted immediately because they are clearly unfavorable to the person depicted, and were be replaced by higher-quality portraits by me.
  • Regular DR will be started for one other crop: 3 to let the community decide whether it is useful for commons or not, just like any other photo on this project.
  • Two further crops: 4 and 5 I accept with heavy heart.
  • Therefore I withdraw the four DRs on my original photos immediately.
  • The rollback right is returned to me, because I feel the decision wrong and very one-sided biased.
  • The two crops by TheSoccerBoy, with which I never had a problem, go without saying.

I think, this is a very constructive suggestion. Would that be a compromise that everyone can live with? --Stepro (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Every single one of the crops that you objected to have all information stating your attachment to them removed per your wishes (except in the EXIF which can be arranged if you really want it to). Continuing to state that I denied you such a right is nonsensical when I was the one that removed them all [15][16][17][18][19]. The only link back is the source link which must stay as no image can be without a source.

Your rollback was removed because you abused it. Simple as that. You used it to revert edits that were not vandalism and to participate in a revert war. Tm did not use rollback but the regular undo button. I strongly object to the restoration of such a right to anyone that uses it in such a manner. Also, for the record, if the edit war had continued I would have blocked both of you. I don't have favorites or sides. As I've stated numerous times and have made perfectly clear (I hope) I treat everyone the same. New, old, 1,000 edits or 100,000.

