Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72

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

User:Patrick Rogel

Look at this complaint. And to that one from May. It seems that certain correction of attitude is warranted.

Revision of File:Օլեգ_Հայկազի_Դուլգարյան.jpg (Facebook images, missing permission) – why namely Facebook? Why doesn’t this 640 × 640 image originate from anywhere else?

Revision of File:Makarov_A.S.jpg (File has no source) – what? The uploader specified the source. Is Patrick able to read arguments to the {{Information}} template? Patrick, pouvez-vous lire des arguments dans le modèle {{Information}}?

Revision of File:Flag_of_the_African_Union_(free).png (Marking as possible copyvio because unrecognizable). Should all Commons images be recognizable by users specialized in image tagging? IMHO not necessarily so.

Relief sought:
Doing speedy deletion and “no … since…” tagging, Patrick should be disallowed from:

  1. making copyvio allegations (including speculations like “Facebook images”) without corroboration;
  2. using {{Nsd}} in any situation where the File: page contains a source specification understandable by a reasonable Commoner;
  3. using {{Npd}} in any situation where the source is specified as {{Own}}.

A clarification for the point 3.: if the {{own}} declaration is arguably forged, then the file should be nominated for deletion, not tagged with {{npd}}. IMHO this deterrence should exist in software consumed by all heavy script users. Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

About your first example: The EXIF data contains a "special instructions" field starting with "FBMD". This gets added when an image is uploaded to Facebook. Although the file in question is not missing permission, but should be tagged with {{Copyvio}}, where the reasoning can be stated in the template. Agree on all the other points. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: As an admin doing deletions, I do not look through the file history (except if there is a specific reason to), therefore change comments generally aren't useful to me. Use {{Copyvio}} or {{Speedy}} if the reason is not obvious. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: could you modify your wording about the first "complaint" please ? After Masur's message the template has been corrected from this to this and the file finally deleted by an Administrator. Agree on the two other examples, the one from May and the one from September 7th. Could you too modify your terms "copyvio allegations" and "speculations" which are, ironically, allegations and speculations from your side since it seems files with Face Book Meta Data number are widely seen by patrollers as files needing {{Npd}} speedy deletion tags and deleted by Administrators. Would you rather find examples where I've tagged “Facebook images” and where files have NOT been deleted by Administrators ? Thanks for your reply, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t care about finding examples of something “NOT been deleted by Administrators” because there are many people eager to push the [delete] button. Again, if a file is declared as {{own}}, this declaration is disputed, but no positive (i. e. explicit) indication of copyvio exists, then a regular deletion request should be submitted. The purpose of {{Npd}} is not contesting the source declaration, it is contesting the alleged license. The "FBMD" thingies may direct Commons users into starting deletion requests, but they alone are not a valid pretext for “automatic” deletion by one-week timeout, especially if the uploader has no history of copyvio. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disagree with you, @Incnis Mrsi: , but this report to the Administrators is biased:
  • I've already asked you to modify the first "complaint" since my mistake of May has been corrected (you talk yourself about "certain correction of attitude") without having to wait for your blessing ;
  • the second "complaint" is your own : @Srittau: let me a message at 09:57 this morning and, like a trigger-happy, you post this request at 10:53 without letting me the time to read his link or to reply (since 2007 you've never let me a message so I'm quite surprised by this report to the Administrators without any warning);
  • your Revision of File:Makarov_A.S.jpg from today is outdated since file has already been deleted by an Administrator (and the others examples Revision of File:Օլեգ_Հայկազի_Դուլգարյան.jpg and Revision of File:Flag_of_the_African_Union_(free).png will follow soon).
So it makes 2 remaining mistakes in a 4-months timeframe...
The only thing I can reply is to Srittau : I've read his link and that I promise to apply them [the deletion templates correctly], as @Jeff G.: said.
In short, Incnis Mrsi, since you dossier on me is getting thiner and thiner you should care of finding examples of something “NOT been deleted by Administrators” because I won't reply to you anymore unless you can prove my behiavor is disruptive for Commons. By the way you should rather complain directly about the "many people [Administrators] eager to push the [delete] button" instead of me, as you used to do recently. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The timing of this edit and my edit in now deleted File:Makarov_A.S.jpg shows that my report about Patrick was underway when Srittau posted at user_talk:Patrick_Rogel about a thing not mentioned by me at all. By the way, Makarov_A.S.jpg is deleted as explicit copyvio – tagging it with {{nsd}} was nonsensical and this practice, again, should cease. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Note to the Administrators : you'll find in bold a sentence that has been deleted by Incnis Mrsi without my permission. @Incnis Mrsi: don't do that again. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to check [show changes] after Revision of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I deleted speedily all contributions of Husik Martirosyan (talk · contribs) as copyvios from Facebook. Taivo (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If so many people (namely Patrick_Rogel, Sebari/Srittau, Taivo) deem that the "FBMD" thing in a JPEG overrides source={{own}} and is a sufficient condition for copyvio speedy deletion, then why is Commons:FBMD a red link? A random Commons sysop is not expected to be aware of all undocumented thingies developed by copyvio detection specialists, nor should I try to mind-read Patrick Rogel from his cryptic edit summaries. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Any file previously published elsewhere needs a formal written permission, and FBMD is a proof that the file was previously published on Facebook. So tagging these files is clearly OK, as the author is uncertain and Facebook license policy is not compatible with a free license. There may be tagged either with {{Copyvio}} or {{Npd}} depending on the chance that a permission may be forthcoming. The only exception are selfies, as it is clear who is the photographer. Commons:FBMD is waiting for a volunteer (you? ;oD ). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Incnis Mrsi in this case. As a cursory glance at Patrick Rogel's usertalk page reveals, he has "a quick trigger finger" and is "not fully investigating or looking into the images (he is) tagging for deletion". AshFriday (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You're perfectly right, @AshFriday: before Winkelvi's message I'd already undone my DR (is 45 minutes after having creating it fast enough at your taste ?), so no harm (file hasn't been deleted) and no waste of time (no Administrator as been disturbed). Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Hadoumi

They keep overwriting File:SM. Boualam.Elkassar Beni Mellal MOROCCO.jpg without engaging in discussion. They have also overwritten several other files (all of which have been reverted to the original versions as of now). Please note that I have not just templated them, but have written a personal message and have explained to them that they should upload their photos under a different name and have even directed them to the Arabic and French translations of the policy page (Special:Diff/315596563/319822420). Unfortunately, they did not listen. Now I think further action is warranted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted by Guanaco. I warned this user. Another overwrite should lead to a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've protected the file for a month and deleted the improperly uploaded revisions. They can upload this as a different file, or not at all. If they overwrite any more files or resume with this one after a month, I agree a block is the next step. Guanaco (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted the rest of the improper overwrites and upload-protected the affected files for a month. Guanaco (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Typhoon2013

Typhoon2013 create categories with inappropriate name. The user created category with RSMC names, but at that time he creates, the RSMC haven't named yet. Some user has already noticed him 1, 2, 3, File description, 4, rename file, but he is still doing. --158.182.178.54 02:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Could you please agree to follow advice from other users regarding premature use of storm names? We don't have the same strict policies about original research and speculation that many Wikipedias do, but we still very much strive for factual accuracy in file naming and categorization. You don't have to always be the first person to update content related to tropical cyclones; there's enough real work in that area for everyone. Given how many times users have warned you about your behavior as it related to the above complaint, I believe any further offenses will require a block. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Has this ever caused any problems except for people being annoyed? Has there been a case where the category was created only to find out later that a different name was chosen? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: not category but file name, please see File:Roke Geostationary VIS-IR 2017.png and File:Sonca Geostationary VIS-IR 2017.png. --B dash (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I do see some things which are a little strange (for example rewriting files with new versions, where it would be best to keep all those versions). But for the most part the person in question monitors changes of the names of the cyclones and requests file moves without somebody else having to do that work. Perhaps some of the file moves are a bit early, but it's nothing horrible. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 17:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mukti rathore

User keeps uploading none free materials with an spam link on it. Father of Lies (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef., not here to contribute positively. Yann (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thanks Father of Lies (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion Request Problems

Hi Colin, I have read a part of the discussion above, after my UDR was not replied for several days. I wished to resolve an undeletion of a file which I had uploaded.
My reply in the UDR was erased, and I applied it here. A week passed since my UDR, I got no reply, and today my comment was erased. I even did not get a reply about my words about an admin from the Hebrew Wikipedia, which told me to rewrite a new article instead of a deleted article, and same thing could be here – uploading the new version of "Not_Half_A_Human_2018.webm" file. All I had was an archiving of my application within 16 minutes. Who was prompt to archive my application, could be prompt in moving my application to the right place, tagging proper users, telling me to upload a new version of the file, or even undeleting the file. Here I clarify that the un-erasure of my words in the UDR was done by another admin – Ezarate. Dgw (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here? Do you suggest that it's my fault that User:Jorge.benoco made a mess of the UDR page? Or that it's my fault that UDR requests are not being handled within a minute? Jcb (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The reply is here. Geagea or anyone else could be tagged a week ago. My language is fine, and I did not find any barrier. Dgw (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dorian Gray Wild: If you do understand what you are doing, stop disrupting our noticeboards immediately. We have been busy with you for the past month, causing unnecessary workload, just because you are not prepared to wait for your turn patiently. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to disagree.
I requested in my talk page to undelete the file, and was sent to UDR instead. Another admin was requested three times in his talk page to rename files, and did it.
My applications were deleting a short file which was uploaded unintentionally from a file converting, and this file ("Not_Half_A_Human_2018.webm") which was found "non-free" by Commons. I corrected the file, and instead of tagging whoever had to be tagged, undeleting it or guiding me to upload a new version, I was blamed here.
As I was blamed of "disrupting our noticeboards", I do not intend to add. Dgw (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Garam

Disruptive editing. Please see this edit and the discussion leading to it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate: I told him to create edit request on AN when he opens a DR[1]: I expected him to provide detailed rationale for his new DR, but that one (the AN thread) is bit of meh. — regards, Revi 12:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ↑ Translation of my comment on my talkpage: Opening new DR does not require editing the file page, so open a new DR (you may need to ask admin to put DR templates on file page if the file is still protected) unless DR subpage is also protected. -- User talk:-revi/Archive/2018#라이선스 리뷰

File:Not_Half_A_Human_2018.webm

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

Hello, a week ago I made this application, and there was no reply. One comment was quite wrong, and I clarified it. Then it has gone.
I also wrote to two OTRS volunteers, who knew Hebrew.
I could upload a new version of the file, but preferred the way of undeleting the file. In another situation, I was told in the Hebrew Wikipedia by its admin to make a new article instead of a deleted article.
Here I repeat and clarify again: The new version of the file is not identical to its former version, as well as "Windows Vista" is not identical to "Windows 7", in spite of it looks similar. The new file is also looks similar with its beginning and end, but its content is revised as it was discussed.
Here I write the Jewish holidays:
Rosh Hashana: 9–11 September 2018
Day of atonement: 18–19 September 2018
Feast of Tabernacles: 23 September 2018 – 1 October 2018. Dgw (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The request is where it belongs: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Not_Half_A_Human_2018.webm. Starting topics in unrelated noticeboards is not helpful. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Mferenac

40+ copyright violations in 5 days. Already warned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good. The user started the wiki career on en.Wikipedia with uploads of blatant copyvio. Now s/he moved to Commons with uploads of surreptitious copyvio. I suspected Mferenac of stealing images from such paywalled sites as www.starsportphoto.com but—you understand—evidence is elusive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted all his/her uploads as copyright violations (not speedily, they were nominated for deletion 7 days ago). Taivo (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sharecodepoint's advertising

Hi,

Sharecodepoint is using User:Sharecodepoint as a fake encyclopedic article to promote "himself". COM:USERPAGE, COM:NOT#Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. and COM:ADVERT are not respect. Can someone handle the problem, please?

Best regards,
  --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted the user page, notified them of why, and I blocked the username indefinitely, with account creation allowed/autoblock disabled. They've uploaded some images which may be in scope, but the promotional username and page are of course not allowed. Guanaco (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

User Bmunir.pak

Everything by Bmunir.pak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) got deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Artwork by Halin de Repentigny on September 6. Then the user just re-uploaded at least three of them on September 14–15. File:Unnamed (1)565.png, File:Papier Mache Mammoth by Halin de Repentigny.png, File:"Canal Sans Fin".png Do they need to be reminded, blocked or other? Far as I can tell they are 100% uncommunicative here or at ENWP. Bri (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see jmabel already took care of this. Bri (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Diseynous / Ben.chazal

Those two users are active around the singer Rekman Seller, posting non free medias about him. Recently, Diseynous has removed twice the permission template on File:Rekman_Seller.png, not taking into account the messages left to him, both on Commons and Wikipedia.

