Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68

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

Offensive Picture (drawing) of Cheikh Ahmadou Bamba posted on Wikipedia

The picture of a drawing purporting to represent Cheikh Ahmadou Bamba on Wikipedia is offensive to millions of disciples of the Sufi Order he founded known as Mouridism. Please delete and replace with his real (and only) photo he has. You can find this photo on this link (and in hundreds of websites):https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheikh_Ahmadou_Bamba

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouridology (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No user behaviour problem reported. And Wikipedia problems should be reported in Wikipedia, not here. Ankry (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-charge against admin PumpkinSky

At the Village pump Magog the Ogre has posted a charge for illicit sockpuppetry against admin PumpkinSky (talk · contribs). As Magog the Ogre is CU, I assume the evidence comes mainly from CU, though that's not clear to me. The presented evidence are his edits at this file.
After being notified by Magog the Ogre about the VP-thread, PumpkinSky blocked himself with the edit-summary "what good would it do to defend myself"[1], which might be considered as an admission of guilt.
The assumed sock HalfGig (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Zhuyifei1999.

We should discuss whether a formal De-adminship procedure needs to be opened. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The VP discussion is sufficient for a desysop vote. The gaming of Commons consensus using sockpuppetry is a serious allegation, we must avoid sysop rights giving Super Mario effects. Consequently a block of the main account should be considered, separately from the removal of sysop rights, or at least a long term ban from community voting. Without analysis, for all we know this user voted in their own RFA. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
RFA? No. FPC - yes. Ankry (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it is needed, then I give my vote for de-adminship. I don't really think it helpful to start discussions on lots of noticeboards. The VP seems currently to have the most participation, so perhaps we should stay there. The user is blocked, so the only discussion relevant to this noticeboard is probably about starting the de-admin. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • PumpkinSky agreed to voluntarily resign. Removal request filed on meta. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: For comment. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Unsure what you are expecting him to say? That he verified user identity (than PumpkinSky = Rlevse)? Juliancolton is not a chechuser (and even a chechuser is not authorized to use the tool without reason). Anybody having doubts could request desysoping; nobody did.
      I think it is time to stop witch hunting and constructive start thinking how to repair the damage and how to avoid such cases in future. Ankry (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      Rather than witch hunting, I was pinging Juliancolton as a courtesy, in the light of the sysop restore being questioned. As the acting bureaucrat, they may have practical suggestions for amending policy and may want to confirm why that was a correct decision based on the facts known. None of my own comments about this case have been directed at anyone personally, nor would I object to PumpkinSky being unblocked. However I would expect an unblock to be contingent on providing assurance that there is nothing bad waiting to be discovered, and that they will make a statement of all sock accounts. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      The crat's right to restore admin rights of resigned admins removed. So I think it will not happen again. Jee 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I do wish people would stop using the term "witch hunt" which is quite inappropriate. We are discussing a user who has behaved very badly, and has had sock issues going back years. It is absolutely pertinent to discuss these issues and the events that led to the creation of accounts or in this case the restoration of the admin bit to a known sockpuppeteer. The restoring comments mention private correspondence, and "given the fact that he had not been under any local controversy and he was a relatively long-standing and active admin, I took the initiative to fulfill his request" indicates that issues off-Commons were disregarded and that the bit was restored without consultation with the community. Someone who was blocked for socking on Wikipedia, and were unblocked after an apology where they admitted deceiving the community and pretending to be a new user. This is not somebody who I would regard as automatically deserving of a position of trust on Commons. Yes, Jee reminds me that this right has been removed from the 'crats, and this is yet another example of why. -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Andrewright

Please block User:Andrewright for repeat copyvio uploads and license-laundering after previous warnings and a temporary block. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ariadacapo: Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem with user Tm again, and again, and again

I sometimes place all media that has been robodumped to categories (mass uploaded to categories in the proper Wikimedia Commons language) into a category such as "Category:Uncategorized images of...". This keeps the "main" category looking clean which encourages uploaders to actually place their uploads into more correct, specific subcategories. Also, "main" categories which contain 100s to 1000s of dumped files don't encourage people much to give it a good clean either. Having it in such a category also gives people who enjoy putting files into correct categories a clean working space as all files should indeed eventually be removed unlike "true" categories.
Now about Tm. User:Tm and I have had our differences. Now it would seem that User:Tm follows me around and immediately reverts all my edits regarding "Uncategorized images of...". They then start to (often sloppily) categorise these files, only categorising what seems most obvious in the image using cat-a-lot and thereby making quite some mistakes in their haste to apparently prove me wrong in creating "Uncategorized images of..." categories. Can someone please tell them to knock it off? I am not the only person here on Commons who has problems with User:Tm belligerent attitude. - Takeaway (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment Yourself, Takeaway, say that you empty categories that have been "robodumped" so that "This keeps the "main" category looking clean". That you are doing is exactly the same thing "robodumping" the same files to a black hole, where no one will categorize them for years. You make this with thousands of files so that some categories seem pretty. Why dont you instead take that same time to categorize properly the same images, instead of complain about other peoples work. Today i´am wasting more time with your some of your reverts that are totally unwarrented, instead of doing some proper work. Stop wasting your´s and specially other people´s time. Tm (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You know really well yourself that I actually often take time to categorise files very precisely unlike you who hardly even looks at a file except as a thumbprint in a category. As to why I put these mass uploads into a separate category is so that people will again start cleaning up. Having main categories chock full does not encourage people at all and main categories become themselves "black holes'. And why do you follow me around? That is not very nice of you at all. - Takeaway (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Can an admin please tell Tm to find some where else to play on Commons than where I am and where he doesn't need to be belligerent towards other people? Within seconds they were reverting my edits in one category, while just before they were reverting my edits at a completely different category. Not very nice at all.... - Takeaway (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, every time now that I create a "Uncategorized images of,,," category, User:Tm within seconds rushes in to either revert my edits, or to actually start categorizing them (kind of...). This seems like a great way to have categories cleaned up if you don't mind too much that it isn't done very precisely. Other users here on Commons have any categories that need clearing? Start a "Uncategorized in..." category!- Takeaway (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If you do not have the fortitude to categorize files, instead of hiding them, dont complain of others to it for you. And you create dozens of "Uncategorized in..." categories, and yet you claim i follow you, but you know i dont follow you, as i´ve merely categorized files in less than 8 categories (black holes of memory) created by you. Tm (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow! You are too funny! You immediately followed me to Category:Singapore when you saw that I had started a "Uncategorized images of Singapore" category there and then you quickly dumped all sorts of files that have nice file descriptions into Category:Unidentified subjects in Singapore just so you could "beat me" to placing them in "uncategorized". LOLOL! Look here for one such Tm-action. Unfortunately, everything that was still in the main "Singapore" has now been dumped and mixed in with the "Unidentifieds". I'm guessing that User Tm did that to around 1400 images. - Takeaway (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Who started what? It was you, that started way after, by moving constantly files from Category:Kuala Lumpur to Category:Uncategorized images of Kuala Lumpur. I see now that you like a bit of drama in ANU, but i´am moving to better things, so i will, ignore you from now on. Waste your time reclaiming about others, that the others will have better things to do. And about dumping, what about your dump of more than 10 000 files in Category:Uncategorized images of nature and its subcategories. Tm (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Who followed me around today? Within seconds you followed me to categories Yangon, Myanmar, Jakarta, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Kathmandu. Did I forget any? Did I follow you around? Nope. So who started irritating others on purpose? You did. - Takeaway (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way Tm, I was hoping that you'd also help clean up the files in category Kazachstan so I made my usual "Uncategorized...." category for the humongous panoramio/flickr robodump there but it seems you caught onto my ploy. Pity.... - 06:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, more than 10000 images were dumped onto main nature categories by mass uploaders. What a hell of a job to move them out of the way so "normal" uploaders could get some attention. I would suggest to mass uploaders that in future, unless they can guarantee that the categories they dump their mass uploads to are indeed the most precise categories possible, that they upload them to a separate category, for instance "Uncategorized images of....". Too often mass uploads are sprayed around, hoping that it will stick somewhere. But that method often leads to a huge workload for the rest of us, not just to place them in their correct category, but especially removing all the wrong, crud categories. - Takeaway (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I also just discovered that Tm had hidden away 500+ images from Category:Uncategorized images of Laos to Category:Unidentified locations in Laos so that they could empty the uncategorized cat and put it up for speedy deletion. Files such as this food pic. Is that normal behaviour for an editor here on Commons? - Takeaway (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Takeaway: At very least, you should demonstrate some definite chunk of edits showing disruption – offset= and limit= are applicable to Special:Contribs with the same semantics as to action=history. I’m absolutely no volunteer to stalk through thousands Tm’s edits, less so to browse garbage-dumping categories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: It's really very simple. There are now 1427 files in Category:Unidentified subjects in Singapore. Tm pushed all 1426 files that were still in Category:Singapore to that category just to spite me as I had just started to round up files that had been mass-uploaded to Category:Singapore so as to put them into category:Uncategorized images of Singapore. I know this because I remembered that before Tm rushed over as soon as they discovered that I had started categorising the Singapore category, there was only one single file in Category:Unidentified subjects in Singapore besides a few categories. There is no justification for what they did. It can only be seen as disruptive. Are 1426 files enough of a chunk? - Takeaway (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
What you want is unclear. You want new files to go to an uncategorized category, then when Tm does this, it becomes evidence of "to spite me". Looks like a no-win for Tm whatever they try to do. --Fæ (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fae: There is a very big difference between "unidentified" and "uncategorized". Media should only end up in "unidentified" when all manner of identification fails. "Uncategorized" entails that the files are still awaiting categorization. Tm didn't even try to identify any of the files they pushed in there, even though most have reasonable file descriptions, gps coordinates, links to their Flickr origin (which often carries crucial info lacking in the Commons upload) et cetera. - Takeaway (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason that {{catdiffuse}} and similar templates exist, is to avoid every significant category on Commons having a "Uncategorized" + <category> created. It is a fact of life and should be perfectly normal that major high level categories, like "Paris" or "Trains", will have an influx of relevant files when there are picture drives or batch uploads and these take volunteer time to gradually diffuse in the best way possible. Apart from specialist species "unidentified" categories, mass creating "Uncategorized" categories is pointless duplication when use of the diffusion template is sufficient.

Takeaway's language ("robodumping", "dumped files", "crud") is inflammatory. When read in conjunction with argumentative hounding of Tm's talk page and the long history of raising this same complaint on notice boards, this is a pattern of creating a hostile environment where a collegiate solution becomes unlikely. --Fæ (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I had expected you here sooner, Fae. You never fail to show up if there's anything going on about Tm. Well, you downplay the robodump a lot. During the panoramio uploads, and now the Unsplash and on-going Flickr dumps, 100s of files would flood a category in a few minutes. And still you expect someONE to categorise them away nicely for you? Ha! If you want that, you do it yourself. I have seen your uploads lay around in major categories for years until I cleaned them up or moved them aside to where they could sit around longer without cluttering up the category even more. Apparently I need inflammatory language to make people like you finally realise what you are doing with your spray-around categorising of mass-uploads. - Takeaway (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"people like you"? I think this discussion is over. --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"People like you" as in mass-uploaders. I know nothing else about you. Anyway Fae, what do you think about Tm quickly trying to hide away files from me by shoving them into inapplicable categories? - Takeaway (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest that both Tm and Takeaway find something else to do with their lives than fight over Commons' category system. It is broken junk. Life is short. -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Colin but I like categorising media. It can be fun. It might not be your thing, but it is one of mine. And as long as we have this system, it is what I need to work with. - Takeaway (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Commons’ category system is a miracle. It is the main reason one should store works here, not all these duplicitous practices about licensing or {{Information}} boxes in 70% cases virtually useless. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I can find things if there is text in the description. I cannot find things in categories, usually because people create categories of unrelated aspects and bury things 8 levels deeper than you can be bothered to look. We should have small hierarchies of tags, not a category system borrowed from Wikipedia. If you are old enough to remember early websites that attempted to categorise websites to help you find things -- they were blown away by Google. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: thanks for you reply, it just demonstrates—“8 levels deeper than you can be bothered to look”, indeed—your skills in deep categorization are nought. 30° rotation and its subcategory. Women with chin up and its subcategories. People and rail tracks and its subcategory. Rear views of inscriptions. Is any text-based search (except for searching for a category) capable of finding at least half of images present? As for “small tags system”, noone could provide a supply of memorable tags sufficient to categorize Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Could a discussion on the merits of either a tag or category system perhaps be held elsewhere? I do agree on having good file descriptions as it would cut down on some of the research needed to correctly categorise a file lacking such but unfortunately, not all uploaders can be bothered, and some just don't seem to be able to supply a reasonable description of the file they upload. - Takeaway (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Seriously though, end-users do not care about "Category:Uncategorized images of". Is there any consensus to have such categories? If you do, this is project-data of interest only to Commons project users. Therefore I suggest such categories are "hidden categories" and you add/remove them as you work, rather than moving images out of one main category into another. But seriously, why bother? Is there any data that users benefit from your hard work? I've always, always found the category system exists to make it hard for me to find stuff. There is a reason DMOZ is referred to in the past tense. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Main categories sometimes are the most precise category for certain files. If it is also populated by 100s or 1000s of other files that should actually be in a subcategory, the end user will not be a very happy camper being overwhelmed by files that shouldn't be there. That is why some people here on Commons create categories of the type "Uncategorized..." or "... awaiting further categorization". - 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to treat the main category as "uncategorized". But you also said you liked the main category to "look clean" which isn't what you just describe above, if you consider the main category to sometimes be "as precise as we can/need to be for this image". I'm suggesting that any uncategorized category you create is always in addition to whatever category the image is in. Then anyone removing that without finding proper categories is simply being disruptive. But I'm afraid your definition of "looks clean" to me means "someone has hidden all the stuff". -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Creating a category such as "Uncategorized...." does not "hide stuff" as it is clearly there in its parent category, easy to peruse if what an end user is looking for can't be found in a sub-category. Ideally, there shouldn't be "uncategorized..." categories but the truth of the matter is, that mass-uploaders (and to me there seems to be an increase of mass uploads), very often place their numerous uploads in these main categories (often adopting the near-poetic tags from Flickr), thereby flooding them. I actually categorise a huge amount of files one by one, by adding multiple categories to each individual file as only then does the category system function at its optimum. It's very labour intensive but some files are just worth it and sometimes the most surprising categories come into existence. Some categories that I have created are actually awaiting a Wikipedia article instead of the other way around. But back to the flooding of main categories: this is not a good thing as I have explained before. As for me "cleaning" a category, this means making sure that files end up where they should have been if they had been correctly categorised by their uploaders. There are two main reasons for me to push mass uploads into "uncategorized..." categories: 1. I barely have enough time to place files of "regular" uploaders into their correct subcategories and 2. Experienced uploaders (one should expect mass uploaders to be experienced) should know better than flood a main category. These flooded categories stay flooded, sometimes for years with more and more files flooding in awaiting (as Fae once wrote) "fine categorisation" unless someone comes along and takes their time sorting out the files. If there are 1000s of files, they are better placed into a separate holding (but still visible and searchable) category such as "Uncategorized..." to avoid overwhelming end users. In the meantime, those that feel so inclined, can continue categorising the media therein. See for instance Category:Uncategorized images of Thailand. All these files belong in one or more subcategories but instead they were dumped into the main Thailand category. I moved only/mainly the mass uploads into this "uncategorized..." category whilst continuing to apply "fine categorisation" to the regular uploads. Now a few people (mainly one actually) are slowly going through it. Same for Category:Uncategorized images of animals which held 1000s of files which were all uploaded within a very short period to Category:Animals. A bunch of people there regularly went through it and now it only holds a minute amount of what it used to hold. - Takeaway (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Did this actually answer your question on why these "Uncategorized..." categories were created? Because you did call it disruptive. Do you still think so? And if you do, do you have an alternative for preventing the flooding of main categories? - Takeaway (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Takeaway, I didn't call uncategorized categories "disruptive". My point is that such categories are "housekeeping" information for interest only to those who are actively working on categorizing images. I don't think you should remove a file from where it has been placed until you have a better place (or places) -- better from the POV of users, not curators. So I suggest adding these housekeeping categories, setting them as "hidden". Then if someone moves files from one category to another we can simply judge them on whether that was an improvement from the point of view of a searcher-of-images, and not keep getting concerned with how you or someone else keeps track of what work needs to be done. And if someone removes the housekeeping category but does not actually properly categorise the image, we can judge that. But I also strongly advise you to get community consensus for whatever practice you come up with. Clearly you and Tm have incompatible methods, so get the community to approve one, or to develop a third. But advice: Anyone can upload an image to Commons and they do not need to categorise it. There is little you can do about this and I see no interest from mass uploaders to improve the quality of their work: quantity is all that seems to matter. Anyway, I've already spent too much of my life discussing this, so unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: So what you are saying is that if, for instance, a mass uploader places several hundred files into a main category just because they can't be bothered to actually categorise them any further, they should just be left there until someone comes around and puts them into the subcategory that they actually should have been in if the uploader had actually taken their time to do it themselves? And you don't think that when this goes on for a while without anyone really bothering to further categorize the media away from the main category, that it is a good thing? In other words, despite your remark before, you are suggesting to turn a main category as a holding bin for uncategorized images, even if they run into the thousands. - Takeaway (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Please I don't want to spend further on this. There are other people you could talk to with more experience of categories, and you don't seem to be listening carefully. Try to think of the visible categories from the end-user's point of view only. You moving 1000 images from a big category to another big category with the word "uncategorised" in front of it has not helped them one bit. Your work is of no interest to others until you find a better category -- better from their POV not yours. No, I am not happy with people being lazy and not giving good categories, but accept there is nothing you can do about that in general terms. By all means encourage individuals to do better, or write a guideline, but the tide will still come in and cover up your sandcastles. -- Colin (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: I am precisely thinking of the end user in all of this. An end user would want to find media where they should be, instead of being confronted with a multitude of files already cluttering up the main category. Imagine someone who is looking for an image of a rain forest in Malaysia. They could look one up in the appropriate category Category:Rainforests in Malaysia. Would they then also head off to the main Category:Forest and Category:Malaysia just in case there's another image there that they have missed? And if they had indeed gone to Category:Forest (without there being an "Category:Uncategorized images of forests"), they'd be confronted with nearly 2000 images there of all sorts of forests of each and every country mixed up together. So why would you want to keep these images that are still awaiting further categorisation in a main category? As you wrote earlier, "I can find things if there is text in the description. I cannot find things in categories". It would appear that you do not have much experience with the whole category system. - Takeaway (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: I only just received this link to a discussion on how disruptive flooded main categories are. A whole bunch of people here on Commons who are prolific categorisors feel the same way as I do apparently. - Takeaway (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Viiictorrr