No properly sourced and licensed image will be speedily deleted. That simply isn't what we do. If you want to DR the second image you mentioned you want "immediately deleted" go right ahead (its in use status on frwiki appears to be a bug). It can be added with the DR you mentioned regarding the third image. --Majora (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Only responding to your first paragraph: Your timeline is wrong. You removed that later. As I wrote above, Tm reverted it into the pages.
Your other paragraphs I don't want to comment. I would love to have other opinions to my suggestion as a whole. I'm interested in a constructive, positive solution. --Stepro (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I agreed with DR'ing the images...not quite sure what more you want here. It seems more like you want your solution. Which I take issue with certain parts of. As for the timeline, how does Tm reverting the removal have anything to do with me? I ended that part of the dispute by doing what you wished. You said I (Majora) denied you that right. I did no such thing. I did the opposite. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Stepro: I DR'ed the images. (I agree with the deletion of one of them anyway) I updated 5. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Stepro, the most you can do is request at DR. You can't insist images be deleted for being bad crops -- that's up to the community to decide. It is unfortunate that at least one of your DRs is now tainted by comments from folk who have misinterpreted your intentions and are voting merely defensively rather than with their heads and eyes. For this reason I strongly admonish both Tm and Majora for their role in this debacle, and advise Majora in particular to learn more about the rights of a photographer, the subject, and the rights retained even when licensed. For the record, never ever ever state that the photographer does not "own" the images here. They do. That is a simple fact of law. If you wish to comment about the matter, find some other language than that. Majora has repeatedly misread the communications by Stepro and mis-stated the communications by Stepro. I read them and I see a photographer asking another user not to create awful crops and I see a photographer raising a DR to ask the community to consider deleting the awful crops. Stepro is not an admin, he has not deleted anything and knows the community decides. It seems clear that a red mist has descended upon Majora and they need a break in order to clear their head of this nonsense. I see no reason for topic bans or blocks. Both Stepro and some admins here are on a learning path and both have made mistakes wrt copyright and non-copyright rights. Admins are absolutely required by policy to work towards consensus. All I see here is bullying and repeated bad faith intransigence by Majora. Stepro should be free to create DRs (within reason of course) and leave them for the community to decide. Majora should go find something more productive to do that bullying a photographer who solved the problem of Commons having a terrible crop of a sports player, by uploading a better one that they took themselves. This is how photographers improve Commons. The rest of you, are just noise. -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Majora: if Stepro is willing to promise they will not use rollback against established users unless it concerns an edit that clearly was unintended (like accidentally removing a relevant category or breaking wikicode), Stepro could have rollback returned to them imho. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    To be honest, Alexis Jazz, this is quite a sticking point for me. This has nothing to do with them using it against "established users". It has to do with the absolutely clear, unambiguous abuse of rollback on multiple fronts. Not only to revert edits that were not vandalism but also as a tool to facilitate an edit war. You really can't get a more clear example of abuse than that. To allow that to pass without doing anything would be antithetical to one of my core belief systems. That people should be treated equally and as such, actions should have equal consequences. As already mentioned, if Tm abused a right I would have removed it from their account as well. The abuse of an extra right results in removal of that right until a time arrives when there is a comfortableness that the abuse will not happen again. I am not comfortable that the right will be used for its intention so I will not be the one to regrant the right. They are more than welcome to request for it at COM:PERM as is outlined at COM:Rollback#Revocation of rollback permission (it actually says such a request is required anyways) and see if another admin feels differently. For me to regrant that right here would be to betray something I believe very deeply in. --Majora (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Majora: The exact details and conditions would be up for debate. But both Tm and Stepro were wrong. Stepro shouldn't have removed the source, but Tm shouldn't have reinstated the name of the author which Stepro had the right to remove. Stepro shouldn't have made those speedies, on the other hand, they were not obviously meritless so Tm should have converted them to a DR. Which Tm as a filemover has the button for! If Stepro were to abuse rollback again, I wouldn't be so forgiving. Maybe that's a better way to gauge it: ask Stepro if he understands that rollback was the wrong tool to use in this instance. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    To be honest, most folk don't appreciate the difference between rollback and reverting by other means, so this is an "abuse" that folk who aren't expert Commoners can make without appreciating it. Both were edit warring and I really don't see the difference between doing so via one button-link or another. This seems to be something Admins care about and wikilawyer over. But having abused the right, I think it is up to Stepro to agree that edit warring and edit warring with the rollback facility, is unacceptable and should not be repeated. Whether Stepro should have had it removed and whether it gets returned, is really quite separate from whether Tm did something wrong and should have been admonished (he did, and should). I agree with Alexis that Tm should have converted the speedies to DR.
There's nothing wrong with allowing the community to discuss retention of an image. Which, returning to the opening request of this section, can we please have an uninvolved admin close this -- no admin action required against Stepro.
Majora: uploading 20+ images, replacing a terrible image with a great one, and asking the community to discuss deleting an awful and embarrassing crop, is not disruptive, not bad faith, and an example great Commons behaviour. Your language "The harassment of TheSoccerBoy continues unabated here" is simply blatantly untrue: there was not even any communication between the individuals other than an automatic notice about a DR. I really really don't like it when folks start making stuff up with wild accusations and use of words that equal a criminal offence in the UK (online harassment). Please avoid that language, make a bigger effort to describe other's actions with honesty and fairness, and start a little AGF please. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree to take administrative actions, the said DR is not so disruptive (to be honest I tend to agree with this nomination), furthermore a DR is usually fully appropriate if one think that a content is inappropriate for our project, a DR is an issue when it is kept 5 times and renominated 5 times with the same rationale.... Although one may disagree on the substance or form of this message, I don't think that it is at this point a harassment, it's just the more or less dexterous expression of a point of view. That being said, Majora is right, and is in his role, on the fact any user (included Stepro) must be cautious and use restraint when it comes to telling others what can or can not be done. So please continue, but act with restraint and with cooperation. IMO nothing more to say here, for those who are interested, comment in the concerned DRs. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Majora should apologise to Stepro for this AN/U with unfounded and baseless complaints that were rooted in continued bad faith. Specifically they should apologise over the clearly false allegation of harassment, and agree to exercising caution in using that word in future. When an admin abuses this noticeboard to attack users who are here to improve our repository of images, they should be held to account for that. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
What? Majora did let the community to decide instead of using his dick^W block privilege to “settle” the issue. Majora should be commended as a civilized admin, Stepro’s insinuation was certainly on a collision course with Commons’ mission, hence the grievance was legitimate, and bad-faith accusation by Colin appear to be unfounded. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where you get that idea, about a user contributing thousands of their own images being on a "collision course with Common's mission". I've not had any prior disagreement with Majora or Stepro that I can recall, so "bad-faith" doesn't come into it. To be honest, I thought Majora was generally ok, so am hugely disappointed to find them telling lies about another user to get them blocked. It is really hard to find any "good faith" rational behind the "The harassment of TheSoccerBoy continues unabated here and needs to be stopped", because it is a Trumpian whopper of a lie, and easily disproved. It would really restore my faith in Majora if they admitted that they screwed up here. We all have bad days. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Majora had missed the thing with the arm and painted themselves in a corner.. Happens to the best of us. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The collision course was works from officially accredited photographers may only be used for editorial online publications. I have no idea what “the accreditation rules” actually require—the insinuation was empty-worded—but such kind of restriction is essentially fair use and not permitted here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
While I agree the UEFA template likely triggered recent events, I'm not aware Majora had any part in that discussion. The restriction isn't any kind of fair use, which is quite a separate set of laws. The "editorial use only vs commercial use" that agencies and professional photographers are concerned with is also separate from the "commercial use" that our CC licences are concerned with. The former uses "commercial" to mean promotional literature (e.g., adverts) using the subject of the photo (which our personality rights template covers, in US law at least), the latter uses "commercial" to mean a profit-making publication. In the UEFA DR, Carl touches on this distinction, but I see other folk still being confused about it and thinking it means incompatibility with CC BY-SA. A newspaper can use a photograph of a person with "editorial use only" restriction but could not use one with a "NC" CC restriction. They would still pay to licence the photograph from an agency, whereas a "fair use" claim would be using the photograph without any licence agreement. Put another way, since nearly all our Commons-user-taken photographs of people lack a model release, all are "editorial use only" and none of them can be used for "commercial (promotional)" use in the US. The UK, however, doesn't really have the US concept of personality rights.
Anyway, this is all beside the point wrt to the DR of the bad crop. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sysop 1989 takes ThatBPengineer’s baits