Some help would be appreciated. Thanks, Trizek from FR 07:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked Ben.chazal for a week for uploading copyright violations after a final warning, and Diseynous indefinitely for sockpuppetry. All copyvios deleted. A formal check user request might be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. I'm adding ETRGRNUIS (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to the list. Trizek from FR 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
And Ertyik (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Trizek and Patrick Rogel: Could you please create a check user request? Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yann, there is an ongoing RCU on fr.wp. Would that be enough? Trizek from FR 11:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Trizek: Yes, fine. Link? Yann (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
It is ongoing as I said. No results yet. Trizek from FR 11:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Request help with dispute

I have tried to reason with user Panam2014 over Parliament of Turkey 2018 Current.svg. My position is that the diagram should use the traditional left to right spectrum as all diagrams of all European and Asian parliaments do and as it was actually the original author's intent. All my efforst to reason with him have failed. He lost his temper with me, left me some very agressive edits on my talk page, I have make my best to be polite and to argue with him, but he says that he owns the file because he update it and that no one is allowed to change it without his permision unless a new change in the seating happens and then a new editor "wins" in time by udpating the file. I have no idea why he thinks that or were he took the idea that's a policy but my efforst to try to explain to him that's not the case also failed. I'm open to suggestion, I havn't respond to his rudeness in anyway.

My argument for the change is that if not it is confusing and some people may even find it offensive. He argues that "right-left spectrum doesn't exist in Turkey" which I requested him to give me reliable sources that confirm that cuz I never heard such a thing and I'm skeptical. I'm not saying that I'm not part of the problem nor I want to blame all on him, I probably have part of the responsability for the discussion, I don't want to start an edit war, I really would like to see feedback from admins and other editors. I welcomed the invitation he did to user Aleat on the talk page and I really would like to see his input on this. I might be wrong about it but the way how Panam acted doesn't seem right to me and how he claims ownership of the file I think si something that has to be cleared to him even if the change I proposed is not made. In any case thanks for the mediation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: the original author is a socketpuppet and he have been blocked in en.wiki. So, we couldn't taking account his opinion. And he have been aggresive in my own talk page. He wowed to edit the file without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not the owner but there are no consensus to edit the file. So, I am the first author of the version with the most recent repartition of seats so he should reach a consensus before editing the file. If he want to use the right-left spectrum he should be the first to update it. Try again in the next months. There are no consensus to change. But my change was needed to upload the file. If the seats repartition change again and he have the chance to upload the file before me, he could upload it with the spectrum. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I see you still edit the pages after you push "publish changes" causing edit conflicts.
"the original author is a socketpuppet and he have been blocked in en.wiki. So, we couldn't taking account his opinion." Fine, but you still don't have ownership over the file just because you updated as you claimed several times.
" And he have been aggresive in my own talk page. He wowed to edit the file without consensus." I do not feel my intervention was agressive but admins woul be the judges of that, and yes I do not think consensus is needed for that particular changes which is standard.
" Try again in the next months. There are no consensus to change. But my change was needed to upload the file. If the seats repartition change again and he have the chance to upload the file before me, he could upload it with the spectrum." there's no such policy in Commons, man, how hard it is for you to get that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, I have never claimed having ownership. But you have not any ownership over the file. Please read CONSENSUS read. All editor have the right to update the file. And when he update it, he is free to using or not the right left spectrum. And reuploading an outdated version to a file called current is a form of vandalism. But now, there are no consensus to change the file after the uploading so you must discuss now. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
"All editor have the right to update the file. And when he update it, he is free to using or not the right left spectrum." There's absolutly no policy in Commons that says that the right-left spectrum can only be aplied when updating a file.
"nd reuploading an outdated version to a file called current is a form of vandalism." I have no intention to upload an old version. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the spectrum. I say that this is a version with or without the spectrum, is not outdated, it is not a reason to change the file without consensus.--Panam2014 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted to an old version of the file and protected it for a month. This edit warring is unacceptable, and the next step is a block. If you can't come to an agreement about the best version, upload your preferred images as separate files. Guanaco (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: the problem is the file is called current and you have uploaded an outdated version. The file that you have uploaded this version is not current. It is the party's repartition in July 2018. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And the version was not stable. Dereck Camacho have upload an consensual version 40 days after the last upload and he have been reverted after 10 days. The real stable version is the July's version. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
On my behalf I apologize for any inconvenient and will comply with what the admin suggested. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Panthera pardus panthera.jpg: possible copyright violation

Uploader declared "own work", but the image can be found here:

https://foodyoune.skyrock.com/262619090-la-panthere-de-l-atlas.html

--Jkbw (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, final warning. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry and Copyrights by Максим Огородник

Accounts of Максим Огородник (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Obsuser

User is uploading 90 % senseless images out of scope, which have to be deleted (see here for an example. --j.budissin+/- 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Obsuser. --j.budissin+/- 18:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done User warned. Was already blocked last year for uploading copyvios and reuploaded images deleted before. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:13zmz13

User is edit warring in File:Gal Gadot in 2018.jpg. User repeatedly deletes the copyvio and delete templates. --Miaow 19:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, copyright violation deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Three day block now after re-uploading the photo in question. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Request

Can someone kindly show this fellow the door? GMGtalk 17:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. @JuTa: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Meggy124

User working for the subject of the article (deleted as pt:Nuno Gracias Fernandes so COM:OOS) uploads and reuploads since 3 weeks copyrighted pictures despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Three day block for now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Fadel M Irfan

Every single upload is copyvio. Reuploads already deleted files. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning by User:EugeneZelenko. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User Jena Fi

User is reverting deletion nominations and stating "yes I DO have Permission !!". Images: File:1 ANTHONY Field Ahn do.jpg, File:WIGGLES 2017.jpg, File:Anthony Field 2011.jpg. // sikander { talk } 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Seems to have stopped for now and I have left an explanation on her talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Satoshi_Kondo vs two users

These users disagree over geographical distribution of languages – examples with Bookworm8899… and Irish1028. Satoshi Kondo mostly wages upload wars against the other two. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Typhoon2013

Typhoon2013 still use the RSMC storm name as the image title before it was being named. See File:Trami Geostationary VIS-IR 2018.png (The file was created at 10:55 UTC, Sept 21, but the storm was being named at 13:10 UTC). As administrator Juliancolton said at the previous report: any further offenses will require a block. --223.197.139.21 06:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I fail to understand the problem. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 72#User:Typhoon2013 for more information. --B dash (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
May be @Juliancolton: can handle this case better. --B dash (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Other uninvolved users and admins seem to believe this isn't a real problem, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take any action. The biggest issue is the lack of communication and cooperation from Typhoon2013, so that still needs to be addressed, but I suppose the premature/speculative file naming will have to be tolerated until there is evidence of serious resulting damage. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I eat bananas 101

I agree with the following: "I eat bananas is either trying to harm Commons or a complete idiot. That's not a flame or an opinion but a verifiable fact. He requested a bot permit despite not knowing any programming language, screwed with the MOTD, nominated Wikipe-tan for deletion, imports files from enwiki with improper license information (including one of a toy car, the very thing he knows can't survive on Commons), copy pastes Guanaco without attribution, doling out barn stars like candy and their very very worst crime of all: nominating me for admin. ... This is TheMillStone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)" per these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously like a troll account. I put up a vandalism warning, but would support an indefinite ban if this behaviour continues. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: their last act was the installation of Wikibreak enforcer. So if the vandalism doesn't continue right away you know why. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked I eat bananas for a year. It seems to me, that (s)he is not an idiot (I would block an idiot forever), but very young and does not understand well, what (s)he is actually doing. At moment, his/her overall activity harms Commons, but maybe (s)he becomes more mature during a year and can make useful edits. The wikibreak enforcer lasts only one month, but (s)he will not become enough clever during single month; more time is needed for that. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Hans-Jürgen Neubert

In this edit, Hans-Jürgen Neubert is openly alleging me a criminal offence and threating with legal actions. The couple of categories he is refering to, were deleted in accordance with Commons policy, as they had no content such as parental categories (so-called orphaned categories). Srittau can confirm it very well. But this is absolutely not the point here. No matter what I did and if it was good or bad; the allegation of a real criminal offence as well as legal threats, especially using my complete real name, is a severe insult and deserves a long-term block. Hans-Jürgen Neubert had already been blocked 1 week for a xenophobic remark, he was several times requested on his talk page to respect COM:Categories when editing in existing categories or creating new ones, he had been short-time blocked for violating it again and again. I really see no willingness by this user to cooperate in any constructive way. Please do not forget that Commons is an international project based on cooperation between users from various countries and cultures, and a user with xenophobic views is obviously wrong here. All in all, an indef block seems more than appropriate. Thanks --A.Savin 13:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • What´s your matter with legal clearment? You can explain why You sniff my business IP and take it for non-sequitur, like named a nationality as xenophobic. I have talked with Srittau (for 2 weeks), there was never a empty Category, just another lie. He suggested that you displacement. You added by yourself the full name (I work since i´m her with clearname) and lawyers take post code for postal adress. Wikipedia is not a gangland area. You know it since many weeks. Mobbing as crime, digital, too - needs distance. I do it since 2017 - Again, stop hovering! Thanks, --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 17:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Real name isn't a problem, since it's already on your userpage; you need to delete that userpage (or remove the name and revdelete it) if you're concerned about people using that real name.
  • Criminal offense: Hans-Jürgen, are you suggesting that A. Savin is in Scotland? Judging by en:mobbing, this is a legal offense only in Scotland. This seems rather non-sequitur.
  • General perspective: you're making unsubstantiated accusations of illegal behavior (and per previous bullet, impossible accusations if I understand rightly), and here again making the same accusations, plus a completely unsubstantiated claim of en:packet sniffing. There's no way that this kind of accusation belongs here without any evidence: an admin reviewing this activity must clamp down hard.
  • Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Themightyquill

I'm not a fan of dragging people to this notice boards but could someone please slap Themightyquill with a trout over Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Photographs by Jeroen van Lelieveld. An admin shouldn't close their own DR's, even if they are open for a long time. Especially if there is no consensus for their decision. This is a clear abuse of admin tools. Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I restored the 3 categories, and reopened the discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree admins should generally refrain from closing their own DRs. If an admin opens a DR and the file/page/category fairly clearly violates some policy and there is no opposition (or even some support) after a long time, I could possibly let it slide if the same admin closes that DR. However, that was not the case here. As for the actual issue, I'm not sure. I sometimes too create categories for a single photo. Usually because there is some structure like "photos from (source) - photos from (source) by (photographer)". To keep things consistent, I prefer to create a category with a single photo rather than move all those to "photos from (source)". Those categories aren't hurting anyone either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, I restored the images in the 3 categories and added a recent image to one of those. Elly (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I've closed the DR as an uninvolved admin. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Given this and this comment we might have to hold a de-admin procedure. Admins that close their own DR and stand by that action , even after being corrected by a fellow admin are problematic. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll be gobsmacked if that works. No de-admin was allowed to be started for Jcb and what has happened here is peanuts compared to that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Natuur12: As an administrator, perhaps you can help reduce the CfD backlog to help avoid situations like this. The current backlog is 58 months, meaning that an admin that starts a CfD can expect to wait as long as five years before it is closed - and doubly so for Themightyquill because they and I are the only two admins currently active in closing old CfDs. I also feel that Themightyquill asking Yann to participate in the discussion, pointing out that it had sat untouched for a year, was completely reasonable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have little motivation to participate as much as I used to in DR's as long as this kind of abuse is tolerated. Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
There's an underlying problem: The reason for the CfD backlog is in most cases not a lack of acting admins (though admins' action is not required there). In most cases it is a lack of consensus, which is required here, or even a lack of interest. Thus the CfD mechanism doesn't work as intended: A discussion is worth nothing as soon as anyone says "No". So we could bulk close most CfD requests regardless of the arguments of the discussions per "User x opposes, declined, lack of consensus". So the whole CfD procedure goes ad absurdum. Maybe some day we can celebrate this way the 20-year anniversary of an open CfD request. --Achim (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Achim55. I agree but it's not just quantity but quality of involvement. While the backlog of CfD cases is a problem, I'm not sure stalemate discussions are necessarily a problem. If there are two strong arguments on either side, I tend to leave the discussion open (hoping someone will come up with a better solution in the future) rather than closing as no consensus. If, however, someone puts foward a strong argument for one action, and others respond with, essentially, "But I like it the way it is!" or even worse, argument-less comments that amount to a vote in what's meant to be a discussion, I have trouble accepting that as some kind of veto over action. Finally, let's all remember that these are, at least in some ways, different than deletion nominations for an image or a wikipedia article -- If it becomes necessary/justified in the future, any user (admin or not) can easily recreate a deleted category in less time than it takes me to manually close a CfD, especially if there's only one image in the category. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:K.e.coffman

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


K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) is campaigning to remove colorized versions of Nazi-era images. He believes that colorized Bundesarchiv photos are "Nazi fancruft", and calls the uploader (Ruffneck88) a neo-Nazi without any evidence in the nominations, other than the number "88" in his username, which also could be his year of birth.