User:Viiictorrr makes incorrect rename requests. His requests do not fall under COM:FR. And COM:FR forbids to rname if Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better. So, I ask do not rename files by requests of this user.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You shocked me outright with this. You, proficient in the same language and a Commons sysop, not yet here? For what … are you entrusted with authority then? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also tried to erase Russian language from description= arguments, but this time Ahonc curbed this assault promptly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-(Republic of Macedonia) militants

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Incnis Mrsi: Cheers for the report. Green Giant (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yann and Bollywood Hungama photos

I recently nominated a few dozen Bollywood Hungama images for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama) due to them not meeting the licensing requirements that were laid out in the OTRS ticket. The template that dictates these images is {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} specifically indicates that only Bollywood parties or events are valid uses of the license. Without evidence, Yann stated at the DR that every Bollywood Hungama image falls under the license. When I asked them for proof they repeated game me rather useless links that did not prove their opinion at all. They stated that the community decided that every image is ok, which is a tad strange considering it uses OTRS. I have read the ticket and the ticket is rather ambiguous. Multiple Bollywood Hungama images have already been removed using the same exact reasoning so obviously Yann's opinion is either not widely known or is false.

Yann, then proceed to say that unless the images were from events outside of India then they the license applies. Again without proof. Repeated requests for proof were ignored. Yann then proceed to license review the images. Yann's repeatedly ignored my requests for proof and then used their admin and license review ability to approve the images anyways. They then closed the DR. Their being involved in the DR and then subsequently reviewing the images in question is extremely concerning. They are using their own opinion about the license and making it far more permissible then the way it is actually written without any proof of that their view is correct. Unfortunately, I feel like their actions need to be reviewed by the wider community. --Majora (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I provided all the explanations everybody else has. I can't do anything if you fail to understand the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Failing to actually provide any actual proof that what you are doing is correct and then taking it upon yourself to review and close the DR when you have such strong views is the exact opposite of the way admins should act. You should have left it to someone else. Your close alone is enough to open a thread here. --Majora (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
It's the normal modus operandi of this specific admin, unfortunately. As long as they are around, we will have these threads I'm afraid. Jcb (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb: How surprising from you... Since you are the own who creates the most issues around here, you better shut up or leave... Yann (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I am indeed often the subject of your aggression, but in this case I was totally uninvolved, while your behaviour was exactly the same. So I am apparently not the only one noticing that there is a structural issue with your usage of your admin position. Jcb (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment That template was in this form before Green Giant rewrite it. There was a clause, "from Bollywood Hungama parties/events that are exclusively created by their own photographers". But this only means those files should be from http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/parties-and-events/. Bollywoodhungama is not conducting any parties or events. They only take photos of events and parties and publish under that section. This is my understanding and not an OTRS volunteer to check the ticket again. Jee 05:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Add: There is nothing called "Bollywood party or event". Bollywood is a term used to represent Mumbai based film industry. It may be a misunderstanding by Green Giant while rewording it. Jee 05:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Right. I'm aware of what "Bollywood" refers to. There are specific events that would be considered "Bollywood". And there are others that clearly are not. File:Swara Bhaskar at GQ Best Dressed Awards 2017.jpg being one of the latter. In yet, Yann passed the review anyways. --Majora (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    I added a better source to it. Jee 05:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Every single one of the images that I DR'ed were not Bollywood events. Nobody could possibly claim otherwise. GQ is a magazine based in New York. Fixing the source was nice, but doesn't really help the situation here. I would have never DR'ed the images if they met the requirements of either the template or the OTRS ticket. They don't. --Majora (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    GQ has presence in India. It seems 8th edition of Best Dressed awards held on June 3, 2017 in Mumbai. Jee 05:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Again, I'm aware of that. I'm aware of where the awards were held. I do extensive research on every image while I'm reviewing them. But to say that that is a Bollywood event is silly. Every event held in India is not a Bollywood event. Sending Bollywood Hungama photographers to the event does not make it a Bollywood event. --Majora (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    So you are sticking with the term "Bollywood event". For me, as an Indian, there is nothing called Bollywood event. Bollywood vaguely represents Mumbai based film industry. But Hindi is a widely spoken language in India and so Hindi films have market all over India. Any artist once appeared in a Hindi film is called a Bollywood artist. Any event highlights the artists from Bollywood can be called Bollywood event. This is my opinion. Let us wait for someone else check the ticket and find what is confusing in it. Jee 05:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Interested OTRS agents may comment on the actual contents of the ticket at the OTRS wiki. --Majora (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason for the text of the official release to be secret, and there are no good reasons for discussion of this non-confidential issue to be hidden on a closed website. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a reason: under OTRS privacy policy we cannot reveal the full content of the permission and it is hard to discuss about text one cannot read. Conclussions of the discussions may be public, however. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I too think there is no reason for the text of the official release to be secret. I remember previous cases where we discussed in depth, earlier. But difficult to find the link now. Jee 11:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
If "we cannot reveal the full content of the permission", then there can be no correctly legally binding release statement and the files should be deleted. The release statement that defines the copyright release must be public and specific, leaving reusers in absolutely no doubt as to what has been released and what has not. As we are talking in the context of an organization rather than a private person, there is no issue of keeping names private, just redact them with the legal organization name. Nothing in this conflicts with OTRS confidentiality. If the person emailing in to OTRS is not acting officially for the publisher, the OTRS ticket should be withdrawn. As has been mentioned, releases from this particular website have been an issue for Commons for a period of years. Clear statements in plain English are not an excessive requirement. To clarify potential interests, I did look into this ticket when I was an OTRS volunteer and changed some template wording. However I have not seen any correspondence in recent years. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
To repeat what I stated at OTRS-wiki: Honestly, this ticket looks invalid to me by todays standards. I can't find a clear and unambiguous statement about what they actually wants to release. Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
IIRC someone try to contact them to get a better release email. And the answer was "we don't care, you can use our photos however you want". You have to understand the context of this release: this is free advertising for Hungama. In addition, and especially regarding Bollywood, most people in India do not care about copyright. Many Bollywood movies are available on YouTube. The producers do not seem to care about it. I have yet to see a copyright case about Bollywood content. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: To be honest, I rewrote the wording of the template only to the extent of clarifying what was already written there but not to add anything new. If I recall correctly, there had been some sort of question about it in 2015. I didn't check the whole ticket at the time but on looking at it now I agree with @Natuur12: that it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no verifiable email in that chain from Bollywood Hungama itself. There are only emails from Commons users who had uploaded files, saying that they had done so to ensure it was recorded at OTRS (or words to that effect). I assume there were terms related to the licensing on the Bollywood Hungama website but there is no record of what they said in 2008. I have emailed one of the co-founders (from my personal email address) to ask for clarification on whether the photos are licensed and under what circumstances, and asked him to email OTRS directly. Green Giant (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This is disappointing to read. There are 9,786 hosted on Commons that rely on this 10 year old OTRS ticket, see report. Any ticket that is being relied on for more than 1,000 images should be considered significant for both reusers and this project, and be worth detailed analysis and review. If it never was "official", then despite many challenges and deletion requests, multiple OTRS volunteers over several years have failed to understand what was needed to verify the copyright release correctly, nor have adequate records of verification been retained either on OTRS or publicly. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are many old tickets that have never been reviewed properly and that may be unreliable. E.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PalestineRemembered, where a large number of files relying on a 2008 ticket had to be deleted in 2016. These situations are a shame for the project of course. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Green Giant for taking care of this ticket. We had worked together in OTRS and I've no doubt in your situation handling skills. Hope you manage this case too.
What I noticed in your edit is, the wording "Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events " is changed to "providing that it is a photograph of a Bollywood party or event". It is not clear what is meant by "Bollywood Hungama parties/events". It is not clear what is meant by "Bollywood party or event". It seems Majora is questioning images that not from "Bollywood party or event" which is not a well defined word. I doubt whether that wording in the ticket too. Jee 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually it is used in the ticket. Quite a few times. So probably a good idea not to assume what you cannot know and cannot read. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"Bollywood Hungama parties/events" or "Bollywood parties/events"? (Please stop advising me. I know what is a good or bad idea.) Jee 02:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You can always take what I say at face value. I don't speak without at least some backing to my words. I said "Bollywood parties or events" for a reason. I can't really help it if that isn't a phrase that you like. It is what was written. If I meant "Bollywood Hungama parties or events" I would have said that. --Majora (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
OK; now it's clear. Thanks. Hope Green Giant will ask them to clarify that wording. It may be "parties or events" sub section of their site (http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/parties-and-events/) or something else. Anyway, if they are the copyright holder of works done by their staff, they can license them. its up to them to limit the scope. And that scope should be well defined. It is not relevant whether we like it or not. Jee 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Point here that I feel needs to be said. I never intended to open a can of worms with Bollywood Hungama images (although it seems like that is what has happened). I had read the ticket before starting to reviewing them and, yes, I can confirm that it is a complete mess that would probably not be acceptable if it was sent today. However, I was under the impression that this had already been discussed since it has existed for 10 years and for no one to actually have discussed it in that time frame seems a tad odd. I was also under the impression that the template was reflective of whatever had been decided. When I was told that the template was wrong by Yann, I asked for clarification and proof. I was completely open to changing the way I review the images if there had been an actual link showing that what I was doing was wrong. I only opened this thread after they refused to provide proof and proceeded to license review and close the DR even though they clearly have a bias towards acceptance of these images. I am sorry for putting these images in jeopardy. It was never my intention to potentially cause all of them to be removed. Hopefully they respond to Green Giant's email and we can get this all sorted out. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: We have had a reply at OTRS from Suleman (one of the co-founders listed on their contact page), confirming "Creative Commons licenses". I’ve asked him to confirm the specific cc-by-3.0 license, and the condition about "Bollywood parties and events" and if it applies to events outside India. Hopefully, the issues will be resolved very soon. Is there anything else that anyone would like clarified whilst we have Suleman's attention? Pinging @Majora, Yann, Jcb, Jkadavoor, and Fæ: and @Ankry and Natuur12: (apologies if I’ve missed anyone). Green Giant (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Green Giant for the update. Please ask them to confirm whether them mean http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/parties-and-events/ by "Bollywood parties and events". They have a menu "photos" with options "parties and events", "celeb photos", "celeb wallpapers", "movie stills", "first look", "movie wallpapers", "toons", etc. It seems they give permission for sets too. Jee 08:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks also to Green Giant for looking unto this. Obviously not everything under photos is OK. There are movie stills, posters, and wallpapers which are not OK, as not being made by Hungama. Studio pictures are certainly also not OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh good. They did respond. The main question in my mind is whether or not everything in that subdomain of the website is covered by the license (barring derivative works of course). If everything is covered then there is probably some undeleting that has to be done since plenty of images were wrongfully deleted due to the misunderstanding.