During the previous baiting session 1989 responded with nearly total deletion without discussion. Nowadays we can see a mild improvement, but anyway such potentially useful files as

which were not obviously copyvio, as well as

were sent to trash expressly. Not only without any discussion, but even without a message on user_talk:Xgsdev. Please, stop this practice of productive deletion trolling by ThatBPengineer/Thatonewikiguy – his ambitions in this respect are no more important than of established Commons users. 1989, having numerous achievements in the campaign, should be reprimanded and instructed to behave in a way more respectful to good-faith uploaders (think Xgsdev). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @1989: why do you believe that the deleted files are copyright violations? Most have been around for years and little evidence that the files are indeed copyright violations is provided. Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is no excuse. There a lot of copyvios, personal images, and promotion files that were uploaded here and have gone unnoticed for years, as Yann already advised to them before. TBP has provided evidence on why it's a copyvio by listing all the files in thumbnails with the link provided as proof on their user page. It’s unknown why they’re choosing to do such, but it doesn’t violate policy. If I felt it wasn’t enough, I’d either investigate further or create a DR calling for the opinions of the community in which I’ve done. I’ve advised to the reporter that the user intents good faith and to not bring hostility. Their behavior is what got them blocked for a week by Yann and it seems they are unwilling to change their behavior of accusing users of some agenda, as it makes users like myself not want to participate. -- 1989 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Instead of addressing deletions, contempt for no less than three uploaders (and their works), or at very least evident proxying for ThatBPengineer/Thatonewikiguy with his infamous deletionist agenda, 1989 shows his demeanor and implicitly threatens me with block directly above. Again: why wasn’t Xgsdev notified of deletions? Why isn’t Alexismcd (talk · contribs) notified of deletion of his upload? Why wasn’t Lllidon (talk · contribs) notified timely? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't notify accounts that were clearly abandoned, and I have never threaten to block you. 1989 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@1989: You should always inform the uploader. If not for the uploader themselves, you need to do it for others. Deletion without notification leaves no searchable trace of deleted files whatsoever. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really smart (although sounds smart) – many users (me included) have friendly user_talk stalkers. Some users (such as, purportedly, Thatonewikiguy) lost or abandoned an account although can watch its user_talk. As for threat, may “[t]heir behavior is what got them blocked for a week by Yann and it seems they are unwilling to change…” be perceived otherwise by somebody having such experience as mine? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
We all have to grow someday, don't you think? I'm explicit with threatening blocks, so take my statement how you will. -- 1989 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
… and more on Revision of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Krap01.jpg. Perhaps 1989 tries in good faith to act upon all complaints, but creation of deletion requests based on evidence that is completely and obviously flawed distracts Commons volunteers from their work in other important fields. ThatBPengineer’s things don’t absolve 1989 from responsibility for disruption. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I am restoring all these files. They were clearly deleted out of process. There is certainly no ground for a speedy deletion, and the uploader was not even informed. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: If my judgment is so impaired and I can't tell what's a copyvio or not, do you suggest a desysop request is in order? It seems as clear as a day that all along I am not worthy of this. -- 1989 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Some of these files may not be OK without a permission, but 1. you should inform the uploader whenever you delete a file, 2. most of these files were uploaded in 2009, 10 years ago. I don't think a speedy deletion is appropriate here. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Every file deletion should include public evidence in the deletion log, in a post to the uploader's user talk page, or both.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
They can be put up for deletion to clarify the rationale. Examining the 3 linked examples at the top of this thread, nothing jumps out at me as being evidence of a copyright violation. Files hosted for that many years should have well recorded information about deletion, not just "Copyright violation" in the log. In addition to process concerns, files hosted this long would be worth giving the presumption of reasonableness to carry on hosting unless there is verifiable evidence correctly laid out.
The related DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lllidon appears to have a dubious bad faith nomination, unless evidence can be added. I doubt that informing the uploader is a useful act, as they have been inactive since 2014. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