Examples of deletion requests:

Taivo (talk · contribs) closed some of the similar requests because the colorized versions were used in several projects. K.e.coffman pressured the admin to back off with "You are not sure if you should be deleting unused Nazi fancruft? This is an interesting position..." and "Perhaps you should let others close such discussions."[1]

After the closures, K.e.coffman removed the colorized versions of von Leeb from several Wikipedias, including the Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Dutch, Portuguese and Chinese Wikipedias (see global contributions). Now he wants the the images deleted because they are not used anymore. This is clearly a manipulation of the deletion process. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Well I'd certainly like to know if this is similar to this, because if we're deleting colorized images of WWII tanks because they're supposed to be out-of-scope, then we're wrong. For that matter, if someone is willing to take the time to colorize historic photos (and does a decent job at it), then we should probably be retaining them period, as we would well-done colorized versions of presumably any historic photograph. If we're removing used photographs en masse for the sole purpose of having them deleted, well that's damn near vandalism. GMGtalk 12:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • The picture you are talking about was just a Tiger tank moving next to some bushes, so yes it was similar. And it's not the first time K.e.coffman has interfered in projects to help his deletion requests in Commons. In May 2017 he nominated a colorized Adolf Hitler picture for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-048-29A, Adolf Hitler-colorized.jpg. In the discussion, it was pointed out that the picture is used in some projects including no.wikipedia.org. Before the request was closed, K.e.coffman went to remove the picture from the Norwegian WP (see his no-wiki contribs) on May 15, even reverting one Norwegian editor in the process. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, this does seem to be a bit of a crusade going back at least 18 months or so, at times removing images that had remained on various projects for multiple years, and most recently a tidy little polemic on their user page on en.wiki. I couldn't tell you how many of these have already been kept after landslide DRs, but I'd like to know if there's a way to find how many of these have been deleted as out-of-scope after being removed from active use across projects, since obviously that's a pretty good indication they're well within scope, since they're being used, and only removed in a COM:POINTY effort to have files they personally dislike deleted. Will likely have to take a batch of them to COM:UNDEL, but I don't know how to track how many are affected without going through daggum three dozen projects worth of contributions. Is there any way to track centralized past usage of a file? GMGtalk 14:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I closed 2 DRs. Not my cup of tea, but if someone finds it useful... One could request undeletion of the 2 remaining files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yann, is there a DR search tool for Commons similar to http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ ? GMGtalk 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
An authentic portrayal? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Some clarifications:
  1. the deletion reason that I alluded to in my nomination (No educational value to the project) is COM:EDUSE. The image adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of BW images we already hold covering the same subject.
  2. Can we really be certain that Leeb looked so rosy in real life?
  3. An admin closing a discussion noted that such images cannot be considered to be out of scope if they are used in other projects. I disagree (see below), but to accommodate the objection I replaced (not removed) the image in good faith.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman is completely right. Such faked images are inacceptable. I will not insinuate Nazi fancruft - but definetly not lack of historical awareness. As a historian I must say, this is just a catastrophy, if we keep such histrorical fakes. So not K.e.coffman is our problem. And I really have a big problem with the descissions made by @Yann: . Not only the decline of correct deletion requests, there are also resorations of Fakes!!!!! Inacceptable! Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Ruffneck88

Here are the sample images in question, including the SS and Nazi Party leaders, along with various forms of Nazi iconography:

  • "Heydrich in colour".
    "Heydrich in colour".
  • Himmler, too.
    Himmler, too.
  • SS parade
    SS parade
  • Göbbels
    Göbbels
  • More Nazi fancruft
    More Nazi fancruft

A more disturbing selection. Who would want to colourise / glamourise depictions of atrocities, victims, and the war dead?

  • [No caption]
    [No caption]
  • "toter britischer Soldat Recolored"
    "toter britischer Soldat Recolored"
  • The Jews of Mogilev
    The Jews of Mogilev
  • From the Stroop Report
    From the Stroop Report
  • From the same report. Such nice uniforms!
    From the same report. Such nice uniforms!

I find these uploads problematic for several reasons:

  1. The images are out of scope, as Wikipedia already holds the exact same (minus the colourising), authentic images provided by Germany’s Federal Archives.
  2. The colourising is done by an amateur, with no apparent qualifications. We cannot be certain that this is an accurate portrayal. Using such images amounts to falsification of history.
  3. 100% of the user’s uploads are dealing with Nazi Germany. Ruffneck88 also added images to categories such as “Nazi armbands” [2], “Skulls and crossbones symbols of Nazi Germany” [3], and others. This shows a preoccupation with “Nazi fancruft.”
  4. For someone who exclusively deals with the subject of Nazi Germany and is concerned that images (not) relating to Nazi armbands are “correctly” classified not to be aware of the symbolism surrounding “88” is odd. Hence my conclusion that Wikimedia commons is being inappropriately used as a web host for someone's private hobby and potential advocacy.
  5. On at least one occasion, it was shown that Ruffneck88 stole somebody else’s image and uploaded it as his own. See:
I would like to hear from Ruffneck88 if there are other images that may have been misappropriated in this way.

Lastly, I’m not alone with having these concerns. Here’s a deletion discussion where the images were described “fake”:

I welcome further discussion of this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding K.e.coffman. There's a few things to unpack here:
  1. The scope of commons is pretty daggum broad compared to en.wiki. As I pointed out in one of the DRs, we would normally keep a version of the same B&W even if it were just a different file type. We also fairly regularly keep comparatively minor crops of the same image. So it's not clear that the existence of the original version is really a crisis from the standpoint of Commons.
  2. If there are historical inaccuracies in the colorization, we can deal with that. In fact, we could use your expertise in the area to help us identify and fix any existing issues. We do this kind of thing all the time with regard to maps.
  3. Although it's a bit up in the air legally with regard to colorization of a single photo, it's certainly possible that the courts would eventually rule definitively that these are protected by copyright, and so holding a freely licensed image to a colorization is valuable from the perspective of a media repository.
  4. Also from the perspective of a media repository, among scores of millions of files, who the uploader is isn't terribly relevant. We have to treat these the same as if there was just someone who colorized old photos, and some of the photos they colorized happened to be related to Nazi Germany. From the perspective of being a source for free media for Wikimedia projects and for the general public, the effect is the same. We either have the resources or we don't, and the uploader is immaterial.
Besides that, in a more meta perspective, removing used files for the purpose of deletion on Commons, especially files that have been used to many years, and especially reverting editors on a project where you don't necessarily speak the language well enough to have a nuanced discussion on the matter, is pretty cross-wiki disruptive. Please don't do that anymore.
Other than that, as you point out, if the images are non-free, then please nominate them for deletion. I don't think you're going to find anyone here who is going to do anything other than thank you for doing so. GMGtalk 23:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Many images on Commons have near-duplicates that differ in minor ways. That alone doesn't mean they're not educationally useful. Regarding point 2: "falsification of history" could apply to any colorized image, since there's no way for any retoucher (amateur or otherwise) to know exactly what the scene looked like at the time the photo was taken. Besides, the accuracy of the colorizations is a moot point as far as Commons is concerned, per COM:NPOV. The solution there is to put {{Retouched picture}} and a link to the original on the modified image and let the Wikipedias and other reusers decide which they want to use. clpo13(talk) 00:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Another authentic portrayal? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: “We can deal with that” – what is the plan to “identify and fix any existing issues”? Are users here experts on Leeb specifically or the Nazi era in general? On to the substance of the matter: The majority of the uploads by Ruffneck88 are COM:NOTUSED. “A media file which is neither:

  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above”.

I contend that the educational value of such images is actually negative, presenting someone’s personal interpretation as “historical truth”. As I mentioned, the best way to describe these images is “fake”; they have no (legitimate) place in articles on historical subjects.

When used, it’s possibly being done out of ignorance. From a personal perspective, when I first encountered such an image sample article, I had assumed that it was the original. I thought “the Nazis were so advanced, of course their official portraits were in colour” :). These images could also be used a subtle form of advocacy; as in: Look at those fabulous uniforms! Etc. (see samples above)

That Wikimedia Commons is being used as a depository for ahistorical images is inappropriate. Separately, Ruffneck88 was shown on at least one occasion to have uploaded a stolen image. AGF only goes this far. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"The uploader seems to have a case of Wehrmacht & Waffen-SS hero worship"

Such accusations are not appropriate on any wiki project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman may have a point. Colorization is not a problem in itself, but using these images to promote Nazi ideology is a problem. As well as using them to paint Nazi people as rosy characters and WW2 attrocities in good light is not OK. So this needs more careful evaluation. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Yann: a colorised version of a B&W photo has EDUSE and might be used. Wikimedia Commons should be a depository for historical images because of it's COM:SCOPE. Nazi propaganda (or any other propaganda) has nothing to do with it. So please do not nominate for deletion files on these basis. Ruthven (msg) 06:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's evidence of actually using these image to promote Nazi ideology, though. It seems like not adhering to assuming good faith if pretty much anyone uploading Nazi Germany files would be presumed to be a neo-Nazi just because the files could potentially be used to promote Nazism. That's not to say all colorized versions are useful, but deleting them like this is just wrong. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: some are done better than others. In the case of File:FeldmarschallVonLeeb.jpg something really went wrong. I don't believe these images make Nazis look like rosy characters. The Feldmarschall actually looks like he's suffering from some kind of skin disease. People have all kinds of reasons to contribute here. So what if a historian is fascinated by Nazi history and has a degree in photoshop? K.e.coffman is openly accusing a user of worshipping Nazi ideology, I don't see how we could possibly justify that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: you can suspect whatever you want, but making accusations is a whole different territory. 88 could also be their birth year. The human brain has a strong focus on seeing connections, even when they may not be there at all. For example, in Back to the Future, the DeLorean has to travel at 88mph, that can only mean one thing: some bucket head has thought of this before and made a stupid conspiracy around it! And they have! "The two main characters are Doc and Marty, and what do skinheads wear? Doc Martens boots." The rest of the video as well as this one goes even further off the rails. Is someone who uploads only Nazi stuff with 88 in their user name suspect? I honestly don't know. You'd have to ask a statistician and the answer will probably take at least half an hour to explain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Relevant request to change username. GMGtalk 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Colouring historical images is educationally useful if done reasonably well. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 06:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't, IMHO, because we don't know how accurate the colorized versions are. For encyclopedic use, such manipulated images are certainly without any merit - however, they might be seen as being in scope for Commons, if the scope is interpreted rather leniently. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Commons is not an encyclopaedia. You are on the wrong site, you're thinking of Wikipedia. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I did make exactly that distinction, as the discussion (rather inappropriately in this place, I concede) is also about the use of these images in Wikipedia. As I wrote - not encyclopedic, not usable for Wikipedia, that's certain; but maybe they can stay on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Colorizing photos doesn't make any sense in an encyclopedic setting (as the images aren't usable in articles). What's actually very alarming is the fact that a user who's pretty easily identifiable as a neo-Nazi didn't get stopped earlier. Commons should never be misused that way. Kudos to K.e.coffman for uncovering this scandal. I personally hope the problem will be resolved as soon as possible and with the assertiveness is deserves. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not misuse, this is exactly what Commons is for: collecting and distributing public domain and freely licenced material that is useful for some educational purpose. Whether or not a user is a neo-nazi is irrelevant, as long as that user is not doing something outside of the policy on this site; Commons should not police what users do outside of its project. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Photos are historical artifacts. To colour black-and-white photos is nearly counterfeiting sources. Because these colours did not exist then. Commons, Wikipedia etc. make themselves massively vulnerable, if it continues. Colouring has to be stopped asap. Such coloured photos are to be deleted immediately. Commons is not a platform for Neo-Nazis, nor a platform to sugarcoat Nazi crimes nor to make shrines for war criminals. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hosting a coloured photograph of Reinhard Heydrich is as appropiate for this project as it would be doing the same with a picture of Kurt Gödel, Nellie Bly or Paul Dirac. Not more, not less. "To make shrines for war criminals": Aren't you hyperbolizing a bit too much? That said, I'd remove those pictures at sight when contributing to a Wikipedia article. But this is not Wikipedia. if Commons community deems "ad hoc colored-photos" are not 'acceptable enough' to be in Commons (IMO we are far from reach that consensus), then all-photographs-coloured-by-contributors should be removed from here. Being Nazi the guy depicted does not make the fact of uploading the file worse. Strakhov (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
What do we learn from later coloured photos showing Nazi war criminals like Heydrich or Himmler? Nothing. We only can learn what Nazi fans imagine of their heroes and their “heroic” acts. Such hand-colouring of photographs is dangerous. It pretends authenticity, where only propaganda and whitewashing can be found. Atomiccocktail (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What do we learn from any photo that's bigger than 500px? Nothing, delete them all! And what do we learn from a thousand photos of Angela Merkel? Nothing, delete all except one! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, K.e.coffman has asked editors from the German Wikipedia to participate in this discussion with the comment: "I would encourage editors here to comment over at Commons as well. If such voices are not heard, then people may not realise the extent of the problem. Otherwise, the perception would remain that such images are "educationally useful" [4] --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So far apparently four editors from the German thread have commented after K.e.coffman's plea and they all support his position. It seems it's the reason this thread was revived in the first place. Is this not COM:Canvassing due to the biased message? And to consider one of the original issues was inappropriate cross-wiki interference, which @GreenMeansGo: already asked him not to do. --AnEvenBetterSpot (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The opinion of de.wiki is not relevant to how we interpret deletion criteria and SCOPE on Commons. GMGtalk 18:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with GreenMeansGo. Let's get ready for a POV mass comments. --Ruthven (msg) 08:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Alexis Jazz

Well, this is blowing up. I explained above that my edits to the articles were good faith attempts to use authentic images in articles on historical subjects. In response, user Alexis Jazz left me a nasty message accusing me of "vandalism" [5] while describing my edits as "censorship" in an edit summary [6].