However, if all images are not covered then we need to have a definitive demarcation on what is acceptable. Does the "party or event" have to be directly Indian film (Bollywood) related? This would affect files such as File:Swara Bhaskar at GQ Best Dressed Awards 2017.jpg. Does the image have to be taken in India? This affected images such as File:Shruti Haasan and Allu Arjun at SIIMA 2016.jpg. Does it cover general paparazzi photos of celebrities on the street? This would affect files such as File:Karanvir and Teejay with their daughters.jpg. What is acceptable and what isn't? --Majora (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I see that you have updated the, now moved, {{BollywoodHungama}} license. Does that mean that you have received a response from the website? You changes do appear to more closely match my second paragraph above. All images are not approved but have to be from specific events. --Majora (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: No further reply from the website as yet. I will email him again over the weekend. The template was renamed by a new user, which I didn’t disagree with. Given that the website co-founder has said a general yes, and after another look through the ticket, I took the opportunity to update it by creating a proper documentation subpage, simplified the text even more and started a couple of sub-templates to internationalise it (although not making much progress yet). Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh I don't disagree with the rename either. I just thought that since you were redoing the entire template that you had received a response. My mistake. It does look much cleaner now. If it is an all encompassing "yes" then the template will just have to be changed again. --Majora (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Elekes Andor

Elekes Andor (talk · contribs) I would request a block for the editor. Reason: spam and/or flood. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Andor for a week and mass reverted his last edits. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Falconfly

For tracking: I have blocked this user indefinitely because of legal threats in this DR. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Censorship from Admins Sitush and Courcelles

Recently I was informed that an article about Ranjit Naik had been severely deconstructed by one user, "Sitush". I attempted to restore this article and was immediately accused of sockpuppeting by another user, "Courcelles". They claim that I am a sockpuppet because another user, Jyotinaik, who has access through the same IP as myself also had the same IP address and therefore it appeared that this user had created an alternate account, but I am a completely independent user. The reason it may have appeared that we were using the same machine and IP address is likely due to us using the same Internet modem for access. See this article: https://www.howtogeek.com/247452/is-it-possible-for-different-people-to-have-the-same-public-ip-address/.

The combined efforts of these users, "Sitush" and "Courcelles", though perhaps not intentionally so, have effectively censored me from contributing to the maintenance of this article regarding an important political figure in Indian history. They claim that they have the right to do this because of a lack of listed source, but there were plenty of sources in the article for them to reference. The problem is that they believe these articles are invalid because they were based in hard-copies instead of online articles that can be accessed by anyone. It is understandable that anyone might find it difficult to verify the existence of these articles, but they do, in-fact, exist. If necessary, I can obtain xeroxed copies and forward them to anyone who really needs access to them, but this is besides the point.

This website, Wikipedia, exists for the purpose of allowing anyone to share information with others across the world. If information is permitted to be removed by anyone simply because they don't believe it is valid or are unable to confirm the sources from their computer, then all information on this site could easily be destroyed and forgotten because nobody would expect such serious information pruning to occur while they weren't watching this site. This site has existed for years and I've always believed that the administrators could be trusted to protect the information it holds, until now.

Something must be done about this before anyone else's articles are deleted unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmostrix (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as nothing can be done by Wikimedia Commons admins: the problem seems to be unrelated to Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

More possible infringements by JimmyJoe87

Months since he was reported and then warned, JimmyJoe87 continues to possibly infringe copyrights. In one instance, he uploaded a larger version of one file, which I reverted and then notified him about. He also uploaded multiple Parliamentary images that are not released under a free license, such as File:Eleanor-Laing.jpg, yet he asserted that those images are released under OGL. Moreover, he stated that I should be "checking how licenses work" after I told him to use "speedydelete" tag. Indeed, I figured that the mass-nomination would be predictable and less convenient than "speedydelete" requests, which are quicker.

His talk page was filled with several DR notifications, which he later erased.

Furthermore, he claimed that the Parliamentary Helpdesk emailed him or (implicitly) that probably he emailed the Parliamentary. I don't know what the email he claimed contains, but I told him it wasn't necessary (well... when I believed that the Parliamentary emailed him) for him to forward me the supposed email.

Not just Commons, the user also uploads such images at English Wikipedia and tags them as free, some or many of which are currently discussed at FFD. BTW, the Commons link showing his "assertion" was about his uploads of Parliamentary images at en.WP, which I should have done there. Nevertheless, I already discussed this matter previously at en.WP. The user even asserted at en.WP that I am "unfamiliar with the British legal system". I countered his argument with my knowledge of UK copyright, yet he said that even the Edge court decision "proves nothing". I believe that the user is evading warnings at Commons by doing such things at en.WP. (assumption of bad faith struck out. George Ho (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC))

On the positive side, he did upload some images, like File:Baroness-buscombe-960.jpg and File:Caroline-dinenage-960.jpg, whose licenses are... Well, I'm going to change "OGL" to "OGL3" sooner or later based on the sources the user provides. Some others, like File:Davidkurten.jpg and File:59d21bbfdbe95.image.jpg (which might need some renaming), may have valid licensing tags.

Back to the main issue, the warning said that more copyright infringements would result in an account being blocked. However, some of the user's uploads may have valid licensing tags. I don't know whether indefinite block is suitable, especially for those with (somewhat) positive contributions, but I won't oppose the option. Indeed, I'll let you guys decide. --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The editor George Ho makes claims without proof.

He mentions that I was reported, but what he doesn't say is that the the editor who reported me wrote 'list "unknown" as the author, even when the NPG website clearly gives the photographer name', however that was not the photographers name as Bassano had died in 1913 and these images had been taken between 1920-1945, so he couldn't possibly be the photographer.

He mentions that I deleted several DR notifications, but as you will see, these images have been deleted and I removed the DR notifications due to the images no longer being there, which any editor would do. Also the OGL or Open Government Licence not only covers the Government but also Parliament as well so that is why I used the OGL for images such as Eleanor Laings.

Linking in to the above, I never once claimed or said that the Parliamentary helpdesk had emailed me, what I did say was 'I will send you the email of the Parliamentary Helpdesk if you want so you can check for yourself' as in I will give you their email address and you could verify the images for yourself, by going directly to the source in question.

George Ho, mentions the FFD, where he made comments himself about certain licences. During the FFD I was able to show how he had been incorrect with his view on the licence I had used. Furthermore I wrote "the UK licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public". He has since not mentioned this particular licence again as I was able to show that my argument was correct. Indeed the editor who first submitted my image to the FFD and who has continued to edit since the, has not got involved in the FFD again, because I believe that I have successfully shown the licence I used was accurate.

Ho says that he countered my 'argument with my knowledge of UK copyright' yet all he did was send links to websites about copyright law within the UK, which anyone could do with a quick google search, indeed he even stated that 'I even know that the British government lacks a written constitution, contrary to our written United States Constitution', which again is something that you could find out on google or on wikipedia.

Indeed, George Ho, in one of the FFD's, mentions the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, now the wikipedia article about this Act clearly states "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was for any of the images in the FFD as they worked as photographers for now defunct companies called Elliot & Fry and Bassano Ltd, both of which ceased to exist in 1962/1963. So according to the act we 'otherwise' have to go off when this photo was created or published and since all the images were taken before 1948, it means that those listed in the FFD are out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since those images were created.

Also George Ho is wrong within his suggestion that I uploaded on wikipedia to 'avoid' being warned as that not what has happened. I don't believe I should be indefinitely blocked as if you look at my uploads on wikimedia they range from portraits to photographs and they have been properly sourced and attributed, the same with the ones on wikipedia, which have also been sourced and licensed correctly. Yes there have been a few slip ups, but you will see that the additions I have added to a whole host of different articles, including creating articles have been nothing but positive. How would George Ho feel if he had been indefinitely banned, after he was blocked twice on wikipedia, i'm sure he wouldn't have been happy about that outcome, so I don't think it is fair that he is calling for me to not be allowed to edit again.

I hope that you, the administrators, will see from my edits and uploads that I enjoy editing on wikipedia and wikimedia and have never uploaded images with any malicious intent, but to show what people looked like. Please don't block me. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: This user has been known to re-upload files on different Wikis. This file was deleted back on December 1, 2017 due to unknown copyright reasons. The same file was uploaded on the English a Wikipedia and was deleted a month after the one on Commons for the same reason (or non-verifiable source). I'm sure there's been more, but this is the one I've encountered with. Corky 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I still say that the image of Alex Mooney should not have been deleted because the portrait that is used on his wikipedia article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_Mooney.jpg is just a zoomed in version of http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001195 without the flag due to the background being coloured in. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      It may be the same photo or may be a different one. Anyway, a sharp 675 × 825 cropped portrait can’t be made from a 175 × 214 (borders counted) picture with any plausible technology. A source is needed for the 675 × 825 version. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      The source is already given. Actually, the search engine uses JavaScript, which lacks permalinks (or something). I just had to type in "Mooney". Also, the EXIF/meta data uses "Official House Photographer, U.S. House Office of Photography" as the author note.

      By the way, File:Mickmannocl.jpg is lacking a URL source and that. Moreover, I struck out one part expressing bad faith about "evading" and stuff. And JimmyJoe87 is misinterpreting what I said about resolving his edits. I'll rephrase/clarify: I'm unsure whether he deserves indef block, but I won't oppose any decision by admins. That doesn't mean I support the indef block on him. George Ho (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

      Almost forgot to say that, while the edits also happened at en.WP, his interpretation of the URAA (well, controversial law, I hate to admit) is concerning. He inserted but then removed the tag with the summary, "Removing PD-URAA because PD-UK-unknown shows that it is out of copyright within the UK." I can't tell whether he is not taking US law seriously. I tried telling him that Wikimedia is bound by US law and that US copyright also applies, but... somehow, the user still asserts that a work already in the public domain in a source country is free to use, regardless of US copyright status. George Ho (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

      As you just said George Ho 'Wikimedia is bound by US law and that US copyright also applies', but the images you are talking about were uploaded on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Wikipedia, as well as Wikimedia, have licences so that images may be used within articles, if those licences couldn't be used, I highly doubt wikipedia would have allowed those licences to be created for their site. I have successfully shown to George Ho that the licences that I used on the photos, which were taken within the UK, meant that they are now out of copyright within the UK. I should point out George, that Wikipedia is also under UK law since it operates within that country as well as the US. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      @JimmyJoe87: Wikipedia belongs to Wikimedia Foundation, alongside Commons and many other wikis. Not everything that is Wikimedia is situated inside the “wikimedia.org” second-level domain. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Zcarstvnz

User:Zcarstvnz is changing a lot of image file names apparently under the impression that the Wikimedia search function operates only on file names. Aside from my concern that good or at least adequate file names are turned into something perceived by a newbie as better (almost always highly debatable) it creates a lot of wholly unnecessary work for the file renaming fraternity. What can be done to help this editor understand why these renaming are at the least unhelpful and providing unnecessary work for volunteers? I'm not having a lot of luck on his talk page. Eddaido (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: could you specify what namely in Contributions/Zcarstvnz do you deem wrong? Some of old names are clear-cut FR2. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: So far as I can see they are all unnecessary. Furthermore they are dropping the unique Flickr id number. They also drop the leading year of manufacture for no good reason (that I know of). Leading the file name with the year of manufacture simplifies reviewing a group of otherwise identical subjects. For theoretical example a model T Ford of 1912 is quite different from a model T Ford of ten years later but the way the file names are being amended all model T Fords are muddled together instead of being in order of year of manufacture.
The editor concerned says it is being done to group like things together. He/she seems to be unaware of the availability of categorisation to do just that. The editor also seems to be unaware that the search function is not limited to the actual file name. The editor says the file names are being altered to enable finding of particular groups and that is simply unnecessary. I go to a lot of trouble to identify a subject of an image and give it an appropriate file name, along comes someone Apparently unaware of the consequences and changes it.
To go back to your question, may we look at the intention of the latest request on record: File:Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evoluzione -tonylanciabeta.jpg ‎ (Requesting renaming this file to File:Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evoluzione -tonylanciabeta.jpg; Criterion 2) (Tag: RenameLink). I am unable to obtain the file's previous name, can you do that for me? Eddaido (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
For those having hard time to use MediaWiki navigation links, templates {{Page}} and {{Page history}} (ex.: File:Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evoluzione -tonylanciabeta.jpg) can produce necessary history links for Eddaido and any person writing wiki code in general. As for “unique Flickr id numbers”, where on Commons are regulations suggesting to keep them? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I regret I am unable to make sense of the first part of what you just told me above. I am not a computer expert. Please would you just tell me the answer so we may discuss it.
Keeping the Flickr unique number avoids duplication, would you like me to explain how this is used?
Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Perhaps we can shorten the discussion if you can look at that particular old file name and explain the advantages to Commons won by the change of its name. I would guess it is just a waste of renamers' time. Eddaido (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Might this be a better example? File:Wolseley 1904 London to Brighton VCR 2011 6323437052.jpg to File:Wolseley 1904 on London to Brighton VCR 2011 (6323437052).jpg: Criterion 4 here Eddaido (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
and this File:Sunbeam 1903 Front.JPG → File:Sunbeam 1903 Front at Regent Street Motor Show 2011.jpg Criterion 4

Eddaido (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a lot of work for file movers. And for the uploaders of the pictures. Most of the pictures in the Category:London to Brighton veteran car run 2011 are uploaded by me. Now I have 220 articles with changes within the last 5 days in my watch list. I have to check every change.
Some of the rename requests are good. Criterion #2: meaningless or ambiguous name like File:VIP_Rides,_London_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1564338.jpg to File:Renault_1904_Type_V_(b)_VIP_Ride_at_Regent_Street_Motor_Show_2009.jpg (history). Or here.
Some are wrong: 1, 2, 3, 4. Or 5 (in Hyde Park, not at Regent Street Motor Show 1995).
Most are not necessary. Here added on and brackets. It is not necessary to add place and year of the photo, like here. Criterion #2: meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays. What, not where and when.
Please stop rename requests except for criterion 2 (meaningless) and criterion 3 (obvious errors). --Buch-t (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(De)categorization by Tigran Mitr am

Although most changes made to images appear to have merit, this user professes a non-conventional approach “less categories is better than more categories”.

An attempt to dissuade met with comparison of Commons to Augean stables and no more eloquence. Suggestions? I hardly imagine how one can browse through thousands of Cat-a-lot edits to identify such irregularities. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also note a ru.Wikipedia-style deletionism instead of civilized {{Catredirect}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Btw. HotCat: I'll activate the tag this week, so such "fake summaries" can be recognized (as the tag is only active on non-changed text, version on beta Commons). -- User: Perhelion 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

United States of Russia

Please take a look at these. I just reverted [2] and [3]. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: , im not convinced some of the pictures should include the categories such as Agriculture in China. Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Hi, You should talk to the user before reporting them here, and anyway inform them that you reported them here. And could you please explain what is the issue? It is not obvious to me (I understand that you disagree about the categories, but that's not a reason for reporting people here). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Yann, a spurious report (compare to the case above). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. Of course I should have talked to him first. Please accept my apologies. I have horrible flu and am not quite in my right mind. I don't know what I was thinking. I will immediately post at his talk to explain and apologize. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted at his talk. I hope I haven't chased him away. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries Anna. Hope you feel better soon. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikicology . I'm in such a fog. I should stop editing until I'm better. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Get well soon!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Uso de la página.

Buenos días , noches!

Alguien podría ayudarme a Navegar por aquí?

Es primera vez y no me aclaro siguiendo tus pasos.