1989 replacing ThatBPengineer's user page with retired template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What?? For which reason ThatBPengineer’s possible retirement is 1989’s business? What the clue is to push {{Retired}} on another user’s page? Possibly should be reverted. Too much 1989’s questionable activity in relation to that page – see an older Revision of User:ThatBPengineer having a wrong substantiation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(added sub header) @1989: what the crap. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The content before my edit should explain it all. Slow news day, eh? -- 1989 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@1989: I don't get it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I find that you're generally good at explaining things. Can you explain it for us? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If you scroll past all the CommonsDelinker edits there is Special:Diff/340185323 which does indicate a {{Retired}} type situation. I probably would have left it like that instead of blanking and replacing with the retired template since that message portrays the same but 1989 doesn't appear to be technically wrong on the "retired" front. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: the addition of a {{Retired}} template could be argued over (I think there is no need generally to force it upon anyone), but actually blanking a user page of a user who hasn't even been blocked? Can admins just fully blank user pages as they please? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing explicitly banning it that I can find but I personally don't find it all that useful to blank user pages even if the person is blocked (provided the material isn't otherwise against some other policy). My personal view on the matter is to generally give deference to people to use their user page as they see fit (again provided it isn't violating some other policy). --Majora (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The very “to see how of many still remains here after one year on 20 Feb 2020” mood is contrary to the idea of retirement. He hasn’t “left Wikimedia Commons for Good” – he just ceased regular contributions but continues with provocative shows. Why should anybody here clean random “dossiers” on our uploaders and other trash after ThatBPengineer? Let us merely take valid points and delete bad files whereas leave ThatBPengineer’s bollocks where he dropped it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have undone the blanking. This is not common practice, and there is nothing supporting it in policy as far as I am aware. As pointed out above, users are free to leave their user pages in whatever state they wish so long as they do not violate policy. We do not try to divine users intentions from edit summaries. If they wish to blank their user page and declare themselves retired, then they may do so at any time without needing the help of others. GMGtalk 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Point conveyed and second commitment made (the first is here). — Racconish 💬 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs)

This user uploaded new batch from Flickr without pre-filtering Commons:Derivative works. Either this user should learn Commons:Derivative works and how to do pre-filtering or batch uploads should be prohibited. Nothing was done by uploader to weed-out problematic files during previous discussion on this page. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Yes, this user was warned before. But I don't see any issue about copyright in the files uploaded today. Did I miss anything? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I didn't see anything that looked derivative - I did check yesterday. But the images were tagged with the incorrect public domain tag on Flickr. Usually I do check for that - yesterday I didn't. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I cleaned this one up for you. You know what went wrong, that should be good enough for now. I don't really see a problematical pattern here. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is apparently about these files. Photos like this one are a derived work of the scenic design which is eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, please confirm you understand this concern about derivative work and will pay attention to the matter in the future. — Racconish 💬 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I do understand, yes. I'm just going to avoid mass uploading for the most part - that's the safest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 20:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Bunyan Museum

Alexis Jazz is reminded incivility is damaging the collaborative nature of the project and complaints by new users should be treated with kindness, patience and respect. — Racconish 💬 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Bunyan Museum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Needs account verification for this username. Also, troublemakers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I am most concerned with how this account has been treated. Assuming they are a representative of John Bunyan Museum, using that as a user name is quite a common newbie mistake. They raised four DRs:

In each of them, Alexis Jazz has responded with "Screw the museum." and then when they noticed the account name, responded "screw you". User:Simonxag gave a more appropriate response that the images were taken with the apparent blessing of museum staff at the time. They have all been quickly closed keep. The JBM account has now been blocked for incorrect user name policy. They now have no means to discuss their complaint about the photos, and in this section above, Alexis has described them as "troublemakers", rather than AGF.

When we recently discussed Commons having a civility policy, one of the aspects I felt it was important for Commons to address (distinct from Wikipedia) is our treatment of outsiders who create an account simply to communicate a complaint. We treat them often with hostility when they make mistakes with policy. This is a classic example of Commons behaving in a very unprofessional and quite outrageous manner. I also note Alexis was opposed to such a policy as it would stop him being rude. It makes things even worse should this be the museum, as being told "screw you" by Commons is very unlikely to warm them to engage in any GLAM activities in the future. It would be useful if an admin offered them some advice on the JBM user talk page.