Does the community here support using such images in articles on historical subjects? A geniune question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo already called your actions "damn near vandalism", I'm just not as subtle as GMG. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
After reading this thread, I removed one of these pictures too [7]. I agree it's better (aka more encyclopedic) an authentic image than one of these revisionist reinterpretations (his eyes were that green?). Said that, the uniformed guy being nazi or not is not relevant. If someone wants to invest their time colouring stuff -> pfft... up to them (when nazis completed, vegetables next, please). Selecting one image or another should be left to community's choice though. Not this community, but wikipedias' ones. Strakhov (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Strakhov, it depends. If the colorization (or any other kind of restoration) is flawed, I agree (I made his eyes a bit less green btw). If it's done well (preferably using color information from photos/videos that often can't be uploaded here), I think it's valuable. Black and white is not representative either, people were not black and white 70 years ago. Everything that's described in the history books happened in color in reality, but color photography wasn't always around. If a particular image became famous as a black and white photo we also shouldn't replace it with a colored version in articles (but a color version on Commons would be fine). Colored versions of historic photos should never be removed (unless copyvio or extremely poorly done). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Whether they're here is not propagandistic. How they are used elsewhere is an issue for those project in enforcing NPOV, and is a decision that needs to be made by those projects on a case-by-case basis. For example, I don't think Hitler is really the best photo to use on a generic article on colorization, and I would argue that if I were an active member of that project. But whether someone uses a colorized or B&W photo photo in the context of the main article for that subject, is not a decision for Commons to enforce through deletion. GMGtalk 10:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I have never seen a scholarly history book that uses historical photos with modern colorization (original, period colorizations are a different matter). Maybe some children's books or popular magazines, however. So I'd say: It depends on the ambition of the user. It's clear to me that for a Wikipedia article that strives for a high level of historical accuracy, an individual's vision of how a historical photograph could/should look in color can't be a suitable illustration. However, there may be uses for such photos where historical accuracy isn't an important factor. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: In some cases we know exactly what a photo should look like in color. The uniforms for example, as long as not every single one of them has been burned we can just look at such a uniform today and accurately color old photos of it. For other parts, sometimes color footage is available but not with a free license. If the only photographer with access to color film was a German and died in 1998, Commons is out of luck. But their photos could be used to accurately color black and white photos. As for history books, mine had dinosaurs in color.. Seems like a considerably worse crime than reasonably accurately colored black and white photos.
In addition, this final quote from http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-ae-colorization-photos-kubrick-0916-story.html catches what I'm trying to say:
That picture, with color, “showed me that colorists are not adding color to black-and-white reality. They’re removing a black-and-white filter from our perception of the past.”
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Point is there are no historic black-and-white photographs of dinosaurs rivaling those coloured illustrations. We don't even have historic images of living dinosaurs, but of their dusty bones. So giving them colour (or just flesh) is less of a crime. I agree with Gestumblindi there's room for some potential educational use in these coloured pictures, since our mission is wider than illustrating wikipedia, but as a general rule IMHO history-related-wikipedia articles should strive for the original-yet-filtered-and-biased B&W stuff. As it happens with articles such as en:Ferdinand III of Castile, which uses as main illustration this pic instead of this one. Is it medieval miniature art a "filter/bias in our perception of that time"? It probably is. But...
Anyway, as said, we are not in Wikipedia but in a media repository, so it's not our task here to decide which images should illustrate what articles. Let them choose. Strakhov (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused, why are they using the ugly one? I must be missing something. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Ask there. They probably know better. ;) Strakhov (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
So...is anyone in general disagreement with the core issue: that colorized images are broadly within scope, and shouldn't be deleted based mainly on the fact that they're colorized versions of objectionable historical subject matter? GMGtalk 14:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Someone could make a funny meme with this one regarding how necessary is colouring B&W stuff in Commons. Let's say if in scope, IMHO they would be under a low percentile, since they are not far from being "personal artwork". IMO they are fringe, but I wouldn't push too much for their deletion as long as they don't mislead reusers: The derivative work should be clearly stated and the photoshop artist attributed. Strakhov (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
We definitely need permission from the colorization artist per Commons:Help desk/Archive/2018/08#Does colorization of an old monochrome photo create a separate copyright?.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course, unless the colorization artists were the Commons editors themselves, as it apparently happens and they declare, unless someone finds evidence on the contrary (e. g the same image being published outside Commons before: A single copyvio by Ruffneck88 was mentioned above, is that enough to put in doubt every image uploaded by him/her?: don't know, don't care, feel everyone free to open a DR on that basis, but please don't invoke "they are nazis" as a reason for deletion because that would enter into the censorship territory). Would someone ask an OTRS permission after seeing this piece of art? Strakhov (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, suffice to say that for deletion reasons, colorization shouldn't be treated any differently than any other digital retouching/restoration. Obviously, if someone did a particularly horrible job with any retouching, and just mangled the image, then that may be sufficient grounds to say it's not educationally useful. But merely the fact that it has been colorized shouldn't itself be grounds for deletion, just as merely the fact that any image has been digitally retouched, in and of itself isn't grounds for deletion either. GMGtalk 16:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Closing this here. There is no consensus that User:K.e.coffman did anything wrong. The general issue of colorization of historic images should be discussed in a more appropriate forum, like the Village Pump. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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


Request help with dispute regarding images of Wilmon W. Blackmar

I'm not quite sure where to post this, but I need help resolving a dispute with @Taterian: regarding his/her/their handling of images related to Wilmon W. Blackmar. My apologies for the length of this post, but I feel that I need to provide some background regarding the problem.

I've been researching and updating the Wikipedia (English) article regarding U.S. Medal of Honor winner Wilmon W. Blackmar. As part of the research I conducted in order to upgrade the article from start to B-class, I came across multiple images of Blackmar, but chose not to use several of them because their copyright/public domain status was unclear. Instead, I opted to post a "new" image to Wikipedia Commons of Blackmar on September 25, 2018 (and then to the Blackmar article on Wikipedia) because that image was published in 1904 (and is clearly in the public domain). Although the image wasn't the most wonderful quality ever, that newspaper illustration also had the added advantage of also having been captioned in a way that documented Blackmar's service as head of the Grand Army of the Republic.

On September 29 at 5:41:29, Tarterian recategorized the image I had posted. Unfortunately, when doing this, Taterian removed several categories which were appropriate, and reduced the categorization of the image to just one category (Category:Wilmon Whilldin Blackmar) - which directed viewers to a page of images - several of which Taterian had not posted until September 29, 2018. Because Tarterian's recategorization removed several appropriate categories from the image I had uploaded, I reverted Taterian's recategorization on September 29, 2018 at 11:34:29 with the following edit summary: "Undo revision 322245744 by Taterian (talk) Prior category addition edit removed multiple valid categories from image, reducing categorization to just one and eliminating categorization of this individual as a person from Pennsylvania - which he was, and as a lawyer in Massachusetts - which he was." As a courtesy, I then added, at 11:34:29, Taterian's newly created category (Category:Wilmon Whilldin Blackmar) to the image I uploaded so that at least part of Taterian's work would be preserved.

Without opening any kind of dialogue on either Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia (English), Taterian then deleted (at 23:53 on September 29, 2018) the image that I'd posted on that article, and replaced with several of the images that Taterian had posted under the new Wikimedia Commons category (Category:Wilmon Whilldin Blackmar) - including two images which may have questionable copyright status. Rather than immediately reverting, I tried to open a dialogue by posting a message to Taterian's user talk page on Wikipedia to let Taterian know that I had found the images he/she/they had posted to Commons and Wikipedia during my own research, but had chosen not to post either because their copyright status was unclear, and to ask whether or not Taterian had obtained permissions from the creator of the website where those images were posted online. (Note: This website indicates that at least one of the two images in question was taken from a private collection, and also carries a disclaimer which specifically prohibits reuse of the images.)

On September 30, 2018 at 00:10, Taterian then nominated "my Blackmar image" for deletion with this notation:

"Unusable due to low quality, and the Category:Wilmon Whilldin Blackmar category is populated with decent quality images. Also, disrupts categorization. Apparently, was uploaded with the only purpose to start a categorization brawl: "Undo revision 322245744 by Taterian. Prior category addition edit removed multiple valid categories from image, reducing categorization to just one and eliminating categorization of this individual as a person from Pennsylvania - which he was, and as a lawyer in Massachusetts - which he was." Deleting would kill two birds with one stone and ideally will force an uploader to finally learn a thing or two about categorization. Taterian (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that the Blackmar iillustration that I uploaded is of such poor quality that it is unusable or that it should be deleted. Even more concerning to me, however, is Taterian's accusation that I was attempting to start some sort of "categorization brawl" - which is completely untrue. I simply reverted Taterian's edits because those edits removed appropriate categories from the image I had created. I'm unsure of where to turn for help with this. I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm genuinely concerned that at least one of the two images that Taterian has uploaded may not be in the public domain. The guidance of an experienced administrator and/or editors would be most appreciated. Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Meanwhile I recatogorised the image in question (its licence needs to be fixed, though). It had indeed become overcategorized the moment the name category was created, and therefore the initial edit by User:Taterian was basicly correct. Sadly it went down fast and, while I’m sure that User:47thPennVols can easily understand his mistake and avoid it in the future, I’m very concerned with Tarterian’s deletionist and vindictive stance. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: @Tuvalkin: Thank you both for your insights (and, Tuválkin, thank you for the recat). This was actually a rare case of overcategorization for me. (I typically attach 3-4 to images, and have had several instances when other editors have added categories to other images because they felt I had undercategorized.) It appears from your responses that @Taterian: may not have handled this matter appropriately. What can be done to prevent the deletion of the Blackmar image that I posted? 47thPennVols (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I am also concerned about the behavior of Taterian in this matter, and I notified that user of this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Good grief, what a storm in a teacup! Against all odds, I stand by my nomination as well as my stance, call it deletionist or not, however, it is up for commonners to decide on the fate of all images nominated for deletion through a formal process and subsequent deliberation based on rational arguments not name-calling. Proud-wonna-be-deletionist, --Taterian (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks.

An IP, User: 174.16.97.123 is making attacks on both mine and User:Bbb23's talk page. I did a whois and turns out it is the Denver LTA perp. May wish to block the host or range. --IanDBeacon (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Obviously, it's the IP of a user who has blocked on :en with removed talkpage access. Underlying roblem should be discussed over there. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ETRGRNUIS / Ertyik

Accounts to block:

See previous request about those accounts; ping Yann who handled it.

Per that RCU on fr.wikipedia, those accounts are puppets of Ben.chazal (talk · contribs). Those accounts are uploading non-free images. Trizek from FR 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Jcb de-admin

I opened Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 4) but as was pointed out on my talk page discussion at ANU, not just AN appears to be needed. Which is now this here. My comments can be found there about Jcd's undiscussed deletions and refusal to revert their actions, along with a lot of other problems such as doing similar in the past. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_71#User:Jcb was closed just 3 weeks ago, and the only relevant basis for a new consensus would have to based on new actions. The levels of evidence for repeated failures against COM:Administrators and other policies required before a Bureaucrat will be seen to "allow" a desysop vote, even though in theory Bureaucrats have no power to act as the official gatekeeper for these votes, is very high; basically gross misconduct in multiple areas. One incident or associated pattern of actions is nowhere near sufficient.
On these grounds, a community consensus-for-a-vote at this time is a nonstarter. If you see a pattern of evidence, it would be better to (a) ensure you have formally raised your complaint with the administrator and can demonstrate you exhausted that option in good faith, (b) retain a private log of incidents off-wiki, as an aide-mémoire for when there are sufficient/overwhelming grounds for a desysop. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Large numbers of unilateral deletions of DAB galleries hasn't brought forth anyone in support of your complaint. It doesn't even require any maths to work out you have no consensus. Even if, hypothetically, your argument about deleting DAB galleries was judged to have merit, getting something wrong doesn't automatically lead to de-adminship. Unless anyone starts agreeing with you about DAB galleries, I think you have to accept you lost that argument and move on. Escalating things by threatening to and then initiating a de-adminship vote is disruptive behaviour and likely to lead to a block if you don't stop. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless Jcb has consensus to delete them, they should be automatically restored, if this kind of thing had been done by a non-admin I bet they would be quickly blocked, but it seems as Jcb is an admin, they are allowed to do as they like regardless of others objections. Jcb has no right to use tools to get the upper hand of a dispute. The onus is on the one deleting, not restoring. I have both formally raised my complaint with the administrator and can demonstrate you exhausted that option in good faith, the links I provided in my nom for previous incidents. Getting something wrong I agree is not grounds for de-admin but refusal to revert actions is unacceptable. Why on Earth isn't Jcb's response something like I'm really sorry for my mass deletion, I will restore all those deletions and will discuss similar deletions in the future with the community instead of taking it into my own hands. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Jcb isn't "really sorry for [his] mass deletion" because he doesn't agree with you and isn't persuaded by your argument. You've tried to get other opinions on your side. But you have so far totally failed to get any support for your position. Honestly, if there was even the slightest indication that Jcb had got this wrong [or the slightest chance the facts could be misrepresented to "show" Jcb got this wrong], there'd be a mob on your side. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
What support has Jcb got? why am I expected to prove Jcb wrong, Jcb hasn't proven me wrong anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
At COM:AN two users responded. They both agreed that I was acting correctly. The fact that you don't like the way we do things at Commons is no reason to revert our maintenance. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No body had objected to their existence in the years that some of them existed, the fact that you bizarrely don't understand how things work isn't a reason to unilaterally destroy something that had been stable for years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • de-admin Also support the de-adminning process. And support any further meta-levels of "request to de-admin", and "request to start a discussion about a possible de-adminning" that are needed. This perpetual fillibustering needs to go! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with User:Patrick Rogel