Gracias por Anticipado, Un beso — Preceding unsigned comment added by María Teresa Patricia De Todos Los Santos (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@María Teresa Patricia De Todos Los Santos: Por favor, veas al COM:First Steps/es y COM:Café.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4

This user has been discussed here three times before. The brash, uncivil, and abrasive posts; hostility; and accusations of bad faith have continued, calling the administration of our templating system "incompetence". Also, "the admin who puts consensus above their personal opinion is rare; it is not a standard of practice. if you were to do it, people would be amazed." is an insult to all Admins. I have never seen a kind word posted by this user. I am afraid they have worn out their welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the current issue? It seems the admin respond positively and restored the file. And this seems a pointy attack from your side. Jee 05:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: The current issue is this edit. I warned this user to be civil over a month ago, and the behavior has not changed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see any serious issue there than some humorous (?) comment that may not be enjoyable to many, including me. So what? Can we police all comments here? People throw words as they like and will continue more if warned. Just neglect as far as they are not against any behavioral policies. Jee 10:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you prefer to cultivate ru.Wikipedia-style “civility” where privileged users cover their abusive conduct with polite eloquence? Please, keep such suggestions out of Commons civility discourse, Jeff G., otherwise you’ll have obstacles to promotion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: No, I prefer en.Wikipedia-style “civility”, and I note that the subject user has been unable to maintain it there and thus was blocked there for making personal attacks, among other reasons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a tangent. This thread should be underpinned by Wikimedia Commons policies or it should close as no action. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
COM:AGF is an official Wikimedia Commons Guideline, does that count? The posts quoted in my original post did not demonstrate an assumption of the good faith of the Admins here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Fæ: .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
COM:AGF is a two way street. The opinion expressed may be read as generally uncivil, but it does not read as a direct or deliberate personal attack, and as no doubt Slowking could point to past debatable cases, is literally not a bad faith allegation.
Critical observations that are mildly hostile, are not going to result in action from a request on AN/U. I can point to sarcastic, hostile and deliberately unpleasant comments from active administrators that are as poor as Slowking's. To justify a block of Slowking would require a pattern that unambiguously satisfies blocking policy, such as calling other contributors "assholes" which can be read as a personal attack in context (per a link your provided), or deliberately manipulating evidence to bypass COM:L (as was claimed in another link).
However, even though it may be possible to rejig this thread and assemble a case to block Slowking, as said below, this is probably not the best way to support Slowking changing the way they communicate their concerns and frustrations on this project. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4 was ejected from en.Wikipedia not as much for personal attacks as for sock puppetry. So I’d suggest to watch such phenomena as presence of a suspicious account Marthacustis (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) in Commons talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017/Cycle 2/Healthy, Inclusive Communities (hist • logs • abuse log) and don’t digress to nitpicking about civility. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to throw around allegations of misleading socking unless there is something more concrete than "suspicion". If you want to go sock hunting, please either put evidence at SPI or maintain analysis off-wiki until you can put evidence at SPI. --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
What do we discuss, who is Marthacustis’s master? After characteristic “i” and “english” it passes the duck test by some margin. Or whether are two accounts of the same person in the same page history a “misleading socking”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Raise a SPI if the account was being used misleadingly. It's too late for checkuser, but it will then be on record and you can refer to it in the future if you need to. With regard to 'duck test', I apply the same to allegations of sockpuppetry - if there are claims, but nobody can be bothered to raise a SPI, it's gossip which itself fails AGF. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Marthacustis was blocked on en:wp in May 2017 after a CU check as a Slowking4 sock. 86.177.251.213 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a quarrel over difference in opinion which ignite inevitable from time to time. Dickery is bad, but e.g. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 61#Slowking4 reveals this (anti-)pattern by both Slowking4 and Jcb (BTW the latter blocked an opponent of him in an edit war ten days ago). Any evidence for a systemic disruption of the community by Slowking4? If no, then why Jeff attracts a disproportionate attention to nonce? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
May be like this by other two users. Commons is amateur's playground. :) Jee 09:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Jeff conflates a couple of things, Slowking does have a long term pattern of abrasive posts which is clearly an issue, however all contributors, especially long term participants of this project, should be free to write that the project's bureaucracy (i.e. admins) is 'incompetent' so long as they can properly express and substantiate their somewhat uncivil statements and avoid personal attacks. I doubt that making threats of a block for disruption would do anything apart from escalate, and may set a poor precedent for future administrators. A great solution would be for Slowking to move on from making scattergun critical posts which appear hostile, and instead put that same energy into making proposals or assembling case studies, which have a chance improve the project. Slowking's shift in style/behaviour, probably can only come from Slowking themselves with persistent community encouragement. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It should probably be said here Jeff also nominated an image used on the Slowking4's user page. The reason given being "Very low quality, in poor taste.". Which seems rather strange to me. So I'm not sure that DR should be seen seperate from this report. As for the things Slowking4 says, I understand him now. This place brings me to tears, not of desperation, but of sadness. - Alexis Jazz 10:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some misleading comments being made here, from what I can tell Slowking4 was banned from Wikipedia for uploading wrong images and had only engaged in sockpuppetry as a form of block evasion so claiming that Slowking4 would be trying to distort consensus on Wikimedia Commons is wholly dishonest. Also that deletion request by Jeff was nothing short of a revenge nomination so the only thing this request proves is that Slowking4 is free victim of w:en:Wikipedia:POV railroading. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Revenge for what, exactly?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There was also "deletionists ... are prepared to block people, or sock, to delete a file (with impunity)" today.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Image uploads with 3.0 non-commercial license

Are these allowed with a 3.0 license that says "... You may not use the material for commercial purposes..."? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's o.k., because it is also under the Commons-compliant GFDL 1.2 license. --Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you, Túrelio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassment by Jcb

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=Jcb&offset=2018021102
May this user—with his near zero understanding what Vandalism is—hold that high privileges as Jcb holds? Note that I started a discussion about this situation myself, but Jcb closed it immediately with yet another offensive summary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please request undeletion at COM:UDEL. Additionally, i see no harassment here and the file in question is indeed out of scope. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh... Why you perform such moves? I don't think such actions are allowed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I might forgot a summary for several of those moves, but most of them contain the link to a global ban discussion. Pages were created by an unuser, a person not allowed to edit Wikimedia projects. I moved them out of the Commons namespace. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Please avoid language like unuser. Blocking accounts does not turn people into animals. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if offended. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
So it's not short for Universal (as in all wikis) Non grata (as in persona) User? - Alexis Jazz 10:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a form of unperson, which is the antithesis of an open community. However this is a tangent. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
What do you consider as harassment? Wikicology (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Fraudulent accusations, especially considering how did the conflict over delreqs evolve. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Read Colin's comment below. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

— w:Wikipedia:Vandalism
@Incnis Mrsi: You should not have moved those pages in the first place without consensus.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not argue about the pages here. I report harassment by Jcb. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: So Jcb should have deemed them "edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: We have been very busy with you for about the past week for multiple kinds of disruptive behaviour. Please be aware that filing yet another nonsense report will not protect you from being blocked if this behaviour continues. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jcb, should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it clearly refers to edits as described above (the Wikipedia definition being quite applicable here too). This only increases conflicts with other users and serves no purpose. I don't understand Incnis is' userfying the deletion pages. Is that a valid consensus action for dealing with deletion discussions created by banned users? It certainly seems like Jcb disagrees with that procedure. Try to come to an agreement. Incnis, please limit your use of the word "harassment" to times when you feel a real threat from another user serious enough to involve either WMF or the police. It is not a word to be bandied about on the internet just because you are in a dispute with another user. Remember we're only dealing with some crappy JPGs on a image repository. Jcb edits under his real name, and in the UK harassment is a crime, and accusing another, falsely, of harassment also has legal implications, and could lead to a block. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi has been conducting vigorous activity on Commons within the last two months, primarily focused on criticism of administrative actions, however it's a good time for him to notice that his knowledge and interpretation of the Commons’ rules, policies and practices too often differ from generally accepted ones. What makes matters even worse is that every fellow user who turns to him to put right the wrongs becomes a target for personal attack. Disruptive behavior like this shouldn’t be considered vandalism but still may lead to a block without extra warnings. Sealle (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Bomerang bell? Considering that this pattern of behavior has been going on for some times, I'm incline to support a six months block of their account. Wikicology (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Blocking someone criticizing admin actions? How Kafkaesque. Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This does not look right. I see no attempt by Jcb or Incnis Mrsi to discuss how to deal with the deletions made by a banned user. I see here an edit war that is resolved by Jcb restoring his version and blocking the person he is warring with. That sort of block is surely only justified if blocking an obvious vandal or troll. For what it is worth, the edit by Incnis does deserve a block because he's clearly edit warring despite above being asked to come to a consensus arrangement. But Jcb is wrong here too because I see no attempt by him to resolve the problem. Administrators are not any more deserving of keeping their edits than anyone else, nor are admins permitted to get their own way via the block button. -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Jcb's block of that user is appropriate considering their involvement in the conflict that led to this report. Jcb should have allow another admin to deal with it. Wikicology (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If two people engage in an edit war, why should only one be punished? And why hasn't jcb tried posting on his talk page to try and get a resolution our of the situation before he gets back? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I am also concerned that Jcb hasn't posted here since they issued the block. Wikicology (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If you dig a little deeper, you will conclude that these INC DRs are only a small part of the story. Before they posted this topic here, they were fully aware that their luck was about to expire. This block has nothing to do with a supposed protection of INC. I have voted in favour of their ban. That was painful enough, because INC used to be a valuable colleague before they derailed. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Whenever possible, all submissions by INC socks should be reverted and (mass)deleted, even if they are formally legitimate. This may appear counter-productive, but in fact it is the only way to get rid of INC in the long run -- his activities should be nothing but meaningless timewaste even for himself. INC is globally banned, his contributions of any kind are not desired here. With that said, Incnis Mrsi did nothing wrong in this case, and the block by Jcb is clearly personally motivated: Jcb and Incnis Mrsi editwarred, and Jcb made it easy himself and blocked the other editwarrior, because he knows very well that otherwise there would be no consensus to keep INC vandalism here. My only question is, how long we have to tolerate such a behaviour by Jcb here. Any sysop who still continues supporting INC sockpuppetry, actually, should not only be desysopped but also globally banned just like INC. --A.Savin 09:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose any action with INC's deletion requests except mass revert and deletion. en:WP:Deny recognition. I don't need INC, Commons doesn't need INC, and any file that deserves deletion will be deleted sooner or later, no matter if there is INC or not. --A.Savin 11:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Please be aware that I do not support the presence of INC. But moving the DRs to user space is counterproductive and creates a mess. An alternative for non-admins could be a 'non-admin closure', but I think that if we want that, we would need to define clearly when and how such a non-admin closure could take place. A closure statement could be something like: "Non-admin closure: INC DR". Jcb (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The images nominated for deletion, whose deletion is justified, must be deleted whatever the nominator. When closing DRs an administrator must consider the rationale and our policies and not the nominator otherwise he becomes too biased. And of course it is only in addition to the waste of time generated by these useless pursuits. Waste of time and energy. No matter what files are nominated for deletion, and no matter the nominator(s), the administrators have been elected and should be able to delete the files whose deletion is justified, and to keep the files whose deletion is not justified. Does it matter to you whether the nominator gets tired or not. If troll/vandal indeed there is, you are, with such behaviour, his best food. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • With respect, Christian, I disagree and there is no policy as strongly worded as you suggest. Anyone who legitimately edits here makes edits of the same value as anyone else, admin or mortal -- nobody's edits are sacred. We had this situation before wrt Russavia where he became a super-editor who's edits could not be removed by mortals and some admins thought they could block anyone who disagreed. Well an admin lost their bit over that and WMF made it super clear that the edits by banned users could be removed by anyone and that admins should not seek to restore them. I agree with the above suggestion that we should deny INC any belief they are aiding this project by continuing to sock. That includes rejecting Nick's suggestion that we keep a list of his DRs. No, we can and must carry on without INC and there is no issue with deleting and forgetting his DRs any more than we'd have an issue if INC found another hobby. Delete & forget you ever saw it. -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Colin, you misunderstood totally my comment, not a single second I referred to a policy. I say that to revert DRs (delete DR pages, revert talk page notifications, revert DR listing, revert Dr tagging on the file page), no matter the tool you use, is a total unnecessary waste of time, especially if the destiny of those files is to be nominated for deletion, and likely to be deleted, at a time or another. When I find such DRs, in the extend the files has to be deleted, then I delete those files. That's all. The rest is waste of time. And to help (or convince INC) to find another hobby is clearly the last of my worry. End of discussion for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Christian your initial sentence said "must", that admins were compelled to honor the DR and process it. They are not. Nobody on this site is compelled to do anything. The only clear guidance we have, is that any edit made by a banned user may be deleted, and if an editor, in good faith, deletes that edit, then it must not be restored unless that editor wishes to take ownership of the edit in their own voice and with all the consequences of that. Any editor/admin who appears to be aiding a banned user to edit here is unlikely to keep their editing/admin privileges. Sure, it might be the last of your worry to help/convince INC what to do, but by processing his DRs you are actively encouraging a banned user to remain editing here. And let me remind you that this is a user for which I am not afraid to use the term "serious harassment" to describe their behaviour. So, you are aiding someone who engages in serious harassment of others here, and I am asking you to stop and reconsider your approach. The JPGs are not important, the community is, and you are focusing on the JPGs, not the community. -- Colin (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope this will be brought up as one of the arguments for the next desysop request. Blocking an opponent with whom an admin is edit-warring is clearly not ok. In the English Wikipedia, just one instance would lead to an ArbCom case with a subsequent removal of a flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Bad block - The user was simply trying to do the right thing and categorise them so editors knew it was all INC related .... JCB should've left them a message asking them to stop or at the very least came to AN and got a discussion going regarding whether Mrsi's actions were correct or not (If they weren't then Mrsi self reverts or an admin cleans the mess) ..... This doesn't even come close to vandalism sorry, Could someone just unblock Mrsi as it was a bad block regardless of previous edits. –Davey2010Talk 03:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    unblocked --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Zhuyifei1999, I've just wanted to do it. That being said, I consider Incnis Mrsi's moves pointless and harmful from technical point of view (moving without leaving redirect is creating dormant DRs – virtually nobody finds them). Also their attitude seems to be uncivil, just like Slowkings4's (see the thread above). But IMO these facts do not justify a block. --jdx Re: 05:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm User:Zhuyifei1999 I don't see any consensus for unblock or that it was a bad block, only that Jcb shouldn't have done it. Incnis was clearly edit warring and not engaging in discussion (he posted something hostile to a talk page, which was not responded to). Jcb was also, as common, totally failing to communicate. I very much dislike admins using their power to win arguments and bully others: experienced that myself. Davey2010 doesn't appear to have read the discussion or timeline -- Incnis continued edit warring after this page opened and his actions criticised/questioned. I don't see any responce from Jcb that he acknowleges that "vandalism" was incorrect term to use or that he should not have been the one to block. I'm afraid that the next time a mob appear to call for his head, I shall be carrying a pitchfork too. I have repeatedly tried to be fair when Jcb is called to AN/U, usually as here finding fault in both sides, and Jcb has never satisfactorily engaged. Plus, as an admin, he gets extra immunity points from being blocked himself, which I and Incnis don't. If Incnis returns to the behaviour that got him blocked, I would support a lengthier block. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdx: I have long-time troubles with social interaction (especially Internet), but a blanket “uncivil” brand will not help. Could you open another thread here or follow with this problem to my user_talk? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if we had an equivalent for en:WP:G5 as a speedy deletion criterion, we could use that as a reason for deleting the DRs. Page creation is not rollbackable.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems more spiteful than productive, many users get permabanned here because of copyright violations and then return years later under a different name (ignorant about blocking policies, Etc. Or how they can appeal as there is no UTRS) and then only upload good quality pictures within scope, I don't see how the project would benefit from that, and seeing how INeverCry was one to enforce (now one of Wikimedia Commons' most active users) Mutter Erde's 8 🎱 year old block while this person was only evading productively this would open up a culture of exclusionism rather than a content centric Wiki. My largest concern with INeverCry is that they're still motivated to do things like this, the Commons blocking policy is preventive and not punitive and deleting good educational content because of the author seems like a disservice, but it's the constant harassment by INeverCry that has to stop, and getting rid of their positive edits might be a necessary evil to stop the negative. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for my communicative failures during (and immediately before) this incident.