I think the responses by Alexis at these four DRs fall so far short of how Commons should present itself to outsiders, and reflect an ongoing attitude by Alexis of gratuitously offending others, that a block is justified. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

JBM is completely clueless about copyright, and for trying to take down photos they have absolutely no right whatsoever over, they deserve being told to F off. (note: I stuck with the less offensive "screw") And as long as we're pointlessly discussing blocks, let's block you too for misleading by selectively quoting me. And block 1989 for blocking JBM. Let's just block everyone? Can't have any drama if literally everyone is blocked! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Alexis, I don't think there is any reason for a block, but you should use a bit more AGF. I agree with you that they are completely clueless about copyright, but that's the case for many GLAMs. It is certainly more efficient to use a more polite tone. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
If anyone files a legitimate complaint (or made an understandable mistake), I'm always helpful and polite. This complaint was not legitimate and not really understandable either, imho. I find it severely offensive when anyone tries to take down material they don't actually have the rights to, and they reasonably can be expected to know that. Regarding Colin's "is very unlikely to warm them to engage in any GLAM activities", any organization that comes to Commons with this kind of complaint will never engage in any GLAM activities.
It started by the way because JBM was referring to itself in third person, so I said "screw 'm". Only afterwards did I notice the username, by that time there was little point in retracting my statement. Had they referred to themselves in the first person, I would have never said anything like "screw you". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This response, that any external agency who are not totally clued up about the intricacies of CC licences, FoP in the UK, non-copyright rights, etc, etc, and our username policy, "deserve being told to F off", just makes it even worse for Alexis. It is for a DR to ascertain if they have rights to the image, not for Alexis to mock them. Given the defiant response and indication they would repeat the offence, a lengthy block would seem to be required to protect this project. -- Colin (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And again, you are trying to mislead people to get me blocked. I am helpful and polite, even if the complaining party made some understandable mistake, like not understanding FoP or personality rights or whatever. Which was not the case here: they tried to gain control over something that's not theirs, and somehow that's OK with you. I thought you were all about respect for photographers? I also haven't said that I'd do it again. They deserve to be told to F off, but after Yann's reply (which came after my "deserve" statement), I'll try to phrase that more nicely in the future. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No misleading from me. Lots of people believe they have different rights (more or fewer) than in actuality. That doesn't make them a "troublemaker" nor does it deserve for them to receive a fuck-off response from you. For example, we get folk asking for images of themselves to be deleted, or photographers regretting the licence choice they made. In both cases they may ask for more than they are actually allowed, and in both cases they do not deserve to be insulted. Raising a DR on four images is the correct procedure to ask the community to review whether we should host the images. In other countries, the photo of the life size model of John Bunyan in his prison cell would not be permitted here. Yet you say "Screw the museum". If you think people you disagree with, and people who might be wrong, "deserve to be told to F off" then I can only recommend an indef block. Yann the other day you supported a (premature) proposal to make Commons:Civility policy. Yet today, telling a museum, on multiple occasions, "screw the museum" and "screw you", and claiming now "they deserve being told to F off", is apparently not "any reason for a block". You have an odd definition of civility if that passes your test. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"For example, we get folk asking for images of themselves to be deleted, or photographers regretting the licence choice they made."
I'm never impolite in such cases. (and there have been a few) In case of personality rights, sometimes I'd support the deletion, depending on the case. In other cases, I generally try to steer them towards OTRS to submit a more flattering picture. (when it's a notable person) I haven't been rude to any photographer who came to regret their license choices either. Such cases are understandable.
"In other countries, the photo of the life size model of John Bunyan in his prison cell would not be permitted here. Yet you say "Screw the museum"."
Again, misleading by selectively quoting me. Stop that! And as a side note: when such a work is not covered by FoP, we'd need permission from the copyright holder. Not the organization that has it on display, unless those are the same.
"on multiple occasions, "screw the museum" and "screw you""
I never said the latter like that. Can this deception end please? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Alexis, you are clearly trolling us. The DR's are above, everyone can see what you said. No deception from me. I'm not interested in arguing this point further. -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, everyone can see you quote me selectively. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bulfajaco12

Bulfajaco12 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted characters from SpongeBob SquarePants

Taras Cherepenko uploaded 4 copyrighted files from SpongeBob SquarePants and claims to be own work. I've already given him a warning on his talkpage about this after he uploaded the 3rd file, but he still proceeded to uploaded some more. Kindly check this out. 大诺史 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Files are
File:SpongeBob smiling stock art vector.svg
File:Squidward unhappy.svg
File:Plankton grinning.svg
File:Mr. Krabs smiling.svg
File:Gary looking up.svg