Resolved

Hello, admins, I had a problem with this user named User:Patrick Rogel, he is nominating my pictures without the correct reason, I had sent many messages to User:Patrick Rogel but he was not responding. he nominated this files to deletion October 1, 2018, saying the reason that the 'images do not have a watermark', I replied him that I had removed the watermark with photoshop, but he doesn't respond. I have sent a request to a user called User:Moheen to check my files he then removed and reviewed my files. And, this person User:Patrick Rogel had again nominated them for deletion. I'm talking about the below-mentioned files

Plzz take a action sooner

VenkateshMgna (talk) 10:52, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VenkateshMgna has mostly resolved this issue, no action is needed IMO. Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@VenkateshMgna: has 19 16 files deleted for copyvio since September 23. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC) and is theorically locked across all Wikimedia projects for being a suspected sock puppet of Imeghana17. So how can he upload files here ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: nineteen files? Special:Log/VenkateshMgna features 16 red links at all, which files are you speaking about? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@VenkateshMgna: don't remove watermarks. You're not very good at it. Compare watermarked image, your version and my version (which is still not perfect, but passable). And that's some of your best work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick: is VenkateshMgna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  the same user as user:Imeghana17? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't know. Nick (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It it her. Ask me off-wiki to learn why am I sure. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The {{BollywoodHungama}} template says "of a Bollywood party or event in India", but the SIIMA awards were not in India so is the license still valid? -kyykaarme (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Er no. Good catch. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

AwStarz

Every single upload since 4 days is a copyvio. Uploads and reuploads the same file (File:Regina.daniels instagram .jpg ). Already warned. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. Sealle (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Unblock declined. Taivo (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Historym1468

Historym1468 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user's talk page is nothing but a list of copyvio notices, including a "final warning" given a month ago. The user has made to effort to respond to concerns anywhere and has continued to upload copyrighted images tagging them as "own work". File:Bronze figure of Suebi male captive with bound hands; circular base. Culture period Gallo Roman term details British Museum.jpg, uploaded October 1, is from the British Museum's website. File:Suebian German barbarians.jpg credits someone named "Gschwantler". File:Recumbent Suebi from Apt.jpg credits someone named Krierer. Even File:Native Cheyenne Loincloth.jpg, which is possibly public domain (though I don't know for sure because I don't see a date of publication), is tagged with an obviously incorrect Creative Commons license. --B (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. So far more than half of his/her uploads are not deleted, so the first block is only for one week. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

KriperMS

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

Continues copyvio after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Copyvios dealt with and blocked for 1 month. --Majora (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao has transferred a gargantuan number of images from Flickr ... which is not a bad thing in and of itself - certainly useful free images are welcome at Commons. But he or she is exercising little or no editorial discretion in doing so. As I look at today's batch of uploads, tons of them are derivative works of art from a puppet show (e.g. File:7.9.18 Pisek Puppet Festival 016 (30733541888).jpg). There are are seven low quality shots of whoever this is. There are several blurry shots of this non-notable person drinking something. The user's talk page archives are filled with deletion requests for these bulk image uploads. I left a message at User_talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao#Rapid_bot-like_uploading_of_Flickr_photos. There is no sign of a willingness to discuss the issue or restrict uploads to useful and non-copyvio ones. --B (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have also noticed this before - note the 2,387 images in Category:Massachusetts Department of Transportation with no further categorization or improved descriptions. I would suggest that SAdN voluntarily (or involuntarily, if necessary) cease flickr transfers until he demonstrates a willingness to properly curate them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed this as well. Some are useful uploads while some are clearly not. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this problem is not limited to this user, we have several users who flood Commons with thousands of files from Flickr, e.g. often containing huge batches of blatantly out of scope files, or uploading a lot of detectable duplicates. This issue may need a broader discussion, probably without just pointing to this single user. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Since threading is already borked, here’s some bullet points:)
    • B, looks like you found copyvios and files you feel that are out of scope. That’s dealt with by means of deletion requests, not in AN/U, which is to report on problematic users. What’s especially problematic about Ser Amantio di Nicolao? That he doesn’t ract swiftly to criticism? Well, we had recently at least three admins doing the very same and all they got was a slap on the wrist pat on the back…
    • Speaking of problematic users, Jcb had to make this about a «broader issue» of scope in mass uploads. Well, although community opinion was not (this time yet) enough to desyop you, you’re at least being repeatedly turned down by community consensus in your DRs. Maybe your idea of scope is not in line with that of most active users’?
    • Pi.1415926535, I’d like to see examples of Ser Amantio di Nicolao’s lack of «willingness to properly curate» their uploads. Can you offer examples of files uploaded longer than a few weeks ago?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding to a possible reply to my own question above, concerning this user’s curation efforts, Ser Amantio di Nicolao created 228 new categories so far in 2018 (which is by the way more than ten times the number of categories ever created by one of the users discussing in this thread…). It is possible of course for someone to create new categories and still be a reckless curator, but I would expect this number to be zero if the portrait of near-vandalism painted above were true. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Your arguments here miss the points being made above. SNdA is creating dozens if not hundreds of copyvios and out-of-scope files. That's an issue to be dealt with at the user level, not the DR level, especially when the user has ignored requests to stop. (There are other mass-uploaders that regularly patrol all their uploads for bad files that they originally missed; SNdA is clearly not doing that.) This is a thread about SNdA's behavior so please keep your comments to that rather than going on a soapbox.
I already linked to a category in which SNdA uploaded images in June - which means this behavior has been going on for at least four months. Over 2,300 images with default titles, default descriptions from flickr, no removal of an incorrect license template, and no categorization other than the very broad category. (And he couldn't even put them in the correct already-existing category.) How's that for zero curation whatsoever? (Update: I've moved all 2,384 images to a maintenance subcategory).
The number of categories created does not excuse that in many cases he is filling them with useless and uncurated files, nor that he only ever adds files to a single category which does not represent proper categorization. Take for example Category:CubeSmart. Most of the files are near-duplicates of others in the category (which clearly indicates that SNdA is blindly mass-uploading without even looking at the files, none that he uploaded have any other categories, and all have the default titles and descriptions that advertise a Youtube channel. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: "(which is by the way more than ten times the number of categories ever created by one of the users discussing in this thread…)" damnit, I should have said something here. I created 238 categories this year.
"Can you offer examples of files uploaded longer than a few weeks ago?" I'm not Pi.1415926535 but how about File:Berea College DSC 5086 (20370925285).jpg, File:Berea College DSC 5119 (20370947495).jpg, File:Berea College DSC 5092 (20184300589).jpg, File:Berea College DSC 5151 (20182938010).jpg, File:2017.02.16 A Day Without Immigrants, Washington, DC USA 00924 (32950138855).jpg, File:2017.02.16 A Day Without Immigrants, Washington, DC USA 00912 (32135606383).jpg, File:Plaque Town Creek Indian Mount Heritage Site NC 5278 (16327964478).jpg ({{PD-USGov-NPS}} but was not licensed as such), File:Capital Bikeshare Spring 2012 Expansion (7258989034).jpg, File:01.FroYoToGo.NationalMall.WDC.4July2012 (8330752546).jpg (printing something on a vehicle instead of paper doesn't make it utilitarian, but I'll forgive Ser Amantio this one as it confuses many), , File:Carter D. Carroll 2015 Excellence in History Awards Dinner 33 (17290905141).jpg (DW was not attributed), File:Carter D. Carroll 2015 Excellence in History Awards Dinner 38 (17265436036).jpg.. Actually this should look better in a gallery:
Yeah there's room for improvement regarding curation.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: , nobody said anything about vandalism and if you have a dispute with Jcb, please open a separate thread for that. The problem here isn't vandalism - it's the bulk upload of Twitter photos and creating a mess for someone to clean up. Bulk uploads need to (1) exclude (non-free) copyrighted content, (2) exclude low-quality images, and (3) exclude images that are out of scope (e.g. excessive personal photos where there is no encyclopedic use). The issue is that Ser Amantio di Nicolao's uploads do none of these three things. That's not vandalism nor any other sort of "bad faith" effort - it's just that more care needs to be exercised. If you look at Ser Amantio di Nicolao's talk page archives going back years, they are filled with deletion notices ... so there are plenty of examples going back more than a few weeks that you can choose from. --B (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Any sort of sanctions, involuntary blocks, chastising, demeaning, or any other negative consequences for Ser Amantio di Nicolao.  Support Creating a call for volunteers to help this user in their task of importing and categorising images, but that should be done somewhere other than ANU. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 16:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also noticed that the quality of the large amounts of uploads varies wildly. I would very much like to see SADN take this criticism in, and agree to slow down and be more careful that they're not making issues for others to clean up by uploading indiscriminately. GMGtalk 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Obviously, I think that's the hope of everyone here. And it's worth noting that the user has not edited on Commons since the start of this thread or this message. If he would just say "I understand the concerns and will take care to exercise discretion over what images I am going to upload", then I think everyone would be happy. --B (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the detailed explanations, I’m convinced and in agreement. (@B: you ask «if you have a dispute with Jcb»; well of course I do, but I was calling off his misuse of this thread to attack mass uploads in general, not hijacking this thread myself.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attack

The user Mendduets is vandalizing the Austric-language map[1]. I said him he cannot change sourced maps and then he reverted again and used the swear word "Mothe....er..". You clearly understand what he is meaning. Such behavior has no place in wikimedia. Please warn or block this "user". --Satoshi Kondo (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh my Goooooooooooooooooooooood. That is not right. I said moth...er. But It is not. It is this User's fabrication and imagination, right?
The map is wrong. Its original version is correct, so it has to be reverted back to its 1st version. Mendduets (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You are clearly violateing several wikimedia rules. Also i included two sourced into the main-page of the map. So please instantly stop your POV vandalism and act as wikimedia user, not as little child. --Satoshi Kondo (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you have to talk to me like that, right? Stop it. STop it. The source is outdated. Mendduets (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The source is outdated?? what? "Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment by Gerhard Jäger (PNAS October 13, 2015 112 (41) 12752-12757; published ahead of print September 24, 2015)" is the newest linguistic research compareing all macro-families and languages that exist. Read it and then speak. You clearly are not interested to solve this dispute. Also your arrogant answers and childish behavior... act normal or stop. Go to the talk page and speak about what is "outdated", then we can find a consens, but to speak fringe arguments and revert all time there will not be a solution.--Satoshi Kondo (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Brother, don't talk to me like that. It is not nice. You need to calm down right now. I believe we got off on the wrong foot. You and me, we can come to a mutual understanding because we might bump into each other a lot of times in the talkpage of other maps. So I don't want it to be awkward, right? Gerhard Jäger's work is a computational paper. It is not a commonly accepted concept. Mendduets (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry if you feel personally attacked aswell, I am sure we can make a good discussion. Here are some sources that include Japanese into the Austric theory: 1.(Wilhelm Schmidt' s Austric)[2], 2.(Japanese, Austronesian and Altaic A study of possible connections(propose that Japanese is a mix language of austronesian/austric and altaic, or that japanese is of austric origin with altaic influence))[3], 3.(The Austric Substratum Influences and Cultural Influences in Japan: Aereal Hybridity and Cultural Contact)[4], 4(The Austric languages)[5]. Maybe we should discuss on the talk page of the map. Greetings.--Satoshi Kondo (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe an admin should protect the file until the information can be sorted out. And both users should be slapped for calling each other POV stuff and "Vandalism" when its clearly content dispute. Tyler de Noche (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As a first measure, I've now fully protected File:Austric languages.png, which does not mean support for any of the disputed versions. None of you can edit it currently.
As Tyler de Noche mentioned, both of you need to calm down and refrain from personally attacking other users. @Mendduets, one more PA as the above cited one may result in a block of your account.
2 weeks ago, you were able to discuss this issue rather appropriately, see User_talk:Satoshi_Kondo#Austric_and_Japanese_?. The talkpage of the image is the appropriate first place for such a discussion, though File talk:Lenguas austro-asiáticas.png shows that this seems to be a hot spot, strangely. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. Alright. Mendduets (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austric_languages.png
  2. ↑ http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/files/driem/pdfs/1999FourAustric.pdf
  3. ↑ http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1626629&fileOId=1626632
  4. ↑ http://cala2019.puc.edu.kh/312-2/
  5. ↑ https://books.google.at/books?id=fiavPYCz4dYC&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=austric+and+japanese&source=bl&ots=MG5s8_8a6v&sig=cOOvsxQVSYnDtM52hDgDlxfLK7A&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcwtremIHeAhXDLlAKHUPFCuw4ChDoATAHegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=austric%20and%20japanese&f=false