But, please, take into account that I spent my personal time to defend file:Joxemai_mulisko_gaina_2016.JPG and file:Jmetc001.jpg from the troll’s provocation. These two images would otherwise face imminent destruction – Jonatan Svensson Glad can confirm where information about user-page placement of Jmetc001.jpg came from; it wasn’t reported by MediaWiki by the time due to database glitch. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Have you considered doing a checkuser for INC and his/her socks, including IP socks, if any? -Mardus /talk 16:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried for one acc which was IMHO not likely INeverCry’s, but was ridiculed. In any case, Mardus, could you find another venue for this problem, please? The Jcb’s case may now be closed. Also please note that I am a bit nervous when see this three-letter contraction for the troll’s nick; for reference, I am active since 2005 under the present nick, so don’t blame me please for the collision. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind; Here's hoping, that the collision is only incidental. -Mardus /talk 16:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional Admin help requested

Greetings: I blocked Vathlu for three days to get help sorting out the images mentioned below and a review of the users contributions. I am asking for help for several reasons (a) I was the most recent deleting administrator, (b) a few images were restored/reuploaded after deletions, (c) I understand this contributor takes many beautiful photographs of the area of residence, but know that images without permissions cannot be retained. I would like to put this out to the Administrator community and then recuse from the decision to avoid conflict as I know I deleted one of the files. Ping me if you require clarification on any point.

Yesterday, I deleted images from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2018/01/29. Today I found a question on my talk page as to why I had deleted one. But the image title was blue, and it was back again!

Notice how the reupload caused the history of the file to disappear and you have to request to see the "7 deleted edits." So having seen that, I scrolled up on their talk page, and noticed that there are other open situations awaiting resolution from this uploader,

At least two images are back after having been deleted by other administrators but I don't see that these went through COM:UNDEL.

I do not wish to cause a conflict or to appear to be seeking out problems with an uploader just because one problem happened first, and so I'm asking for another administrator to take a look at the situation. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi,
Thanks for Ellin for starting this thread. I deleted a file which was reuploaded out of process, and is clearly not OK. Not sure about the other one. And yes, these uploads need review. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I took care of File:Parviz Khosravani Taj Owner.jpg and explained why it was wrong to re-upload it without undeletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted three of the files mentioned above -- there is no evidence that they were published in Iran more than 30 years ago and very unlikely that the photographer died before 1980. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I have opened Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vathlu in view of the recent development. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And the user admits socking using an IP. I would recommend to extend the block before the current block expires. Opinions? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Un usuario de esta página

Hello

User:Un usuario de esta página is engaged in extensive copyright violation here in Commons. According to his upload log, on 12 February 2018, he has uploaded no less than 21 images, all of which are Microsoft logos, and all have previously been deleted from Commons for being non-free. (Unfortunately, I don't remember every deletion discussion, but I do remember this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8.1 logo.png.) The deletion log indicates that on 03:39 UTC, Magog the Ogre deleted his upload of File:Windows 7 logo.png (initial uploaded on 02:37 UTC) but he re-uploaded on 22:48 UTC. He supplies fake source ("own work") and inappropriate license (CC-BY-SA). Several attempts have been made to contact him on his talk page, both here and on English Wikipedia, but clearly he is not here to listen. (On English Wikipedia, he has exhibited some edit-warring behavior too.)

The only thing I can suggest at this stage, is deletion of everything he has uploaded until this minute, followed by a conditional block, i.e. to enforce a block that would only be lifted after he promises to stop, read and acknowledge our policy.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I notified them in Spanish on their user talk page on Spanish Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I mass-deleted the uploads, clearly copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And not blocked yet for massive (re)uploading of copyvio? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence of reuploading.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I also placed a stern warning on their user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Log clearly uploaded the second time—after 20 hours—by this same user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, this indeed the same file. However, I do not see any messages at the talk page of the user that there was smth wrong with the file. This is not blockable (yet) for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I know it's frustrating, but wiki culture has always been to provide a lot of warnings to users, even for things like vandalism, in the hope that they'll reform. In this case, the user is sloppy and will probably get caught anyway if s/he ignores our last warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Magog the Ogre. Hi, everyone else.
I am quite satisfied with what happened here. It is not what I would do as an admin, but the wiki culture is one of compromises and sure, I can live with Ymblanter's decision. As a matter of fact, I agree with what Magog the Ogre said, but I hold two exceptions: Systematic harassment and copyright violation.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

M.hengame4 (talk · contribs)

Vandalism or just not very smart?

Revision of File:Mohammad Reza Golzar in opening of Ali Daei store.jpg

After that is reverted:

Revision of File:Mohammad Reza Golzar in opening of Ali Daei store.jpg

And then he nominates the file for deletion saying "old photo" in Persian. I doubt he speaks English so there's no point in me explaining anything to him. - Alexis Jazz 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More likely vandalism, as the user in question did 3 times upload the "newer" image, which was deleted as copyvio each time. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User MarkVII88

MarkVII88 did not reply to an enquiry at Commons:Deletion requests/File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg on why two of their uploads (claimed as "own work" + the name "A. Mark Gadue" in the exifs) could also be found uploaded elsewhere under the name "Lee Stirling". The two images were deleted today by User:Jameslwoodward. User MarkVII88 uploaded some 20 other images claimed as own work to Commons (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarkVII88). Should these images too be treated as "suspect"? - Takeaway (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Takeaway: where is an emergency? Submit a mass deletion request, it is a routine operation. And also learn use of such templates as {{User}} and {{User13}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No emergency. Just asking for opinions on how to proceed in this matter as none of the other images (at least those that I've checked) come up as having been uploaded elsewhere. Perhaps "Lee Stirling" is the one who had uploaded copyright violations of MarkVII88's work instead of the other way around as what some might think now, and that MarkVII88 just hasn't returned to Commons in the time that the DR was up and therefor did not reply. In any case, their uploads can now be viewed as possibly suspect until it is clarified who actually own the copyright to them. So what to do with them in the meantime? - Takeaway (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that File:Harpa Reykjavik.jpg has signs of resampling and is unlikely a digital camera photo of this scene. But EXIF says it came from samsung[sic] SM-G900V. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The Reykjavik image looks pretty much like a digital camera photo to me. What else would it be? Computer-generated? Photo's made with Samsung phones always show up as non-capitalised samsung in the exif on Commons. - Takeaway (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons has many inventive persons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Luckily not in this case though as we'd miss out on some high quality images. - Takeaway (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is MarkVII88. I am not sure if I am putting this information in the correct spot as the only thing I know how to do on Wikimedia Commons is upload my images and post to monthly photo contests. I am sorry for the confusion about the copyright info for my uploaded images. My name is actually Lee Stirling and my commonly used username is MarkVII88. This username dates back to my very first car which was a 1988 Lincoln MarkVII. About the copyright info, the camera that I am using is a used Nikon D700 that used to belong to my father-in-law whose name is A. Mark Gadue. I did not realize that he had that information stamped into the EXIF data for the images that come off this camera. Since receiving your first notice about my images, I delved into the camera menu and updated this copyright information to my own name. For any confusion I apologize. I understand if you still feel the need to delete any and all submissions I have made with the old image copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVII88 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This seems to be the end of the confusion then unless someone here demands proof per COM:OTRS? Both deleted images can also be restored in my opinion. Any admins up for that? - Takeaway (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mehdi ghaed

Mehdi ghaed (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user has a long history of copyright violation and again uploads derivative works and questionable photos without metadata. SlowManifesto (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted and user blocked but able to use talk page for unblock requests. @SlowManifesto: Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

سپهر آریایی

سپهر آریایی (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

The user uploads pictures from the web without permission. SlowManifesto (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done All files already deleted. Last warning sent. Please block if more copyvios appear. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This is his suckpuppet. SlowManifesto (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins, عباس بشیری (talk · contribs · count · global contribs) is indefblocked in fa.Wikipedia. Let’s remove one more sock from Commons too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've indef'd both accounts as we have a case of socking here (see File:بنی صدر.png and File:بنی صدر به همراه رجوی و خلبان معزی پس از ترک ایران و ورود به فرانسه.jpg). --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfairly accused of Sockpuppeting

I was blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet less than 24 hours after being registered. I am an independent user that happens to use the same ISP as another user, but I am operating of my own accord and not simply by someone else's instruction. I want to prove this, but I don't know what information I need to acquire to do so. Any attempts to make contact with the admins who blocked me have been refused and they won't take me seriously. Please help me remove my block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmostrix (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Osmostrix: , if admins don't take you seriously maybe OTRS (article) could work. They normally check if people own the copyright they say they own, but they have the tools to identify people.
Your user page says "The One and Only". I think I saw the same text on a sock a while ago. Perhaps that has something to do with it? - Alexis Jazz 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This person has troubles in en.Wikipedia, not here. Wikipedia topic ban for Osmostrix (talk · contribs)? Noone likes repeated soliciting, including the Commons community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done. This is problem of en.wiki, not Commons. Do not bring problems from other projects into Commons. If you think, that you were unfairly blocked, please write about that in meta. You have no editing restrictions in Commons, you have neither deleted edits nor warnings, your block log is empty, so here's nothing we can do. Taivo (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fcb.foot

Fcb.foot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

The user uploads non-free logos and photos without permission. SlowManifesto (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Fcb.foot is blocked for 3 months, his/her uploads are mostly deleted, some are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Behnam N

Behnam N (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Copyright violation from 2 August 2017 up to today. SlowManifesto (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/104.243.160.212

Normally I wouldn't think twice about this, and there is nothing wrong with these edits as such, but given the recent block on Look2See1 and that these look an awful lot like typical Look2See1 edits, could someone check to see if this is Look2See1 evading the block? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Currently there are just five edits, three clearly an improvement, the other two (creating cats) at least genuine, I'd say it's too early to judge. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What are you asking? If you're looking for a CU on this (which you're not, because it'd be a fishing expedition), we cannot publicly connect an IP address to a registered account. If you're looking for a DUCK block, there has been no abuse. If you're wondering if its an open proxy, it's not. Not much to do here except monitor and even then, it's a non-disruptive IP. All the best, ~riley (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Justiciable threats by copyvio-uploader

Terrybear86 (talk · contribs), who had uploaded 7 copyvios of Mrs. Traci Kochendorfer, most credited to Getty Images agency (well-known to sue any unlicensed re-use), which had been copyvio-tagged and deleted by me and other colleagues, accuses me now (7 weeks after the deletions) of hack or sabotage our files, hacking and sabotoging other editors work and vandalizing other editors contributions.[4],[5] Even my explaination that he/she needs to provide a valid permission, just resulted in repeated accusations.
As hacking and sabotaging are criminal offenses in the US (and probably violate WMF-ToS), I deem Terrybear86's accusations against me as potentially justiciable. I would prefer if another admin-colleague looks into this user's behaviour and considers appropriate measures.
In addition, I will abstain from tagging further uploads of this user and would ask other to have an eye on his uploads. Actually, after his accusations, he filed my talkpage for deletion[6], and uploaded the following 3 files, all claimed as "own work":

--Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Referring to vandalism in this context should be equated to a personal attack. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

2600:1700:1590:5f00:850a:22f3:859c:a43e and 2600:1700:1590:5f00:c9b8:cc9c:f2db:a2f4

These range of IP is removing deletion template on File:MalwarebytesUI2017.png and blanked it on Commons:Deletion requests/File:MalwarebytesUI2017.png. Can anyone range block affected IP or semiprotect listed pages? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:4D6:C536:5776:6DAD 07:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done short term block. ~riley (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done by ~riley already. I've protected the affected pages. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

the next legal case

Today user Jürgen Funke (talk · contribs) started to nominate for deletion all his uploads and his userpage, using the following rationale in all cases:

  • Ich möchte dass alle meine zur Verfügung gestellten Daten. Sprich mein Account inklusive bereitgestellter Fotos gelöscht wird. Ich erinnere Sie gerne an die Löschpflicht nach dem DSGVO, bzw. meinem Recht auf Löschung.

which Google translate to:

  • I want that all my provided data, that is my account including provided photos, will be deleted. I would like to remind you of the obligation to delete according to the DSGVO, or my right to cancellation.

 Comment The cited abbreviation DSGVO refers to the European Union's en:General Data Protection Regulation.