ArionEstar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has nominated numerous photos of other photographers in the Featured Picture candidates in the past months. The vast majority of them are of subpar technical quality so they get a lot of oppose votes and voting will be ended prematurely (FPX template) or ArionEstar withdraws his nomination and continue on to nominate new photos immediately. Here are some of the nominations where I and other users have discussed the damage he's doing with clear words, often with warnings:

Before approx. March 2018 this user has had a healthier ratio of successful nominations so his nominating habits have gotten worse the last several months. As far as I can see he/she has never enganged in the discussions and has never shown any understanding. These low-effort nominations are mainly wasting time for reviewers and disheartening photographers who get bad reviews of their photos while they never indented to have them nominated to be featured in the first place. This paints a bad image for the featured picture candidates forum that is skewed towards negativism. Please take appropriate action to put ArionEstar in his/her place. – LucasT 07:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I would rather this was solved by discussion between ArionEstar and others at the FP forum. I don't think administrative action is desirable at this point, nor do I think requests for admins to "to put ArionEstar in his/her place" helpful. Arion has been part of FP for a long while. I agree that for a while now, he's been consistently nominating images that he should know already are not up to scratch, and I agree this is potentially hurtful for the photographers to have their work heavily criticised. Arion appear to have retired in 13May after criticism of his nominations and returned a week later. It is disappointing that the quality of many nominations remains low. I wish Arion would engage more with others about standards, or take a longer beak to recharge his batteries. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your input. I've striked my last few words as in hindsight they came off way harsher than I intended them to. – LucasT 07:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I second Colin's more cautious way of dealing with this. A long voluntary break from FPC would be the best thing for ArionEstar. Something has happened that affects how he selects FPCs, perhaps it is a new monitor or phone that does not display photos well or something. There is no need to retire or be blocked(?) from Commons since FPC is only a small part if the project, Arion is doing good work in other areas. I hope that this discussion will be enough to make him see how he can best be a part of the community for now. --Cart (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How long do you plan on waiting before taking action? Arion has been repeatedly exhorted to pay more attention to what he nominates, challenged to explain his criteria for FPC nominations, and many of his recent nominations have been overwhelmingly, often unanimously voted down. This has become very unpleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would consider this the final benevolent warning before requesting admin action. Up until now this matter has not been brought to ANU. Hopefully this is a wake-up call. If he continues with his FPC nominations, there is also the option to discourage him by simply {{abstain}} his noms. A bit radical, but it might work (nanny method). --Cart (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If not even opposes discourage him, why then do you think that an ignore would do. Maybe a total ignore, but that is difficult to coordinate. --A.Savin 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Even opposes is a kind of response that show that we have taken the time to consider what he is nominating. Just puttting an abstain on the nom and move on shows that we are not interested. Like I said, it's the way nannies do with children who demands attention one way or another. --Cart (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ignore all his noms (from now on, unless already doing so). If he continues mass-nominating = ultimate warning. If he still continues = block. --A.Savin 10:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Arion has since retired--BoothSift 23:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion Arion has gotten enough warnings already and should feel the consequences for his past actions now. It seems to me that he tries to do the same as last time, retiring for a while and then continuing on as usual without changing his behaviour. Keep in mind, he never participated in these discussions, never apologised. Maybe I'm too negative, but I think he doesn't care and doesn't take the FP forum and the time others invest in the reviews seriously. Any review takes time and he quickfires nominations and withdraws again like it's nothing. If people like him get off too easy, I would be seriously discouraged from participating at Commons. – LucasT 11:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Yes, I see what you mean. He clearly hasn't show any regret and has not apologized in any way. Further consequences are needed than warnings--BoothSift 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This user now has nominated a new picture in FPC while still being retired and edited his user page afterwards as he got called out. Still no explanations for his past behaviour which Yann has asked for in the block message, nor any apologies to the community. – LucasT 19:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes he has and I was actually going to block, but because of this comment, I'm willing to let him alone for the time being. Should he break the promise to stay away a few months and continue as if nothing had happened, the block of course is to impose. --A.Savin 20:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    "… to put ArionEstar in his/her place". Careful words, Lucasbosch. Congratulations on making me sad and making me stay out of the community (but not only because of that words). By the way, what is my place? Out of here, obviously. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    @ArionEstar, I strongly advise you to a) immediately STOP commenting here, and b) take a break from Commons for some months, as just announced. There will be no further comments from me on this issue and should the trolling continue, you know the consequences. --A.Savin 21:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    @A.Savin, I strongly advise you to block me for at least three months. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    It is useless to advise me to do it. Either you can request a self-imposed block, or you can continue begging an administratively imposed block. Not sure, what do you prefer. --A.Savin 21:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    A self-imposed block that lasts until September 2019. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. --A.Savin 21:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Uploading fake SVGs