Zozr789

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

As a revenge for having its files deleted under my request, @Zozr789: nominates today for "permission missing" a file of mine which has received a license review 4 years ago. A file remover and an English Wikipedia sysop undoes his modifications but he still persists. May someone ask him to stop his disruptive behaviour ? In advance, thanks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zozr789: Please stop adding invalid tags to images. That image not only has reviewed permissions, the source itself is still valid and still has the CC-BY 2.0 license on it. Continuing to revert and readd improper deletion tags is considered disruptive. As a side note, you can't add a ping after the fact, Patrick Rogel. If you don't do it right the first time you have to do a new line with a new signature or it won't send. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I deleted speedily last remaining upload of Zosr789, not yet nominated for deletion. Source and link to permission were correct, simply permission in source site was "All rights reserved." Taivo (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel and Majora: The license of that file is about as good as that of the files from The Huntington. I don't agree with the deletion of those at all (I'm still mustering up strength to request undeletion..), but the nomination is apparently not outrageous. Side note: I've also notified Zozr789 of an improper overwrite. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Zozr789 has overwritten File:Sudanais de la tribu Galieh..jpg after this warning and Zozr789 just removed my new warning without explaining anything.
@Patrick Rogel: you forgot to notify Zozr789 of this thread I think? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I notified Zozr789 and Zozr789 removed the notification again. @Zozr789: it would be a good idea to say at least something. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Zozr789 removed dw no source and has been warned, went on to edit war and has now been warned for that as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
And that's enough. Blocked for three days for disruptive editing. --Majora (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Btw, if you go over the history of his talk page, he's collected {{Dont remove delete}}, {{Dont overwrite}}, {{Dont overwrite}} (yes, twice), {{Dont remove nsd or nld}}, {{Dont editwar}} as well as a long list of {{Dw image source}}, {{Idw}}, {{Image permission}} and {{Copyvionote}}. But you see none of that because he constantly blanks his talk page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: take that into account before you consider his unblock request. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I always check histories (I check to ensure they were told about this discussion). And a blocking admin shouldn't really handle an unblock request. I'll let someone uninvolved deal with it. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Zozr789 was just blocked as a CU-confirmed sock of Kingston, CA (talk · contribs) on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) indefblocked by Elcobbola along with Kingston, CA. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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


Indef block for 13 sockpuppets of globally locked User:Alec Smithson

As a result of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alec Smithson, the following accounts are confirmed to each other. Their behaviour closely matches that of the now stale but globally locked account Alec Smithson (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information):

Background: These are all clearly socks of Alec Smithson, globally locked since 2016 but still persistently socking transwiki and here: same obsession with Salvatore Garau, the Polli, Biotti, Natoli, Bernocchi, and Bestetti families, the town of Lierna, etc. Becomes even more obvious when looking at transwiki contributions, especially those of the associated IP 151.20.7.153. For more detailed description of the modus operandi of the master on En WP and transwiki, see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. Some of the above are sleepers which emerged from the CheckUser. Like Smithson, several have uploaded numerous copyvios here (most but not all now deleted). Several of them have also created and/or edited bizarre and error-filled gallery pages here such as Natoli [8], Gino Polli [9], Viale Beatrice d'Este (Milano) [10] (and this misspelling), Salvatore Garau (edited by 5 of the named accounts above + the IP 151.20.7.153), Polli [11] (the coat of arms is not for the Polli family and has been removed), Biotti (with dubious coat of arms, uploaded by Smithson and edited by both PubArch56 and SandraPol23), Bestetti [12], etc. See also the account Sergey7 (talk · contribs), now stale, but also uploaded numerous Salvatore Garau copyvios here and was indef blocked on English Wikipedia as a sock of Smithson [13].

The CheckUser, Elcobbola, suggested that I bring the results here for blocking and tagging. While he confirmed that all the accounts above are the same person, he has no experience with the (now stale) LTA sockmaster, Alec Smithson, and thought it best to leave tagging/sorting/etc. to someone more familiar with the behavioural aspects. Note that all of the existing uploads by these accounts need to be checked for copyvios. The categories and gallery pages created or edited by them also need to be checked for errors (some of them deliberate attempts at misinformation). Also pinging Justlettersandnumbers, an admin on En WP who is familiar with this LTA. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I notified them for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jeff G.. Apologies for the extra work. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: Thank you. I concur with your first statement.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks Majora. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of Mr. Smithson, but at least the apparatus will be in place when he shows up again. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Audio file of Retirada do Cabo São Roque.wav

Hello all. I am a university professor in Brazil and am currently running an education program [14]. It is a program that I have run in other occasions (see report on Outreach Wikimedia: [15]) and for some reason User:EugeneZelenko is insistingly marking audio files created by my students for deletion. Source is provided, context is provided, the museum team from the museum we are working with --only files that are already on Commons as part of a very large GLAM initiative I run (Museu do Ipiranga)-- is involved, etc. etc.; I tried to discuss the matter with this editor on his/her talk page... and he/she keeps insisting on wrong-doing. As far as I can see the editor is frustrated that description is not provided in English (!!), which of course would be nice (and I hope he/she can do this at some point) but is definitely not necessary to have the files stay on this project. As this editor is definitely not willing to work collaboratively on this issue, I am writing to request support and action from other administrators to have EugeneZelenko act in accordance to this project rules. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked 3 times to improve files descriptions on User talk:EugeneZelenko#Derivative work - audio description. User:Joalpe just removed warning template instead. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
File description is just fine. Source is stated properly. If you want a description in English, as I told you: be bold. Don't mark a file for deletion if it is in accordance to the project norms. --Joalpe (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I can confirm that the file is correctly sourced there, in Portuguese. Is there any rule stating that a file must be sourced in English in Commons in order to not be deleted?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: this is indeed appaling. EugeneZelenko has shown a level of arbitrariness and virulence that is not expected from someone the community has attributed high-level administrative flags. If this editor is unable to acknowledge wrong-doing and apologize, then he/she is not complying with roles and responsibilities associated to these flags and they should be removed. I will wait to see how this thread evolves and if the user does not comply with the rules of this project request flag removal. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring with a patroller+GLAM volunteer is about one notch below wheel warring.
@Tuvalkin: you know what's also fun? Nominating files for deletion after they have been undeleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko: do you have anything else to claim or your last words in this discussion will be --again!-- wrong doing? I really hope you can learn from this episode. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of conflict were both parties could behave batter. Same could be said about lessons from it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it’s not! Only one party misbahaved here, and gravely, on multiple accounts — exactly the party, as an admin and a bureaucrat, who should be held at a higher standard. Joalpe did nothing wrong, while EugeneZelenko, on top of everything else, cannot even be arsed to utter a token apology. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Alexis Jazz: Could you please orient me the procedure for requesting flag removal? I understand it would be here: Commons:Requests and votes, right? EugeneZelenko does not appear to be a suitable flag-holder on this project, and I will open the case for community deliberation. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Joalpe: well most certainly, you can find all the details you need at the top of this page. You're welcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Urfather0077 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Please block Urfather0077 for this and that. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done - sockpuppet. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Blackcat

Blackcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has used their sysop tool to move a category back to a name of their choosing, this is a complete miss use of the tool and they should have gone though a category for discussion process.

On 7 June - Blackcat moved Category:Tom Arthur to Category:Tom Arthur (politician) and then Category:Tom Arthur (politician born 1883), I then moved it to Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician) with "Inline with the English Wikipedia article" in reference to Authur's nationality (which I should have made clearer) and also I moved to keep inline with what it already used for other Australian politicians categories on Commons.

On 20 October - Blackcat Category:Tom Arthur (politician born 1883) deletes the redirect and moves Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician) to Category:Tom Arthur (politician born 1883), without any discussion. Something they should not have done and went though the CfD process, rather than using their bits. However they state "Here nationality is not a criterium for disambiguation" on my talk page but not proving where it is a policy nor guideline, and I highly doubt one exists. Bidgee (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Part of the story about suppression of redirects has no corroboration. Even if true, it would be a misuse of suppressredirect, not really of sysop tools. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
More exactly, the only relevant deletion by Blackcat happened in Tom Arthur (politician born 1883), but it was Bidgee who moved the category out of there, and hence this deletion cannot be qualified as use of sysop tools to push a personal preference. Seems like quarreling over an obscure issue of secondary importance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I acted as user, not at admin. I simply told them that "inline with English wikipedia" is not a valid argument here as we have different criteria of disambiguation. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, here we do not use the nationality as criterium for anything, we'd rather use the criterium "by country" and not "by nationality" (see i.e "People of Italy" or "People of the United States"). The schema of categorization here on Commons is at all different from en.wiki as we are not an English chapter but a multilanguage one.
Show me (link to) the criterium rather than blasting about it but not showing it! I'm not saying where they were born but as in what Parliament they serve in (local, state or country). And yes you did use your admin tool to make way for the move the your preferred title, rather than starting a CfD. Bidgee (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Risible – any user could rewrite a {{Category redirect}} with an own category code. History keeping is not an incentive strong enough to discourage such form of category renaming. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and then that would make it a non-admin action (and would likely not have this discussion, unless it was turning out to be an edit war) but to delete the redirect is an admin action. Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bidgee: , please, this whole discussion is pointless. Please don't insist. You're stating an unstainable point. Commons is not en.wiki, period. We are not to keep naming inline with en.wiki, which as matter of fact messes around a lot with names: for example on en.wiki there's en:Category:English footballers which in England means soccer players, in America gridiron players, in Australia mabye rugby league or aussie rules players. What did we do on Commons? We called them Association football players from England. If i were in you I wouldn't mention en.wiki as example, believe me. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is pointless, I've asked you to link to a policy or guideline regarding category naming that supports your argument but you have not provided it but instead gone on a pointless and flawed examples that has nothing to do with people/persons and have totally taken my comments out of context to fit with your own to try and hide from your unsupported view. And it looks like someone else supports Category:Tom Arthur (Australian politician) and not Category:Tom Arthur (politician born 1883). Oh FYI, like the US, gridiron is gridiron (not rugby union, league or rules), soccer/association football (both are now in use, with soccer slowly falling out of favour). Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful

Ivar the Boneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Ivar the Boneful#"Overwrite existing file (Please, be careful!)"