As the user expressedly claims to have a legal right to fulfil his wish for deletion even of all his own images, which he previously released under a CC-BY-SA license, we as mere volunteers should not touch this case IMO, but transfer it completely to WMF legal, though normally I would consider courtesy-deletion. (If his claim holds true it would undermine CC licensing and expose re-users later litigation.) --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: the user has made identical requests to his :en and :de accounts. All the more reason to transfer it to the WMF.--Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The user is mistaken. I think they confuse the obligation of Google to hide search results with a supposed (non-existing) obligation to remove content. I left a message at their user talk page. Regular DRs may stay open, I can imagine that some or all files are deleted for being out of scope. I fulfilled their request to speedy their user page, they are allowed to request that. As soon as they nominate their files again for speedy, we can revert and block. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
See e.g. File:Logo juergen funke.jpg, would definitely delete this file anyway, as spam. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Normally I am probably more friendly to such requests as many others. But, I have a problem when somebody claims to have a legal right. I am not prepared to take legal risks for the WMF who are paid for this job. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. In this case the user seems to have understood the message, see here, so end good all good. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Please nuke all his uploads. Not as a courtesy and not for legal reason, but because it's out of Commons' scope and obvious self-promotional content. --A.Savin 22:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Half these files (30) already qualified for speedy per "original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content" and as such, were deleted; the rest I have nuked for the following reasons:

User requests deletion of unused files
Out of project scope
Self-promotional content

~riley (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Maumed al sarif

This guy keeps Bothers me in my talk page and now he used racial slurs against me. like he said "لم تجد إلى الآن صور للشعب الأفريقي اعتقد انك اكثر شخص يمكنك أن تأتي بهذه الصورة وانت تعرف السبب هههههههه" Which translates to " You have not found pictures yet for the African people. I think you are the most person who can come up with this picture and you know why Hahaha" Then he wrote "You are an envious person hateful" later he send "أهنيك يا الافريقي" meaning "I feed you, O African" Frankly I do not understand what I did to him. Just because I nominated some of his pictures to be deleted.--Mojackjutaily (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: both are long-time editors of ar.Wikipedia. Likely a spill-over of Wikipedian conflicts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, the top user has already written to me in his own account. He described me as a stupid boy and I asked him to bring pictures of people from Africa in good faith, but I wanted to harass him and hint at dirty things. He said that you love Africans with bad intentions [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maumed_al_sarif&diff=289156818&oldid=288783485 This is very stupid because I want to have sex with him but from another device, but he denies that even though his reply was in minutes (Google Translate was used) --Maumed al sarif (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) I hope that someone who is fluent in Arabic will judge if he understands what I said and what he said --Maumed al sarif (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have asked an native Arabic speaker to comment here Mardetanha talk 09:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have just read this discussion. Actually, it looks like both users are insulting each other,so I cannot really say anything without the background. But in any case, both were insulting, as in usual fights. Maybe just a reasonable discussion would sort out the problem. Anass Sedrati (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Aboriginero sockpuppet of Yahadzija

User:Aboriginero is uploading previously deleted photos of User:Yahadzija, so probably it's another suckpuppet Category:Sockpuppets of Yahadzija. --Smooth O (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tm and file descriptions

This user is known since 2016 for problematical edits in file descriptions, namely, for keeping various promotional texts over objections of numerous other Commons members. The time to separate systemic actions against opinion of supermajority from various secondary circumstances, such as timing of these edits, blocks, etc. As a person completely uninvolved in the conflict previously, I submit a proposal for community sanctions.

Restriction: Tm (talk · contribs) is not allowed to revert, fully or partially, removal of promotional texts or external links in file descriptions by any Commons user in good standing.
Term: two years – until March 2020.
Enforcement: rollback and possibly blocking (if violations are numerous or committed in a form of edit warring).

Opinions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you want here when there is an ongoing discussion about the user's conduct here. Above you wrote This user is known since 2016 for problematical edits in file descriptions and you have failed to mentioned his productive works. If you have a proposal, propose it here where a discussion about their behavior is taking place. Raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages is unhelpful and amount to a waste of volunteers time. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, you have had your say painting Tm as a comedy villain on their talk page already. Give over, it does not wash. Tm's block was questionable in the first place. A long term user that is one of our most prolific contributors and appears to always be acting in good faith, at least deserves the respect of discussing the issues and seeing if there can be a better common understanding of how to improve the files in question. The block was pointless escalation and per policy, blocks should never be used as a punishment and never when the administrator appears to have repeatedly argued with Tm. In this case the week long block is clearly a punishment, there being no evidence that Commons is in danger from Tm's overly long edits on some file descriptions.
Go do something else, some time out to consider Commons:Staying mellow might be useful. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: indeed, I do not want Tm to be “punished” with this block – it is especially silly given that Jcb was involved. Users who disagreed with Tm should also be respected – their edit out some stuff from file descriptions in good faith too. Let them voice their opinion if the conflict had already escalated to the point of Jcb’s warring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We cannot discuss a topic ban for the user at this location; I think it is quite unfair to open a topic ban discussion when the user cannot respond to the discussion directly. That said, I think this is a good discussion to be having once Tm can participate. ~riley (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
    @~riley: why do you equate the proposed sanction to a topic ban? A full-fledged topic ban would be proscription of any additions of promotional kind. Whereas the proposal would only proscribe Tm’s interference with edits of other users who remove “crud”, and only in the file: space. OK, waiting for Tm’s block to expire. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Call it what you want, a semi-topic ban? sanctions? My message remains the same. ~riley (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, I'm unsure why you linked to English Wikipedia banning policy here. Commons have no policy for banning users and we cannot magically develop one now. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: are you saying that Commons can't ban users or that Commons can't impose topic bans? You are wrong in both cases, but I want to be clear which one you are saying. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: The Commons community does have the right to impose bans and topics bans, I placed the last one which can be found at Commons:Editing restrictions. ~riley (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Lamest Critic and ~riley, you both probably misunderstood or misinterpreted my comment. Commons have no banning policy. Do you disagree with this comment? Of course editing restrictions may be imposed on a user based on community consensus and the page linked by riley above is used for documenting such restrictions. No where I mentioned that the community cannot ban a user, we do not have a banning policy is what I said. Wikicology (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You're correct, nowhere did you mention that. Hence why WLC asked a vital question and I followed up in regards to it. You writing implied that we cannot impose editing restrictions and if that's not what you were implying, then your comment has little relevance. We occasionally reference Wikipedia policies, especially when we have no such policy of our own. Incnis was not implying that a WP banning policy applied here, he was merely referencing the document. As for lack of a policy, we do not require one. Some of the greatest legal decisions have been made without a policy and acted as legal precedence to establish a future policy. All the best! :) ~riley (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
😂 happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Free Syrian 200 and Creed Aventus

Am I the only one who thinks there's a bit too much of an overlap here to think that these accounts are unrelated:

Also, the following Flickr accounts are obvious license laundering accounts:

—LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, obviously fishy. I blocked one indef. The other one is stalled, so there may be more socks. The files are suspicious, and need to be reviewed. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think a block is in order for the main account as well. They were given a "final" warning in March 2015 after the first 35 or so deletions. They were blocked in July 2016 after another 35 or so deletions. After the block expired, the main account alone has been used to upload over 80 more files which have had to be deleted. Plus the socking, plus the license laundering. I don't see this user becoming a constructive contributor in this lifetime.
I looked for additional socks using several methods, but I found nothing. A checkuser request on Commons seems pointless, since the accounts haven't been active here since October. The main account has recent activity on Arabic Wikipedia, but the sock has only been active here, so a checkuser on that project would be a bit of a fishing expedition. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Main account is stale, not interested in applying a copyvio block to a user dating back to October with no recent contributions. Behavioral evidence is not strong enough for me to block a stale sockmaster either in this case. ~riley (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Badgering by User:Eddaido

How can I get the User:Eddaido to stop badgering me regarding file name changes I am making that fall within the guidelines for File Renaming?

"Eddaido" keeps complaining about file name changes that I am making, and he keeps badgering me regarding these changes. He has stated that "... pretty much all ..." of my file moves are unnecessary. I have repeatedly asked him to tell me what policy or guideline my file renaming requests violates, and he has yet to provide an answer to this question. It almost seems as if he thinks he owns all of the files I am trying to correct.

On my talk page there are two File Renaming sections, and yesterday he added a new section and questioned me about a name change I requested for the file "Duesenberg 1937 Model J, Bonhman & Schwartz Landaulet, (formal sedan) (3829448916).jpg" which had the name "Bohman" misspelled as "Bonham." This change appears to be allowed under the file renaming polcy Aim #3, and the file name was changed by a Filemover.

I have repeatedly asked him to please stop bothering me. I also took 11 days off of editing files names in hopes that he would leave me alone, but he just came back and started in on me again. (Note that I continued to add new content during this time.)

Yesterday he stated, "I shall continue to complain while you continue to waste the time and efforts of other people."

Do I have to put up with his continual complaints and overbearing behavior if I am following the Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines for renaming files? How can his behavior be stopped? It appears that he is going to follow through with his threat and continually complain to me about allowed file renaming requests. I have not responded to his last two inquiries.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide links to some of these claims? Wikicology (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
On my User talk:Zcarstvnz page, it is the last three sections. I am not sure how to make these show here better.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zcarstvnz#File_renaming
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zcarstvnz#File_renaming_2
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zcarstvnz#File:Duesenberg_1937_Model_J,_Bonhman_&_Schwartz_Landaulet,_(formal_sedan)_(3829448916).jpg
@Eddaido: Could you elaborate? I am especially wondering about the last section on Zcarstvnz's talk page. Requesting renaming a typo in a filename seems like an absolutely genuine request. Do you have other examples for renaming requests that you disagree with? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor concerned seems unable to answer my one question, why make these changes? They may be corrections but they only tie up volunteers on unnecessary work. If it is to be considered by you necessary work then there must be a very large number of file names (millions?) to be brought to the same standard.
Its my belief that the editor concerned is unaware of how the search function operates assuming it only works from file names. I can find no other reason for these (to me futile) corrections. If an editor wishes to waste their own time that's no problem to anyone else but these requested corrections give work to others.
Do you consider the requested changes are all justified - you should look at many of them before forming an opinion. If the editor would only answer the question why do it? we could make some progress. I believe there is a mistaken belief in a real benefit from the requested changes. That is to say they are being requested in good faith but based on a mistaken assumption.
Bonhman/Bohman. Too late now but the search function found it immediately as it was - through the description and through the category. (If necessary amended without bothering volunteer file name changers) Why bother with the footling amendment to the file name - only if the file name matters and it doesn't (in that way). The same kind of thing with Duesenberg and Dusenberg (with a diaresis over the u).
At the risk of repeating myself, zcarstvnz's are valid good faith corrections but in practice a waste of effort. Without a discussion with zcarstvnz - see his/her talk page where discussion is always avoided - it seems impossible to get my message across.
So why are these so minor changes requested? Eddaido (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Eddaido: Why can't you just ignore them if you feel they are a waste of your effort?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
They automatically come to my attention when they are made to files I've worked on. I expend no effort except to be concerned that work is being made for file movers and I see it as a waste of Their effort, that is to say the efforts of the file movers. Does that help?
Why are these particular changes being requested? Eddaido (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please let the file movers worry about that. I am sure they are perfectly capable of voicing concerns themselves if they have any. So far I see no evidence of Zcarstvnz requesting renames that are not according to our guidelines. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Happens I did ask and the answer was: we need to trust our users.
Are you quite sure zcarstvnz is not just a newbie operating under a misapprehension? Eddaido (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zcarstvnz, FocalPoint, and Brackenheim: Looking at Category:London_to_Brighton_veteran_car_run_2014, I can actually see a misunderstanding of COM:RENAME rule #4: Please re-read the footnote carefully. Reason #4 is not meant for general renaming of images in a category and only applied to very specific cases. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: Yes, I have made a few incorrect file renaming requests along the way. Most of them fell into Aim #4, and were made in good faith as I originally thought the category was more broad than it actually is. Several (all?) of those renaming requests were quite rightfully refused. My goal with the file renaming has simply been to make Wikimedia/Wikipedia more reliable by correcting file names. Most of my corrections have fallen into Aim #2 or Air #3, and I believe that those are corrections Eddaido is complaining about.
It seems that Eddaido doesn't understand that all corrections cause work for others. For instance on Wikipedia adding the Orphan tag or a "inline citation missing" notice to an article causes work for another editor to fix. A page banner for a city on WikiVoyage not in the 1:7 ratio will likely cause someone to place a request to fix the banner, and thus create work for another editor (either to fix or revert). It is the same here where a file correction causes work for others. If we are going to continually improve the reliability of Wikimedia, and other Wikipedia sites, corrections will always be a part of the edits that take place. As long as my edits are within the policies and guidelines, are made in good faith, and I learn from my mistakes, I should not be badgered about them. The continual complaints are unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcarstvnz (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 February 2018‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Eddaido, my impression is that you are creating an hostile environment for Zcarstvnz to contribute here. Please, stop it! We do not want such behaviour here on Commons. Wikicology (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I would be very grateful if anyone would confirm the newest batch of filename changes from Zcarstvnz are all appropriate. Eddaido (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
There are one or two that I personally disagree with, but they mostly seem fine.
Many thanks. Eddaido (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Eddaido: I found a solution for your problem. To prevent Zcarstvnz from using up your valuable time, or other volunteer's volunteer time, I have made him a filemover! While you brought up this discussion (wasting your time and our time) and forced us to nit pick his edits (our time), I have come to the conclusion that this user is correctly requesting file names in accordance with the Commons:File renaming policy. Please do not continue to hound users and please attempt to assume good faith. Have a great day! :) Kindly, ~riley (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Riley and Wikicology. My problem was to get a response from this user. As a result of the above discussion and others this user's behaviour is modified. You may make your gratitude known to me on my talk page! As for making that person a file mover and loading on more responsibility that just displays your managerial skill. Eddaido (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
(In case my managerial skill statement is misconstrued,) you have 1. removed the need for a volunteer to carry out the desired amendment and 2. will no doubt concentrate the new mover's mind by requiring his/her sole responsibility. Eddaido (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your assistance, but I will be not be extending gratitude in regards to this manner because this was not handled appropriately on your end. In the future, if you feel that a user is creating unnecessary work for others in such a manner, direct them to Commons:Requests for rights or nominate the user directly. If you wish to continue this discussion further, which is now irrelevant to the original post, we can discuss it at my talk page. Have a great day. ~riley (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Destruction of redirects by CAPTAIN RAJU and Túrelio

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I mined six recent (year 2018) cases where these two members, apparently acting in concert, effected redirectless renaming of files uploaded by third persons and hosted on Commons for a significantly long time (not fresh uploads). I ask the community to curb this practice which damages Commons’ reputation among non-Wikimedia reusers. I’d also appreciate a bold sysop who would revert deletions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Closed - it's unbecoming to start a topic here without even trying first to sort this out with the involved users - Jcb (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gayatribhole

Would an admin please consider looking at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gayatribhole, originally opened by EugeneZelenko. The user Gayatribhole continues to add images which are extremely unlikely to be "own work", easily found with google image search despite many notifications and previous deletions. Thanks. -- Begoon 07:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User warned. Next copyvio upload is a blockable reason. Ankry (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response, and actions. Cheers. -- Begoon 08:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disrespect of the Interaction ban by The Photographer

The Photographer didn't respected the interaction ban that he agreed to attend COM:ANU (notice the "Daphne could you pleas include mentions also, I don't want to see provocations as this above any more either."). In the first opportunity he list a lot of untrue assertions about me: [7]. I'll only take just the first example, because this summarise the event:

"Insulting Beria saying pqp (It's like "fuck you") " available here


By the Wiktionary:

wikt:puta que pariu#Interjection

  • Interjection
    • puta que pariu! (uncountable)
      • (vulgar) damn it

damn it

  • Interjection
    • (Britain, US, mildly blasphemous) An expression of surprise, outrage or frustration.
      • An expression of surprise, outrage or frustration.

The real translation:

"Boa einh? Eu consigo depois de 2 anos fotos da Gisele e você as deleta, pqp"

Nice, after two years I get the Gisele [Bündchen] photos and you deleted it, damn it.

In almost all items of this list we have issues, and that's the main reason for why I had to request the interaction ban, do not makes sense the interaction ban, if he do not respect it. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RTA, it is March and this was in January. I warned User:The Photographer about this post and deleted it from the discussion. I think he got the message. I don't see the need for any admin action. Move on. -- Colin (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do not matter, he disrespected, none one took a action. I'll have to wait until he act again? Receive all the violence again?
I also prefer to not interact with you any more, you do not listening and do not respect me. So how about you also accept the same terms?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Derivative files by User:FOX 52

I'm concerned about User:FOX 52's edits.