DOM-El Trujillo has been uploading fake SVGs and presumable some are derivative work. Can an admin help me check this out? 大诺史 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TUR-ottoman too. 大诺史 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
大诺史: These are Kritkitty sockpuppets. Please report them at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kritkitty when you see them. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@LX: Alright, should the files they uploaded undergo COM:DR? 大诺史 (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise what's the point of blocking them? I've nominated the files. I really wish this sort of thing would be subject to speedy deletion to deter the endless nonsense. Meanwhile, sockpuppet uploads that I nominated two months ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by POL-warszawianka, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BEL-Brabant and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LTU-gediminas are still being "discussed". What a wonderful use of our time. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics

Liverpoolpics (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same report as one week ago: "Seems unable to recognize a good Flickr account to a bad even when it's obvious. May user be welcomed again to use Google reverse search before upload or asked not to upload from Flickr?" with the exception that user doesn't improves himself; it's getting worse. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block. Yann (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ralf Roletschek

Ralf Roletschek recently uploaded a batch of pictures of Evian/Volvic, both are mineral water brands by Danone (a food production concern of France). Some of that pictures are rather promotion/advertising-like, so actually not in Project scope.

And, as if it was not already suspicious enough, he nominated for deletion some pictures of Evian bottles by other users, with the rationale "Protected design" (??) [20] [21] [22].