Violating COM:OVERWRITE and edit warring. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have detailed at User talk:Ivar the Boneful#Pagebreak, User:Ymnes went berserk because I cropped a photo they had uploaded. Instead of just asking me to self-revert, they went through my list of edits and reverted indiscriminately anything with "crop" in the edit summary, without even examining which crops were made. I would estimate they made around 80 reversions of my edits without any discussion. I've listed 14 particular examples on my talkpage, but I have to say their reversions at File:Lance Barnard.jpg, File:Sir James Mitchell.jpg, and File:McMahon 1971.jpg were particularly bizarre, as they replaced high-quality images with inferior predecessors. I have not reverted all of Ymnes's reversions, only the ones that are clearly within COM:CROP. I'm not sure what is being considered edit-warring and why this has been "escalated" here - Ymnes made controversial changes without discussing, I reverted them and have made lengthy comments about the issue on my talkpage, and there have been no further reversions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Ivar the Boneful, in principle crops should be uploaded under a new file name in most cases. If there is apparently a controversy about the files you overwrote, the best thing to do is to promise that you will upload the crop under a new name in future cases. This conflict is easily resolved this way, no lengthy texts are needed. Jcb (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to do so, and I have already done so in the past where anyone's objected. I'm a relatively new user, and I'm happy to admit that in the past I was unaware of the cropping policy and just assumed any cropping was permissibly. More recently I've made sure to upload major crops as separate images to prevent any conflict; most of my edits that Ymnes reverted were made six months ago or more. My reversions were in turn based on Commons:Overwriting existing files#Substantial crop or un-crop, which permits overwriting for minor crops. The problem here is that Ymnes did not bother to look at what crops were actually, they just reverted indiscriminately. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
I posted my complaint on this user at Commons talk:Overwriting existing files#Problems with a user that crops to freely, as follows:
One user has been overwriting other photographs massively and has changed those photographs sometimes very greatly. . Some hours ago I have put nearly two hours of my time in restoring all the damage that he made. I limited it to work that others uploaded. Some photographs were even uniquely OTRS donated to Commons and I found that a number of his crops had been reverted by others. In this way a great deal of the original work is erased: he sometimes cuts of the shoulders or the environment at a photograph. In those cases one can easily upload an extra copy of the photograph, because the server needs the same amount of storage capacity anyway. When cropping, the tool even warns "Overwrite existing file (Please, be careful!)". Afterwards I have friendly informed him about it on his talk page: User talk:Ivar the Boneful#"Overwrite existing file (Please, be careful!)". There he reacting very aggressively towards me and he has reverted a great deal of all my restoration work of this morning. What should be done here? Ymnes (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that explains it a lot. In stead of accepting respect for other ones uploads, he is reverting all my restoration work and attacking me as the messenger. I really don't know how to change his stance, since he replied "Absolutely not" on my question "So I hope you will be make a second copy instead especially when you work with images that have been uploaded by others. Thank you in advance!" If he can be forced to stick to the rules and restore what he has been reverting, than that is a satisfactory end solution to me. Ymnes (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Will you apologise for indiscriminately reverting my edits and restoring inferior images, as I've detailed? You haven't addressed that issue. And will you promise not to mass-revert in future, and to initiate a discussion first rather than going berserk? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Stop being so aggressive to me! I have worked nearly two hours to restore illegal crops of yours Ymnes (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ivar the Boneful:
File:StateLibQld 1 104596 Politician Edmund Maher, Brisbane, 1940.jpg this is not OK.
Please stop overwriting files. You are being disruptive. You stop overwriting cropped images that way and edit warring, or your account may end up blocked. Rule of thumb: «You should not overwrite any image when the crop affects "any area" of the original photograph, unless you are the original uploader». If you find "resistance" after overwriting, it's a signal the crop is controversial: You just upload it under another file name, or get consensus in the talk page. "Cropping a crop" might be OK if you reach consensus with the uploader. If not, upload it under another file name: It's cheap and discussion-free. Edit warring is not the solution. "Full version" of a picture should be generally available in a category, not buried in a file history, whether it weighs 60 kb or 5 mb. Would you be able to do that? Feel everyone free to revert this mess. Strakhov (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Strakhov - I don't understand. The image you've specified seems like a textbook example of where overwriting is permissible as "the essential composition is not altered". The version you've restored has ugly scratches around the outside. By cropping it slightly, you remove the scratches and keep the original composition. Why would you upload such a minor improvement as a new file. Am I missing something? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The example given at COM:OVERWRITE of a "minor crop" is File:Miyasaka Hakuryu II - Tigress with Two Cubs - Walters 71909.jpg, which was "cropped 33 % horizontally and 33 % vertically using CropTool". The vast majority of my edits were cropped much less than this. I don't understand. Is the consensus different to what's actually written as policy Ivar the Boneful? (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. You don't get how Commons Community understands COM:OVERWRITE. And the last example, even if it crops "empty space" for me it's not OK. Photography is not only about "the object". It's an artistic expression and the original photographer may think you have spoiled that tiger-photo with that zoom. If you focus yourself on removing frames from flickr or so (example), it would be awesome. But I suggest you to (please) stay away from "historical documents" and "unuseful-empty-space" when it comes to overwriting the original. Surely you are aware you are wasting your time and everyone's else. This would not be happening if you had uploaded those crops under another file name. Strakhov (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Sadly I don't think they even care about the cropping they are doing, they have made 60% and 50% crops and yet in some cases they will upload some crops under a new file name/title. I just don't get why they will follow the new upload for some crops but yet not most. Bidgee (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the same admin who reported me for overwriting has overwritten File:Thorbjorn Jagland.jpg with a 86% x 76% crop. Can someone please help me distinguish why that sort of overwrite is acceptable, but mine with substantially less cropping were totally unacceptable and deserving of vitriol? I feel like I am missing something, or there's some sort of double standard. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexis is not an admin, and this overwrite is not OK either. I reverted it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: the purpose of this particular image is infobox and similar usage, for which my latest version was the most suitable. Such a crop would be unacceptable if I was cropping the original. The original wasn't uploaded here when Ivar cropped this, but I uploaded it yesterday. So the situation changed, IMHO. The current/original crop (which you reverted to) was poor. Also, yes, I made a 86% x 76% crop.. from the original which I had just uploaded. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a poor excuse for not following policies... Yann (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
In this particular case you appear to be right (File:Thorbjørn Jagland (30366602783) (cropped).jpg is better for infoboxes), but I have seen poor crops where the uploader really just wanted to make a crop for an infobox but didn't know how. The file in question may have been just that when it was uploaded, but over time got used in different ways. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the guidelines at COM:OVERWRITE should be made clearer – it can't just be a case of "you know it when you see it". I'll certainly be making sure to upload any crops as new files to avoid others objecting in future. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrt people, different projects may need different crops: a table in en.wiki may prefer half length portraits‎, a "person infobox" in fr.wiki may use full length... There is no problem at all with keeping different croppings of the same image as long they are used ...somewhere. Croppings should not be overwritten without (at least) checking the uses in different projects. And, if the crop-uploader says "no", then upload another file. That easy. In the case you mentioned, we keep "full photograph" here: File:Συνάντηση με τον Γενικό Γραμματέα του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης, Thorbjorn Jagland (4309190174).jpg so this cropping, even wrong, would be IMHO in a lower level of "wrongness". "upload any crops as new files" is a good idea. Strakhov (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov and Ivar the Boneful: we keep the "full photograph".. NOW. Because I had just uploaded it. The original crop at File:Thorbjorn Jagland.jpg (which Yann has reverted it to) was a poor one. If Ivar the Boneful were uploading full photographs for crops of which the uploader couldn't be bothered to upload the original, I would applaud that. If he did that, I also wouldn't complain much about overwriting poor crops. In the end, Ivar has an eye for properly cropping photos for infobox usage (unfortunately he doesn't rotate anything.. I hope he'll look up how to do that as well), but we need to keep at least the full versions. And in some cases also half length portrait crops, usage should be checked to see if that's the case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Poor crop or not, I don't want my work to be overwritten. I guess no-one does. When I use these files, I don't want another person to alter my article or infobox unseen, because he does it on another project. When a new file is uploaded, the whole problem is over. And that is exactly what the warning says: "Overwrite existing file (Please, be careful!)" Never do it, unless there is no other way. Ymnes (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ymnes: I tend to be somewhat more forgiving. People often upload poor crops. What I see a lot is people leaving zero space above the head. Assuming the original has also been uploaded or gets uploaded before overwriting, I'm generally OK with overwriting a poor crop. Nobody here "owns" anything. If there is any resistence, the original isn't here as a separate file or someone chose a particular crop on purpose, I agree. But that's not always the case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That's not what we are talking about here, very much more was altered. And very importantly, it's very unnecessary to overwrite, since a new upload can be made as well. In that fashion you need to exchange the name of the file in the other projects as well, which is the open way how wiki's are designed to be. Good work doesn't need to be done in the shade. Ymnes (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. To be clear, I'm not talking about improving the resolution. I'm talking about changing the original upload or interfering in crops by cuting of parts because of taste. E.g. this one alerted me and is far too much. Uploading newly is never a problem, not even for the server capacity, so nearly always preferable. The solution is just so simple. Ymnes (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Kyung-heeu2030

Kyung-heeu2030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ontinues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her for a month (second block). All uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Taivo: on File:Isiagi Daniel Opolot.jpg a watermark was removed (poorly) and the source says "Isiagi took it" (which is clearly false) and "own work" (I doubt it). File:Moses Maliehe.jpg says literally "I took the photo during press conference" but it appears to have been cropped from https://www.kawowo.com/2018/10/15/lesotho-head-coach-maliehe-rues-bokangs-absence-in-heavy-loss-to-uganda-cranes/. If that own work claim can't be substantiated, I propose an indefblock. Willingly and knowingly lying about copyright status is not done. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If another administrator will block Kyung-heeu2030 indefinitely, that's OK for me. Taivo (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
OK for me now, but any new copyright violation after the block should lead to an indefinite block. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just an advice – don’t trust anything originating from this user. It is dubious to me that a person who spends a whole Wikipedia edit to introduce a silly grammar mistake is a student from Princeton. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting mass additions of {{PD-old-assumed}} on unambiguously public domain files by Jarnsax

Example Petscan report

Having previously raised this issue with Jarnsax (talk · contribs), and in light of them being inactive for three months, I propose to mass revert their controversial application of {{PD-old-assumed}} with VFC. Sadly it is unlikely that Jarnsax will be repairing their own mistakes, so someone else has to do it.

The key examples which raised to my attention were original uploads by Dcoetzee (their mass uploads I generally keep an eye on as they are no longer here) from the NYPL. In particular the stereogram photographs which are part of the Robert N. Dennis collection and for which there is absolutely no doubt that they are public domain. The use of PD-old-assumed in these circumstances is misuse of the template as there is no assumption to be made, and using the template will only put off reusers, such as academics who intend to republish and their publishers need a legally meaningful assurance that these are public domain.

I intend to mass change these NYPL cases later today, using {{PD-1923}} instead, and may change other obvious cases of misuse by Jarnsax that arise.

Raising here in case any administrator with an interest in {{PD-old-assumed}} wishes to comment, or perhaps has some idea for how better to control the excessive misuse of this template, such as the missing guidelines for usage which were originally a condition for creating the template. At this time this template is probably the most actively misused licensing template, with at least half of all reviewed uses being misuse (unfortunately we are not tracking misuse) and remains an obvious loophole for undetected copyfraud.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Fae here. {{PD-old-assumed}} is a last ditch template that should only be used after careful consideration if the author or their death date can not be determined and it is certain that the image or recording in question is older than 120 years (for pma 70 countries). If any other license template is applicable, use that instead. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
"such as academics who intend to republish and their publishers need a legally meaningful assurance that these are public domain."
As if we can provide that! Any academic who blindly trusts our licenses is an idiot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Over the last few years I have discussed publishing costs with several serious academics, who were either outraged or felt ripped off when I pointed out that a photograph they paid a hundred quid or more to republish was actually available as public domain for free. If you want a photograph on the front of your book, you have to research it, however Commons is a good starting point. Again, the key thing here is decent sources being quoted. Commons is indeed crap and letting down reusers, if we allow uploaders to get away with crappy licenses like {{PD-old-assumed}} with zero evidence, guesses at dates and no sources. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Any academic who blindly trusts our licenses is an idiot. PD-old-assumed has little to nothing to do with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If an academic is publishing a 120-year-old image, then surely even if it turns out to be copyrighted, fair use is going to apply to whatever they are doing - so I doubt that that's really a meaningful scenario to consider. I'm not hugely thrilled with this template - and I think it needs to be longer than just a flat 120 years. If the artists' birth date is known, then we can probably assume that they didn't live to be over 100 and so if the artist was born 170 years ago, then it's safe. If the artists' birth date is unknown, then assume they were 15 and lived to be 100 and anything published 185 years ago is safe. Just saying it was published 120 years ago doesn't really seem safely "public domain" to me. --B (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@B: COM:WORSTCASE - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Academic publishers do not accept "fair use", not if you are publishing a book, nor even a collection of papers from a conference. Even Uni lecturers sharing copies of texts and images with students is a massive issue, which seems especially bizarre when you are sharing extracts from your own publications, with many universities having difficult "fair use" policies to navigate. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4 again

Slowking4 has continued to post negatively, the latest I have found being an insult to all other Village Pump editors (or all of us), calling the Village Pump (or the entire project) "merely a battleground for trolls." See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 68#Slowking4.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The entire quote:

no, if half the time spent deleting other peoples images were spent on getting better images of living people, rather than farming flickr, then this might be a real image repository, until then it is merely a battleground for trolls.