One or two of these I could overlook, but seeing the lengths they went to to obfuscate the sourcing of the XB-70, I think we have a real problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See also the file history for File:VH-60 Marine One.jpg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Breaking attribution, and failing to credit sources when claiming a derivative of someone else's as solely own-work is a serious problem IMO. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
And more that SarekOfVulcan have been working to fix such as File:OH-58D of the 25th CAB landing on USS Lake Erie (CG-70) off Hawaii in 2013.JPG. This user needs to be told/warned to change their actions. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Another problem is that File:F-15I (remix).jpg is sourced to File:Two F-15I Ra'am.JPEG, which is a completely different photo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The pointer to this discussion should suffice.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If they are any problems with a file I’ve uploaded than simply ping on my talk page –as most of the issues a few unintentional mistakes (Always- assume Good Faith) - FOX 52 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@FOX 52: On 18 September 2017 you were told about similar file changes such as File:VH-60 Marine One.jpg on your talk page. Why have you continued this behavior? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sixflashphoto: - A new file was uploaded so this behavior NOT continuing - FOX 52 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Before it appears you just uploaded a different version but still kept the sources. As to that other file, again you made an attempt in good faith to cite them and although I would change it, you tried. This is worse in that you uploaded files and took credit for another's work not to mention made a lot of work for SarekOfVulcan. Why did you do this? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not about me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Qqw5e

Hi. Qqw5e has uploaded 3 non free YouTube screenshots and added himself the template {{LicenseReview}}{{YouTube CC-BY}} counterfeiting Explicit signature. May you block indef. this user ? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Kmee55 and 22wedci are following the paths. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

93.190.143.86

Hello,

A FLickr stream for a few pics has closed, making sources useless. This IP comes in and tags the pictures with a speedy within an DR. Can someone take a look? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 weeks. ~riley (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

CU block

CU results of Jerjer Li and 暴跳魚雷 are possible only, why they are blocked? --158.182.174.197 03:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • "Possible" can mean a number of things. You also have to consider results such as UA matches and same location, technically indistinguishable, results inconclusive or requires further evaluation. You have to consider the amount of different ISPs, ranges, proxies that sockmasters use to evade detection which complicates confirmation. You also need to consider that in some checks, there is a greater focus on behavioural evidence rather than technical data. It's worth nothing neither of these blocks were based on CU results, therefore not "CU blocks". Nonetheless, the behavioural evidence supports the blocks at this point in time. ~riley (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Vicfarland

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AWes-1.jpg

Just re-uploads a file that was deleted earlier. Um.

I already gave him instructions for OTRS (User talk:Vicfarland#Hi Wes Duncan!) but he doesn't seem to respond to anything on his talk page. I have no idea if he actually did send something to OTRS, possibly he has.

Assuming this really is Wesley (or somebody who works for his online representation team) I suggest to be careful, he's notable and surely will have plenty of media he owns all the rights for. But those rights need to be released properly for Commons/Wikipedia use. - Alexis Jazz 02:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment File deleted, and last warning sent. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: he claims to be John Vick, not Wes Duncan. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed that upload yet. @Yann: , did you check if OTRS received anything from him? Wes with dog may not be a copyvio but still needs OTRS. I've mailed him. - Alexis Jazz 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Badgering by User:Eddaido Part II

Once again I am being badgered by User:Eddaido regarding my photo edits.

Reference the previous discussion in late February and early March titled "Badgering by User:Eddaido" that has been archived.

"Eddaido" states on my Talk page that he "was put through a long testing period" by multiple users (Charles01 and mr.choppers), and now he apparently feels it is necessary to do the same to me. To me this amounts to more than badgering, and he is now hazing me. I request this behavior be stopped.

1. For instance, I have recently renamed most of the images with the car name "LaSalle" misspelled (there should not be a space in "La Salle"). He has now called all of the renames into question without cause. Wikipedia, and nearly all references show that the name is correctly spelled without a space (see LaSalle). See here: User_talk:Zcarstvnz#Your good faith mistakes. Even the GM Heritage Center uses "LaSalle" as seen here [8].

2. He is also stating that my renaming of photos from the New York Public Library (NYPL) is also incorrect based on the fact I am not copying verbatim the hand written or typed captions in the photos in my file renames. I am not regurgitating the names that someone placed on them, because many of these photo details are simply wrong. This is easily provable using readily available modern research methods such as looking up the photos and car details in books, original brochures, etc. Here are some examples of these photos and revised descriptions.

The photos of the Oldsmobile and Chevrolet are in my personal library and the details behind my references are posted there. The Buick horsepower figure is likewise in my library and is also seen at [|Buick Model B-55].

Other editors have told Eddaido that the captions from the NYPL and other libraries are not definitive proof that the photo is what the written or typed caption states it is. See the following discussion at Talk:Touring_car: Partial merger proposal

At that talk page, Eddaido posted a photo with the caption "from NY Public Library Cadillac European Touring..". The book 80 Years of Cadillac LaSalle by Walter McCall (450 pages of Cadillac photos and history) shows this exact same car at the same location. It is correctly identified as a Cadillac 1925 Type V-63 Custom Suburban for Seven Passengers.

Even though I have proof that this car is not what Eddaido says it is, he now wants me to contact the NYPL and get their acknowledgement that they didn't name the file correctly or word the caption correctly. This would be an undue strain on the NYPL staff, and they likely would not entertain a large volume of requests. It is also unnecessary in light of the other authoritative resources that are available today.

Because of Eddaido's badgering I have left references in some of the photo descriptions to prove my changes are correct. Generally speaking, I would never leave references in the captions of these photos as they are really unnecessary except for his continual badgering.

3. It also appears that he may be stalking me (for lack of a better term). For instance yesterday I posted a change to a Cadillac Model M file (posted at 08:49 9 March 2018), and within five minutes he was hounding me about the change. See his comments here: User_talk:Zcarstvnz#File:Cadillac 1907 Model M Coupe.jpg. This has happened on multiple occasions.

Except for the Cadillac Model M discussion on my talk page, Eddaido has offered no proof that any of my edits are wrong. In the case of the Cadillac I was easily able to show him that the original literature from 1906 supports my classification of this car as a Model M and not a Model H (since he insists the words Model H hand written on the photo is definitive).

Note that I am not saying my changes to file names should not go unchallenged. In such an open environment as Wikipedia/Commons/etc. I expect there to be debate regarding controversial changes, but the burden that Eddaido is trying to place upon me is unwarranted. It is interesting that no other editor has complained about any of my changes - either here or on a dozen other Wikipedia pages where the file name changes were instantly updated.

Because of all of the above, I again request that Eddaido stop badgering me, stop harassing me, as he was told to do in the in the last dispute, stop hazing me, and stop stalking me. If it is possible for him to be blocked from seeing my contributions and also from seeing all file names changes made by all editors except himself perhaps that would help to stop a good portion of this unwarranted behavior.

Respectfully, Zcarstvnz (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this editor is changing my edits, his edits are automatically advised to me and I accordingly question them. Again there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding which this editor does not wish to discuss. See for example LaSalle. This user believes his or her observations and opinions are unchallengeable. Eddaido (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to change a photo name from "La Salle" to "LaSalle" or vice versa. It is not a matter of one form being right or the other wrong: it is a matter of the difference being small enough that it is not important, and that our desire to keep filenames stable trumps making trivial changes like this to filenames. - Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Policy: Flickr upload bots, and how to report said misuse

Hello. I'm afraid I'm more familiar with the templates and procedures on Wikipedia; the process seems to be slightly different here in the Wikimedia Commons, and I'm rather lost.

I've posted my issue at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/fromflickr#Wikimedia Commons Policy: Flickr upload bots, and how to report said misuse before I was able to find my way here. I was assuming the discussion would be moved to my own Talk Page to be discussed in more specific detail; I withheld naming the user I wish to be addressed until contacted by an Admin first. I have no idea how to move that post to another location (here), and I didn't think we wanted it just copied.
DeNoel (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User Pipenavis

Several files like File:Partido de la U - nuevo logo.png, File:Fuerza ciudadana - logo.png, File:Partia Zieloni - logo.jpg and so on are listed for a speedy deletion. Only half of them are real PD-textlogo violations, while others are clearly in PD. I'm afraid that some important and free files will be deleted as part of the trend, without proper attention. -- Andrei (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: File:Partia Zieloni - logo.jpg is clearly PD-textlogo and should be ineligible for copyright. @LX: . --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Andrew J.Kurbiko: "Speedy" deletion in this case means one week after being tagged. They were tagged yesterday, so no need to panic just yet. :-)
The files were uploaded by Pipenavis, who asserted that the images are protected by copyright and had been published by the copyright holders under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike copyright license, which, by definition, cannot apply to works that are in the public domain, since those are not protected by copyright. It is then up to the uploader to demonstrate that this is correct.
To put it bluntly: It is not acceptable to batch upload a mix of blatant copyright violations and possibly copyright ineligible files with fake licenses and expect others to sort out which is which.
Since the files were tagged, Yilku1 has replaced several of the licensing claims to {{PD-textlogo}}, but apparently without removing the problem tags. I don't know the threshold of originality of all the countries of origin involved, so I don't know how many of these changes were appropriate. The claim that images like File:Nuevo logo USCO.jpg and File:Nuevo logo union patriotica.jpg consist of "simple geometric shapes" certainly seems highly dubious, to put it mildly. (Which simple geometric shapes would that be?) As with the uploader's licensing assertions, it is up to anyone wanting to assert that {{PD-textlogo}} applies to make the case for that. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment File:Fuerza ciudadana - logo.png and some others are also PD-textlogo. I removed the warning. Some do need a permission. For borderline cases, it may be better to create a DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed more warnings. --Yilku1 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the history of deletion discussions on your user talk page, I'm really not convinced you have a good enough understanding of Commons:Threshold of originality to be making these calls. Which "simple geometric shape" are you arguing that File:Nuevo logo union patriotica.jpg consists of? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Then put a Deletion request if you want to delet it. --Yilku1 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Impostor

User:Every hill has its valley has uploaded a dubious file and then has reviewed it under the name of User:Daphne Lantier. [9] 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done No other contribution, blocked indef., file deleted. We can't assume good faith here. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedydelete of double category-side

I created a category-Site „Category:Marie-Antoinette Hilsz (Maryse)“ Sorry, there WAS a category by this name, but not with the correct first name. So, I could not find. Now old site has the correct first name, too and this category is empty. Please delete. Thanks.--Tozina (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted the empty category. Next time, please use {{Speedydelete}}. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

License review by non-image-reviewer Etid22

Hi. Etid22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is usurpating User:Explicit identity by adding a LicenseReview template though he/she 's not an image reviewer. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

License reviews undone and note left on their talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As LX already noted, it is a fresh Sol-lol’s sock – we know this behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Ok, blocked. Yann (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Rafic.Mufid

Just to inform you admins. The user is a known sockpuppet of User:Chyah. The latter is globally blocked. --Mhhossein talk 08:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely something wrong about Chyah (talk · contribs). The account is locked under the “spam-only account” reason, but accumulated 34k edits in fa.Wikipedia, 3k edits in ar.Wikipedia, and interacted with locals in both wikipedias for a long time – an implausible feat for a genuinely pure spammer. Moreover, extensive Commons uploads do not look like a spammer’s ones. @Masti: any comment on this? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And back to the titular user: are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rafic.Mufid?offset=20180316&limit=200 a spammer’s contribs? Rafic.Mufid/Chyah/Sonia_Sevilla may do something wrong to Persian projects, but nowadays we see hounding and abuse of stewards privilege from certain quarters and the user in question is clearly an injured party today. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Followup: meta:Stewards' noticeboard #Wrongful global lock of Chyah. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK to demand a copyright-mark when an image is re-used?

User User:A.Savin is demanding that - when re-using his images - you are required to either buy a license from him - or add a byline stating: Copyright: A.Savin, Wikimedia Commons (copyright-mark rather than text) (Link to user's template). I was under the impression that demanding copyright-marks (when re-using) were incompatible with Commons' policies. Doesn't this mean that the license (copyleft) is changed? Has the licensing rules here on Commons changed to allow a uploader to retain copyright? (A.Savin refused to discuss further with me on norwegian wikipedia and directed me to this noticeboard). Regards --- Aldebaran (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Under CC-licenses you can require whatever attribution you want; a link, a name or a specific phrase. Secondly, licensing a file under a free license (not including CC0 and PD) does not "remove" copyright from the file, it simply becomes "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights reserved"; it is still protected under copyright laws and is thereby copyrighted, just freely licensed as well. If I want to require the attribution "(c) 2018. This file is owned, made and created by Jonatan. He is the best person ever. Buy his mercy on Amazon.com" I can require it. It is up to re-users if they want to use my images of course, but it is alright to request such attribution. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. I just assumed that the copyleft license was incompatible with copyright-mark. I'll start retaining copyright on my own images from now... Thanks for the quick response --- Aldebaran (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Jonatan, User:A.Savin uses the "Free Art License", not a CC licence. They are similar, and compatible, and the attribution for FAL is "Name of the author, title, date of the work. When applicable, names of authors of the common work and, if possible, where to find the originals"'. CC make it clearer that the author's name may be a pseudonym, but neither permit licensors to demand extra worship phrases like your example. You are right that these images are very much still under copyright law and requesting that this is made clear in the attribution through the use of a copyright symbol is understandable. Strictly speaking, the format of the attribution and its location can only be requested, not required. So A.Savin's text should be a little more accommodating. For example, it would be reasonable to give image credits in many articles at the end of the article or end of a book. However, our own template for this e.g.: {{Credit line |Author = © [[User:Colin]] | Other = Wikimedia Commons |License = CC-BY-SA-4.0}} has the words "(required by the license)" even though the format can't be required -- at least it links through to a useful essay (which I see doesn't actually mention FAL) that explains what is required. Wikipedia seem to think they can get away with no in-text attribution at all, and rely on the image being a hyperlink to the file description which does have full attribution. If that is considered legally compatible with CC or FAL, then we have to permit that for others too. Aldebaran, if you use the "Credit line" template, then that helps fix up the sample text that appears when you click "Use this file" at the top of the page. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've updated Commons:Credit line to include FAL. In addition to the above attribution, it also demands the text "Copyleft: This is a free work, you can copy, distribute, and modify it under the terms of the Free Art License". This is so that the reader is made fully aware the image is free and given a link to the licence terms under which it may be reused. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Colin for clearing that up. It was exactly that "Copyleft image" (free) vs. copyrighted image (not free) that was bugging me. The reason I approached this user was that he/she had replaced numerous images in many articles with his/her own, and when I checked the license requirements, it occured to me that these images could potentially be deleted due to the license-demand of "either buy a license or mark the image as copyrighted". To re-instate the original images after a mass-deletion is a time-consuming job - especially for a small language-version as norwegian. Your addition in the Commons:Credit line makes it much clearer how to deal with Free Art License here on Commons. Much appreciated. Regards --- Aldebaran (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Aldebaran just to check. "Copyleft" is just a play on words, used to describe a licence. It isn't a legal term that means "not copyright". Indeed it is not possible to add a "free" licence like CC or FAL to an image that is not under copyright. Any image that is in the public domain through age or because of rules like for US government works, cannot be freely licenced because they are not copyright to begin with. A.Savin has been here long enough that his images are unlikely to be deleted and if there was consensus to force a change of words then I guess he'd do it. It is very important to those of us who make our images freely licensed that people appreciate they are still copyright, and potentially if the licence terms are not obeyed, then the full force of copyright law applies. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Reading Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses will be helpful. Adding FAL also to the second link is appreciated. Jee 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo Motorola.png