Is it just me, who is seeing this activities as possibly problematic? Thanks. --A.Savin 20:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Eine Freigabe von Danone ist gegeben, die Mail geht ans OTRS. --Ralf Roletschek 21:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you please explain, why are you 1) uploading promotional-like photo material for Danone, and 2) at the same time, nominating similar (but not promotional-like) pictures by other users for deletion? --A.Savin 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the suspicion of A.Savin. E.g. File:19-05-09 Volvic Minze-Gurke RRK1501a.jpg, how is this anything educational, different from an advertisement? Did Ralf get paid by Danone? Jcb (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment To the extent that there is an OTRS authorization for the packaging there is no big issues here. Volvic or/and Danone are two very big well known brands, and I think that the visual of their products is fully in scope. Ralf is obviously a prolific photographer, and is very likely interested in Still life photography. If the pending permissions are valid, are we going to delete the images because they are too much good, and therefore are a potential advertissment towards Volvic. Silly IMO. And for the nominated files : [23] [24] [25], it is quite logic for someone who upload images of bottles to look at the corresponding categories, are we going to think that he was paid by Danone to nominate for deletion the Evian product images? silly again. Maybe can we AGF, and can we simply think that he found those images when he was checking neighboring categories for his uploads. Maybe shoud we thanks him to have made the DRs? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    So, if someone just wants to improve the wikipedia image of Volvic etc., they upload dozens of advertising-like photos, some even staged settings with human models? And at the very same time, gets an *exclusive* OTRS permission from Danone, meaning that only the pictures from *this* promotional set are allowed on Commons and the other ones are subject for deletion because of "protected design"? Fascinating. Paid advertising never was so easy on WMF projects as it apparently is now, especially if you are a "prolific photographer". --A.Savin 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
As the uploader of the pictures in question, IMO, only Ralf Roletschek is responsible. I still miss a statement by him, why does he upload promotional-like photos of Danone products and nominates competing pictures for deletion, how are staged photos in scope, why the OTRS permission by Danone (if there really is one) is only valid for his photos, and if there is a conflict of interest behind it, possibly even paid advertising. --A.Savin 11:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ich kann einer englischen Diskussion nicht folgen und werde deshalb nicht darauf eingehen. --Ralf Roletschek 11:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing understanding of English is a poor excuse for not commenting on a legitimate question, especially in an international project like Commons and in times of GoogleTranslate and similar tools. I think, if there is no statement, the images from User:Daniela Kloth/Wasser are to be deleted and Ralf Roletschek is to be blocked or at least strongly warned for uploading promotional stuff. --A.Savin 11:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Deutsch: Ralf, A.Savin wirft dir vor, werblich erscheinende Bilder von Danone-Mineralwasser hochzuladen und gleichzeitig Bilder anderer Nutzer zur Löschung zu beantragen. Zusammen mit der Freigabe via OTRS, die anscheinend vorliegt, kann das tatsächlich den Eindruck einer Arbeit im Auftrag von Danone bzw. des "paid editing" erwecken. Das ist sogar erlaubt, da Commons im Gegensatz zur Wikipedia keine Offenlegung verlangt. Aber auch dann könnte man sich fragen, ob ein Bild wie File:19-05-09 Volvic Minze-Gurke RRK1501a.jpg nicht zu sehr nach Werbematerial aussieht, um im Projektumfang von Comons zu sein. English (for the benefit of other readers): Ralf, A.Savin is accusing you of uploading pictures of mineral water by Danone that look like advertising, and at the same time nominating images by other users for deletion. Together with the permission by OTRS which seems to exist, this can give the appearance of work on behalf of Danone, resp. "paid editing". This is even allowed as Commons, unlike Wikipedia, doesn't require disclosure of paid editing. But even then one could ask whether an image like File:19-05-09 Volvic Minze-Gurke RRK1501a.jpg doesn't look too much like advertising to be in the project scope of Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin: Ich denke, der nächste Schritt wäre es, dass du jene Bilder, die du werblich findest, zur Löschung beantragst. Dann kann in einer regulären Löschdiskussion darüber entschieden werden. / I think the next step would be you nominating those images you think look like advertising for deletion. Then a decision can be made in a regular deletion discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
You forgot that RR still has not responded. --A.Savin 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
(BK) Wir haben weder einen Auftrag noch werden wir von Danone, Volvic oder Evian für was auch immer bezahlt oder beaftragt. Einfach ein paar nette Produktfotos, weil es durch einen Kontakt möglich ist, dafür ne Freigabe zu bekommen. Die Motive haben wir uns selbst ausgesucht. Wenn Personen zu gut fotografiert werden, wird kritisiert, daß das Werbeaufnahmen wären, nun auch bei Wasserflaschen? Sollen auf Commons nur unscharfe Matschbilder sein? Ich habe ganz absichtig keins der Bilder in Artikel eingebunden. Bis auf 4 habe ich SLA gestellt und die Löschanträge auf die anderen Bilder zurückgezogen. Wenn mir Google "In jedem Fall scheint die Inhaberschaft des Urheberrechts zu verletzen" liefert, verstehe ich die Beiträge nicht und meine Übersetzungen wären ebenso irreführend. --Ralf Roletschek 13:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jcb, please read en:WP:OUTING. I know Wikipedia is different wrt disclosure for paid editing, but that in fact makes OUTING wrt paid creation/uploading investigation on Commons even worse. An admin may wish to consider whether some of the comments above should be removed. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested in the copyright nature of an OTRS permitting a photo of packaging to be licenced CC BY-SA. Is it possible to release a derivative work (Ralf's photos) CC BY-SA yet retain restrictive copyright in the bottle design/artwork? If so, then I don't think Ralf's uploads are a problem for Commons. Whether Wikipedia should/could use them is up to them, and Ralf would be wise to refrain from adding them there. I think nominating the other photos for deletion is a bit of a mean thing to do, but he's only created a DR, which we should all remember is no big thing. The community can comment on the DR about the image, and not trouble itself with the motive. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, as a CC-BY-SA license also allows derivative works, if Danone has really released the images under that license, that means they are "liberating" their package design which then also could be used by others for commercial purposes, as long as the license is adhered to, it seems to me. People would be allowed to extract the package design from Ralf's images, as otherwise this would amount to an ND (no derivatives) restriction, which we don't accept. Given this, I think that such a release by Danone would seem surprising, but as I'm not on OTRS volunteer, I can't see the ticket. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, I asked you to please read en:WP:OUTING and clearly you haven't as your argument is directly and explicitly rejected by that page. I repeat, an admin should remove this discussion about a user's job/links and delete the revisions (and whether the links/job is correct or not is not something we can even discuss either). I believe you can do this yourself Jcb. If this isn't resolved swiftly, I shall ask a 'crat and to consider blocking Jcb's account for OUTING. This is a serious breach of privacy and acceptable behaviour on Commons, not matter whether well intentioned. -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 Comment To reduce the potential of confusion for readers of this discussion: Although this may now look a bit (through the indention) like a response to me, Colin was referring to comments by Jcb that are now deleted. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Releasing a work under a free license is not sufficient to use it to compete in the same market. Danone has probably also a trademark on this, so it can't be used to sell the same kind of products. It could be used for other unrelated commercial purpose though. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Jcb this is a classical case of outing as the information has not been previously declared on Commons. That you failed to understand this is concerning and a ground to question how you deal with privacy issues. I request that you remove this link now, otherwise I would support Colin's request for either a desysop or block. T CellsTalk 19:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I concur with Colin and T Cells on this issue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_77&oldid=355055847"