To be honest,

This could be the logo for the company, but the website does not appear to use this logo. Feedback is apprecaited. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright or current use (in which even if it was a historical logo it would be in scope) why is this in COM:AN/U? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I dont know. I thought this specific one could be a hoax. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The {{cc-zero}} claim obviously is, but the logo itself looks legit. The color is a bit different from the one at the end of https://newsroom.motorolasolutions.com/video_display.cfm?video_id=15766, but Motorola tends to use a pretty wide variety of color schemes that change frequently. (I used to work at Motorola many moons ago.) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
All of the uploads of Stanotron1600 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  are either blatant copyvios or have fraudulent claims of {{cc-zero}}. I have flagged them as such and warned the user.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Spam by TATTWA GROUPS (talk · contribs)

Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and left them a warning. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Lawofficesofsuesahami

userpage is promotional. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage and left them a warning about advertising at Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

salvo of personal attacks

Me thinks that Kalteneckerpeter (talk · contribs) might need a short break to learn basic civility, as within 4 minutes he 4 times posted the insult "Translate it you stpd cnt!!!" on my talkpage[10] and below my problem-messages on his talkpage[11],[12],[13]. He obviously objects to my permission-missing tagging of several of his uploads, which he is entitled to, of course. As I'm involved I will not admonish/block him by myself. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry bruh -.-" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalteneckerpeter (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Since this happened yesterday and the user in question apologized here, a warning should be sufficient for now. If this behaviour should continue, other measures might be justified. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Scirocco2018

Scirocco2018 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , who is a likely sockpuppet of Aless56 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , keeps uploading copyright violations (non-free logos and photographs) falsely claimed to be screenshots of GPL software. They weren't blocked as a result of the sockpuppet investigation, and they weren't blocked as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Scirocco2018, and they just keep uploading. Why is this allowed to go on? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Should be indef. if it is a proven-sock. Yann (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: @Elcobbola: wrote that they were Likely in Special:Diff/282493570.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hans-Jürgen Neubert

Hans-Jürgen Neubert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think that I have to tolerate xenophobic insults addressed at me ("There he is again, our malicious imported Russian"). Thanks --A.Savin 00:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@A.Savin: No, you don't.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Filip Matušinský.jpg

Second opinion requested. The deletion request (by me) was refused as it is used on WP. The article that is it used on is a self promotional article created by the up-loader about himself. The article has been already been tagged. [14] The image is not educational and does not come within our scope. If it did, I would create an article about myself, as so would many others and say boo to WC and WP policies. --P.g.champion (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the venue for a discussion like this. That being said, the image is in scope per COM:INUSE. The question of autobiography on Cs.wiki is not our business as Commons is a different project from Wikipedia. Address the autobiography and or promotionalism there. We can't delete an image simply because you claim it was used on a promotional article. Is there no procedure for nominating promotional articles for deletion at cs.wiki? Is there no sysop there? Wikicology (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology, P.g.champion, and Srittau: There is such a procedure, I hope I used it correctly at cs:Wikipedie:Diskuse o smazání/Filip Matušinský.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G.. Sadly, I don't contribute to that Wikipedia so I can't evaluate those sources and offer opinion there. Wikicology (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Wikicology: why don't you edit Wikipedia? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Wikicology is active on Wikipedia, but not the Czech language edition.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
If the page gets deleted on cs.wp, you can request deletion again. An article deleted as out of scope is a good indicator that the image is as well. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: you confuse two slightly different things. Wikipedia has “notability”, whereas the scope discourse pertains to Commons. Deletion of an article in Wikipedia implies that one of sufficient conditions for scope is gone. It may signal to resident Wikipedians to attack the image on Commons, but Wikipedia does not dictate boundaries of the scope on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I confuse nothing. Please look up the word "indicator". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Srittau what do you consider as out of scope on Wikipedia? Wikicology (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Obviously non-notable things are out of scope. But I'm not going to continue arguing semantics. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. Images used on non-notable topics on Wikipedia are not automatically out of scope on Commons. COM:INUSE is just one of other criteria for keeping images here. The images could be deleted per COM:INUSE provided it fails other criteria. For example on the English Wikipedia, an article may be kept if it passes WP:ANYBIO despite failing WP:ACADEMICS. Even if the cs.wiki article is deleted, I still believe the image in question is in scope per COM:EDUSE. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". An image depicting a photographer on set is informative, providing knowledge and realistically useful for educational purpose. Wikicology (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Group harassments

"Gang" of locals from a small town refuse to upload a different version for a coats of arms and an flag under a new filename (File:Bandera de Peque.svg, File:Escudo de Peque.svg), despite repeatedly being told to upload it under another filename.

I've just being told in my talk page:

No tienes ni puta idea de la panda de trastornaos con la que te estás jugando los cuartos y 3) a continuación vamos a subir el escudo y la bandera oficial, si sigues tocando los cojones vamos a poner patas arriba todos los artículos de Wikipedia editados por ti. Agradecemos su comprensión. Atentamente, un Pecudo.

Roughly translating to:

You got not fucking idea about the gang of transtorned ones you are dealing with. We are going next to upload the shield and flag, if you keep getting on the way we are going to mess with every Wikipedia entry edited by you. Yours truly. A person from Peque.

--Asqueladd (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueladd, PequePueblo, Fede0184, and FDXDJ: Reverted to the original version. Please upload any new version as a separate file. Accounts warned. If these are potential socks, a check-user request would be useful. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
… and the revert-warring continues.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Protected both. Sealle (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The PequePueblo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  account should be blocked for the meaning of its username alone—inappropriate for a physical person—, and yet more (and immediately) for its “el "chucho de las pelotas" es un lobo, y es nuestro lobo, no tienes ni puta”. A fresh sockacc without contributions anywhere, moreover. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, “si sigues tocando los cojones vamos a poner patas arriba todos los artículos de Wikipedia editados por ti” is an unambiguous threat. Sysops, block the account now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked PequePueblo, and Sealle has protected the files in question. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/FDXDJ. Yann (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Overwrites by Hakuli

Please check the recent map overwrites/changes by this user, nationalistic/biased changes. --Denniss (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Not the first time, was warned before, 1 week block. Yann (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Trademark (2018)

All this user seems to upload are copyvios, plus it makes fraudulent claims of OTRS approval, license review, and OTRS membership, and it removed a delete tag while the DR was ongoing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Nuked & blocked for 1 week. Continued despite given last warning. Tries to fool us by adding a Bollywood watermark to the images and adding OTRS permission as well as license review tags. --Achim (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

220.137.17.149

Remove redirect without any reason. --B dash (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is also Nipponese Dog Calvero, because hinet.net. See Special:Contribs/114.136.0.0/16 and m:Steward requests/Global #Global lock for 影武者(Nipponese Dog Calvero) for background. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
223.136.64.242 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log  – another one. Lawyers that his uploads are not copyvio (and for some images it may be true). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
one more 220.137.17.199 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log --B dash (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:M.m.salamat

Copyright violation after the last warning. Slow 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. This is a copyvio-only user and I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Images from the Turkish army uploaded by Mohamadrsk

Hi, There is something fishy in the images uploaded from Flickr by Mohamadrsk (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). The Flickr account is a propaganda account by the Turkish army, so why do all the images have "This image was originally posted to Flickr by Kurdishstruggle..." These images obviously do not come from Kurd people. There were successful license reviewed, but the license on Flickr is now ARR. Any idea? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkish Army Captured Afrin 04.jpg and User talk:Yann#Wrong lisense too. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the identity of “Kurdishstruggle“, the history of the files I looked at shows that the review template was not added by FlickreviewR 2, but rather included in the original upload. Moreover, in some cases the timestamp on the template predates the upload. It would seem the template was just copied from a previously reviewed file somewhere, sometimes with only the source URL changed to match the image. Misleading at best, deceptive or outright fraudulent at worst.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, this explains it. I am deleting all files. I blocked the account for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Evfimiy

She/he obviously reuploaded a bunch of previously deleted files (mainly copyright violations and questionable down-scaled duplicates) some time ago. This action made me stumble over it. May an admin check and take over? — Mentioning some hundred files in a deletion request smells like real penal labor I would possibly try to avoid at the end. ;-) --Jotzet (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, no recent edit, so no block, but last warning. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandyrandee2 (talk · contribs) is racist

Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 18:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Clint 210 (talk · contribs) is uploading copyvios after warrning

User @Clint 210: has been uploading a large amount of altered photos without citing the original source. This is a continuation of uploading copyvios after previous warnings a year ago per this edit [15]. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month to get the message home, but this contributor is somewhat sporadic. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator rights for User:Sealle

User Sealle has administrator rights on Wikimedia Commons.

He has uploaded

File:Genrikh Yagoda and Ida Averbakh 1922.jpg

which indicates the source of information for this file as Antique shop which tries to sell this image.

According to the description provided people whom the file depicts are Genrikh Yagoda one of the top official in USSR in 1920s and his wife. Consequently User Sealle uploaded the image on the Wikipedia pages linked to these people.

When I indicated in the deletion request that the source indicated does not allow to establish who are these personalities, User Sealle responded that the image has appropriate licenses, which is the deliberate attempt to not answer the question.

In addition, User Sealle tried to arbitrarily delete the images uploaded by myself and personally attack me in the messages threatening to punish me with cutting or restricting the access. The example of his inappropriate actions are

1) my file

(Deletion log); 15:33 . . Sealle (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Lenin funeral photo by Samsonov.jpg ‎(Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing) has been deleted;

2) exactly the same file heavily edited Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg‎; 08:31 . . (+399)‎ . . ‎Armenius vambery (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg) was not deleted while I directly indicated the problem to User Sealle.

Could you please comment on his actions in regards to the image he uploaded and put on the Wikipedia pages and in regards to my contributions deleted and the way this user communicates.

--Armenius vambery (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not quite sure on File:Lenin funeral photo by Samsonov.jpg (Sealle may wish to explain what is wrong on this upload -- who is Samsonov and when has he died), however I don't think it's about abuse of admin rights, as you claim. --A.Savin 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This in fact is not correct. Everyone can compare the time log between 1)the date my files deleted and 2) the date I put the tags for speedy deletion. The tag for speedy deletion (not for normal deletion) was used by me incorrectly, and I am sorry. But it is no excuse for attacking with the threat to cut me the access. My understanding that the Administrator Role on this site is to help the new users but not to discourage them to contribute. Please comment on the File:Genrikh Yagoda and Ida Averbakh 1922.jpg and very specifically on the possibility of verification the day and the time the image was created, and why you think it should be on the Wikipedia. --Armenius vambery (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
To illustrate my point that new users do not want to contribute since the administrators (in my case Sealle) make the contribution close to impossible. The major political figures from 1920s USSR do NOT have any image (!) on English language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia pages of Nikolai Semashko and Yakov Sverdlov. --Armenius vambery (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

3) another example:

(Deletion log); 18:38 User:Sealle) deleted page File:The Dnieper Hydroelectric Station begging of construction.jpg ‎(Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: work of Альперин Семён Владимирович (1897–1948), not PD until 2023)

my contribution was deleted incorrectly: the protection ended in 1998 or 2002 (1948 + 50 or 54) according to RU law dated 1993. It cannot be protected for 74 years since 2004 RU law protected for 70 or 74 years ONLY works which were protected in the date the law came into effect. Source: Template talk:PD-Soviet. Therefore, if the protection ended before 2004 it is not applicable. --Armenius vambery (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know what is the decision regarding the Administrator rights of User:Sealle who continue intentionally delete other people contribution without able to explain or provide the explanation something like "Wikimedia policy"? I have enough evidence to submit. Also could someone check whether User:Sealle and User:Ymblanter are in fact the same user who "support" each other in discussions? Look at the sentence structure in English.--Armenius vambery (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is fucking bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The real people behind accounts Ymblanter and Sealle are known. They are not the same user with no doubt. Alex Spade (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No administrator action required. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

proposed solution for images originated in USSR intended for use on the Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia

Dear Administrators,

Please clarify the following situation:

1) fact: creators of images originated in the former USSR has the same legal protection in all countries which became independent after USSR official dissolution in 1991. The issue is specified in the Circular 38a from the U.S. Copyright Office. It was discussed in details: Template talk:PD-Soviet. 2) intention: to use the image originated in the former USSR published before January 1, 1951 with known author who died before that date. The intention to use only on the Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia. Therefore, the requirement for the image to be in PD in Ukraine/US. 3) can the template {{PD-Ukraine}} be used with the following mandatory clarification: this file is for the use on the English and Ukrainian versions of Wikipedia, the copyright status in other jurisdictions (e.g. Russian Federation) is not known. Please use this image on Ukrainian and English versions of Wikipedia.

Why important? If solved, it would greatly simplify the access to the important historical images originated in USSR from 1920s and 1930s.

Thanks for clarification. --Armenius vambery (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, wrong venue. Sealle (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me what to do about "recidivists"

As far as I am concerned "玄史生" is a recidivist vandal. Because he often removes categories added by me, and he doesn't give reasons in the edit summary to explain his edits. He has more than once removed or to change my edits directly, as he has been several times in the past to do the same edit. I discussed with him, but his answer is very special, he said: This photo was taken by him. Now, he still does that. Look at [16]、[17]. I have warned him on his talk page(See: [18]). But I'm worried that he will do it again. For more details, I written "here".

@Kai3952: edit warring is not vandalism. Maybe Chinese Wikipedia and its editors denote many or all kinds of disruption by one same word, but we (Western world + some other parts of Europe) clearly distinguish vandalism from editing against guidelines and/or consensus. Please, read w:Wikipedia:NOTVAND carefully before speaking of “vandalism” next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I understand what you say, but the problem is not here. What I care about is:
For the above two points, "玄史生" is always the one who made me feel headache. I have to consider his problem before editing, otherwise my edits will be removed by him.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: use image notes to indicate non-immediately-obvious things which you see on image(s). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: The problem is not that I did not use image notes. Because he always has many reasons to oppose my edits. As has happened many times in the past, you can see what I wrote(See: [19]) about he has more than once removed or to change my edits directly. Therefore, I cannot solve every question he raises. His behavior makes me feel "harassed". For example, why can't I add Category:2013 photographs of Tainan, his opinion is that the photo has been added "Category:2013 Tainan Air Force Base Open Day". So do you think that I add Category:2013 photographs of Tainan is "over-categorization"?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Are you an administrator?--Kai3952 (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I request an administrator to come forward and solve this "dispute".--Kai3952 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I need someone to tell me what to do because using image notes is not an effective solution to this dispute.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_68&oldid=295798935"