I think I'm a VP editor, and I saw that message before this thread, but I didn't take it as an insult. Slowking4 is entitled to their opinion. If I want to say "Commons is shit", I shouldn't be censored for that. Slowking4 is obviously exaggerating, there are contributors of original content here (including Slowking4). But Commons is also a battleground for trolls of all kinds. Copyright trolls, scope trolls, spam trolls, vandalism trolls, harassment trolls.. You name it we got them. And the ratio of original content contributors vs trolls is something that may be questioned. And Slowking4 is right: we depend heavily on Flickr. Which is fine as long as Flickr plays nice. But 500px has shown us no image service has to. Imho, this isn't worth an ANU thread. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
How about the part where they've been using sockpuppet accounts on Commons for years? No less than nine verified Slowking4 socks that are indeffed on enwiki have made edits on Commons:
While none of the socks seem to be making intrinsically malicious edits on Commons (though a few files I looked at had some questionable PD claims), they are being used to aid Slowking4's enwiki block evasion. The socks are used on Commons to obfuscate that it is Slowking4 uploading images, so that the enwiki socks fly under the radar for longer. For example: User:Duckduckstop uploaded File:John Stack -L-39904-05.jpg, then added it to a new article they created on enwiki. Had the image been uploaded by Slowking4, an alert new page patroller on enwiki might have noticed that when reviewing the article, and suspected the enwiki sock.
Even aside from their persistent disruptive behavior (that resulted in the clear consensus for a block that Jeff linked to), I believe this persistent sockpuppetry for the sole purpose of enwiki block evasion is reason enough for Slowking4 to be indefinitely blocked on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more willing to support an indef block based on the sockpuppetry than the VP comment. There has been no effort to disclose or show that these are legitimate accounts, but rather ones to disrupt another project though Commons. Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd say talking about an indef where I don't see how any harm came to another person is a vast over reaction. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The use of Commons as a “safe” haven for sock puppets operating on other Wikimedia projects is unacceptable. IMHO Slowking4 should be formally disallowed of logging into Commons with any undisclosed alternative account. CheckUsers could obtain necessary clearance to enforce the restriction. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Commons is not a safe haven for sockpuppets, but importing disputes or sanctions from other projects when there has been no obvious disruption on Commons should be avoided.
Slowking4 knows the policies here, possibly better than many other users. Unless there are legitimate reasons to have alternative accounts active here, they know it's best to retire them or declare them from their main account page.
Looking through the list of alledged socking accounts above which were active in 2018, I can see no problematic edits such as vote manipulation. However, as even apparently anodyne edits on this project could potentially be part of disruption on another project, if someone can demonstrate this type of misuse, they should raise the evidence for the specific case here.
In the meantime, this looks like it's going nowhere.
BTW, I see no problem with @Pi.1415926535: proposing to Slowking4 that their sock accounts are blocked based on SPI evidence on sister projects. Slowking4 can make the case as to why having these SUL accounts, which have been blocked on other projects, are still helpful to the mission of this project. --Fæ (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that sanctions may not be imported. Having multiple accounts here, for Slowking4, wouldn’t be problematical unless his attempts to infiltrate English Wikipedia where Slowking4 is banned. The Single Unified Login system (CentralAuth) intertwines identity issues here and in Wikipedia. I don’t care whether Slowking4 evades the ban imposed by Wikipedian community, but “neutrality” of Commons shouldn’t be violated by either party. If Slowking4 needs a non-public alternative account here, then he have to notify a check-user about this, so that the check-user would be able to certify that uploads and other actions by this alternative account are not used for disruption abroad. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4, as a known sock account abuser, should be restricted to a single account on Commons. I support the blocking of all these extra accounts, and the ongoing block of any other sock accounts found by sister projects. This should be routine anyway, and I take a very very low view of anyone who practices deception and dishonesty here. Further I agree with the warnings made here and before that Slowking4 should desist from general moaning about Commons on VP and elsewhere, or encouraging behaviour unaligned with our free-content mission. If they don't like Commons, then go find another hobby. Constructive, specific comments, else it is just trolling. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's appalling that those who jump to block users here on account of sockpuppetry activities on the English Wikipedia has been quiet about this particular user. Well, I oppose an indefinite block if these accounts are not destructive here but really, this user should be restricted to a single account. BTW, Jeff, I do not consider Slowking4 VP's comment as an insult. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • One account restriction seems reasonable, as well as blocking the main account if this is not adhered to once the expectation is made clear. GMGtalk 12:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I support blocking any sock accounts and IP addresses used to evade blocks or bans anywhere, as well as the masters of those accounts.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked all socks as per above comments. I would not block the main account for now. Hopefully Slowking4 will get the message. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I would support a block for Slowking4 at this point. A few months ago they were almost blocked for their behaviour, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_70#Videoplasty, but still I have seen many unfounded personal attacks being uttered by this user. If they don't want to adapt, we are bether off without them. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to the archived discussion, a block seems reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
That Videoplasty thing ultimately resulted in Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/08#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads. Wouldn't have had that proposal without Slowking4. And even if we would have had it at some point, it may not have been accepted without Slowking4. All you see is the disruption, but there is much more to Slowking4 than that. Obviously, I oppose silencing Slowking4. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz I assume you are being sarcastic? Sometimes, it is hard on the internet to tell the different between sarcasm and stupidity. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: You calling me stupid? Now that is what I'd call an insult. I wouldn't oppose you being given a formal warning for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexis, there's a very important difference between criticising what someone has done or said, and labelling someone with an insult, which is simply a personal attack. Please learn the difference. Even apparently bright people do and say stupid things, take politicians for example. Anyway, I despair of you and your silly essay. Slowking4 frequently trolls Commons and makes disruptive suggestions and comments. We should no more thank and appease him for what that might provoke people to do, than we should be grateful and accommodating to Weinstein, because without him, we wouldn't have had the Me Too movement, or fondly remember Thomas Hamilton, who did so much to encourage the UK to ban hand guns. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You remind me of a verse from a Tom Lehrer song, “Some have harsh words for this man of renown / But I think our attitude / Should be one of gratitude / Like the widows and cripples of old London town / Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.” (“Wernher von Braun”, 1965)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Talking about an indef just seems wrong. I just don’t see how he was disruptive. I haven't seen someone connecting a socks edit to anything one would consider disruptive. Everyone is also entitled to their own opinion. Should all users only use one account (not including a public account and the like) of course. But I don’t see how this was disruptive. Frankly if socking was the issue that would be what this thread would have been started about, not a VP comment. Slowking is very knowledgeable, has given me great ideas for photos, and can anyone say losing him would be a net positive for commons? I certainly can’t. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

New Mouse City

Cleanup needed of 'contributions' from New Mouse City (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed - clearly NOTHERE, and indeffed for block evasion on other projects so likely a sock here as well. Starting cleanup now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Feel free to use my talk page if they come back again. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Master0Garfield

Master0Garfield uploads satellite images and tracks of tropical cyclone, but he always doesn't select the correct license, which increase the workload of other users. Master0 was being reminded twice, in March and June 2018 respectively. However, he still doesn't select the correct license for satellite images as of October 2018.--219.78.190.218 09:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


File:Pope john-xxiii.jpg: possible copyright violation

Uploader declared "own work", but the image can be found at multiple places in internet; probably deleted some hours ago --Jkbw (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No need to report it here. Next time, please nominate the file for deletion like it has been done here. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

69globale

69globale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of Diseynous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)/Ben.chazal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) : uploads files already deleted and add false OTRS permissions here and there. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Trizek: @Yann: may someone perform a RCU for these accounts ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
RfCU is this way. If @Yann: had brought Ertyik, ETRGRNUIS, etc. to a CU instead of just blocking them without a check, we could have done a range block and prevented a lot of disruption. Please consult a CU in the future. Эlcobbola talk 12:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Well, checkusers have several times said that CU requests are not necessary when the socks are obvious, and last you declined my request. You need to be consistent.
@Patrick Rogel: Anyone can ask for a CU request. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've already asked for a CU request on fr.wp. Trizek from FR 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

GTVM92

GTVM92 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

May someone repeat to user (as I've already done in March and in early October) that Google search, Pinterest or others are not valid sources to prove that works are under PD-Iran, that pictures of the former Shah or Iranian family are not necessary under PD-Iran and that files without any date or location give not enough evidence that they are Iranian works. To be frankly I'm fed up with this user which talk page is full of images deleted for the same reason and who doesn't give a damn of verifying pictures before upload. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, {{PD-Iran}} is misused by many users. Using this copyright tag without indicating the date of first publication (if ever published) is rampant both here at Wikimedia Commons and there at Persian Wikipedia.
The main problem with this user is that they do not communicate with other users. They are fully capable of reading and writing in both English and Persian, but they do not engage in community or discussions.
They have been informed multiple times that they should substitute {{Tasnim}} template, but they refuse to do that. They continue to abuse {{Tasnim}} template by uploading images which do not belong to the news agency (such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Hassan Rouhani by Tasnim 2018.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbas Vaez-Tabasi by Tasnim.jpg). After uploading hundreds or even thousands of Tasnim works, it should have been made crystal clear to them which image is an original work by Tasnim and which one is not. However, they pretend not to get the point.
Enough is enough. I suggest to block the user for a week at least. This may make them to change their behaviour. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This may not be the right place to say it but this user is engaged in an edit war on English Wikipedia. The image this user is trying to use for the Soraya Esfandiary-Bakhtiary article is File:Queen Soraya of Iran.jpg, even though I tagged it as a copyright violation. Take a look at the article's revision history and also take a look at this. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Blocked for a week. All files need review. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian Mas Garcia

Christian Mas Garcia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Uploads copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Michael Nicht

 Comment Keeps trying to change images taken and uploaded by him, in the context of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 from cc-by-sa-4.0 to cc-by-nc-nd-4.0, despite what me, User:Katolophyromai and User:Strakhov have said, in his talkpage, about the non revocable terms of CC licenses. He also asked for User:Túrelio to speak. Tm (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@ I have signed this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
"I Michael Nicht the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).(Anyone may use, share or remix this work, as long as they credit me and share any derivative work under this license.)"
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... Wiki cannot "change the terms and conditions of any Creative Commons license,
you must no longer call, label, or describe the license as a “Creative Commons” or “CC” license,
nor can you use the Creative Commons logos, buttons, or other trademarks in connection with the modified license or your materials."
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-change-the-license-terms-or-conditions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. So is my right to change or stop distributing under the CC license at any time.
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... Wiki can reupload/ redistribute my pictures with another account, crediting me as author, and distributing them under CC BY-SA license again?"
Michael Nicht (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Nicht: Again, CC licenses are non-revocable; once you have already uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons, it is no longer your right to change or end the licensing agreement. @Tm: @Strakhov: Please note that Michael Nicht was previously temporarily blocked from Wikipedia for engaging in this exact same behavior (i.e. removing images he had previously added to articles, claiming that he had revoked the licensing agreements for them). Also note that several of the images he uploaded under a CC licensing agreement but later attempted to revoke have already been deleted, such as File:Attic white-ground kylix, Apollo.jpg. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Some files affected are:

If if his account gets blocked he may keep the right, but not the capability, of changing licenses here. Strakhov (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

CC licenses are non revocable, but he can stop distribute them under a CC license. What he cannot do is change the license to a more restrictive one or stop others of using said images, like he is trying to do. But it seems that he managed to delete some images, by changing the license, like * File:Church of the Holy Cross Dolianon.jpg and File:Attic white-ground kylix, Apollo.jpg. @Túrelio: as you were the one that deleted this two files (and we all can make mistakes), how many more are in the same situation, deleted with false pretexts of having non commercial clauses, and in need of undeletion? Tm (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Five of this user's uploads have been deleted sofar. I have restored them all. Jcb (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for the quick undeletions, Jcb. Tm (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened here is extremely disruptive. I have left a clear warning at their user talk page. If I ever see them committing the same offense, I will block them on sight. Jcb (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@ You violate the rules of Creative Commons license.
The script  of the Creative Commons license is this:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license
As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms.
I don't want to been distributed any more under my wiki-account,
because everyone who clicks the photo will see that I have uploaded the photos with cc-by-sa-4.0 license, something I don’t want anymore…
You can reupload / redistribute…
Michael Nicht (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I already told you at your user talk page, you are not the one who is currently distributing these files. The files are at the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation. In their current situation, the WMF is the entity that is distributing these files. Jcb (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter I have signed this:
"Wiki uploader"
I Michael Nicht the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
(Anyone may use, share or remix this work, as long as they credit me and share any derivative work under this license.)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
nothing redirected me to the terms of use you show me (they have CC BY-SA 3.0)
probably is a mistake of the Foundation.
Anyway, as I said to Jcb in my talk page, delete all my info, I donate these copies to wiki
Michael Nicht (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)



@Tm Creative Commons license terms:
What can I do if I offer my material under a Creative Commons license and I do not like the way someone uses it?

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-can-i-do-if-i-offer-my-material-under-a-creative-commons-license-and-i-do-not-like-the-way-someone-uses-it

licensors may waive the attribution requirement, choosing not to be identified as the licensor, if they wish.

if the licensor does not like how the material has been used, CC licenses require that the licensee remove the attribution information

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So, because when someone clicks a photo that I have upload, shows Michael Nicht as lincesor

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temple_of_Hephaestus,Theseion.jpg I want you to delete all the info about me.
I donate these copies to wiki
Michael Nicht (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Zenwort

No objections to my comment below after 36 hours, so I went ahead and gave them a stern warning about their DR creations: Special:Diff/325669134. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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


Check all this nominations:

The volunteer uses "no encyclopaedic value" as argument in a lot of his nomination, and as far I had stomach to go, all of his nominations for deletion are around Africans... I do not want to believe that is a case of racism, but most of nominations do not have clear arguments to exist. Nominating historical photos, photos of workshop activities, of people of those countries... thanks to him, we have a lot of deletion nomination that are clearly a keep. I don't know how to proceed, that's why I'm here.

Cheers. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zenwort: should have been asked about any pattern, and they should have been notified about this discussion. Their account has been active here for many years. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Fæ open User talk:Zenwort, and see the last massage: "Is 'bugger off' hostile enough? -- alas, you do know now where to stick messages. --Zenwort (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)"
I didn't feel that asking about this pattern would be any good to me.
He was notify, when you tag someone in any page, it appears to you, and I shouldn't, I'm not obligate to do it.
"Their account has been active here for many years." ... and?
How about we now focus on this nominations? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I notified Zenwort. I don't care much it says "Though shalt not write below this line", their ye olde English is sċīte and there is no line. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I added a warning about being civil. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

needs reopening

@4nn1l2: Oh, look it here! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Zenwort removes everything from their talk page without comment. It would be good to at least hear from them they got the message. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see any need for reopening this thread at the moment. We will revisit it after a month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The latter. And, in general, the fact that a user that keeps in his personal pages what amounts to aggressive insults to any other user is not blocked for good measure — that’s being extra mellow. This being the same user that files DRs against photos depicting black people — totally not a red flag, sure. But that’s in line with the other guy who contributed exclusively colorized versions of German WWII high ranking officers’ portraits and whose user name ending in 88 was totally not problematic. Not to mention the other guy a few sections down this very page, or the INC meltdown. Yes, this is exactly the kind of mellowness that’s needed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Users can remove warnings from their talk page and there is nothing wrong with it. Any reaction to this would be overreaction, vindictive, and—of course—unnecessary when you can easily ignore it instead of engaging in pointless discussions.
    I removed the commandment which was asking Commons users to post their messages to another project from both their talk page and user page: Special:Diff/325708556 and Special:Diff/325708737. If they do not react to my edits, any further action will be unnecessary. Of course, they can remove my post from their talk page, but they should not put that hostile message back onto their talk page.
    I do not know anything about "the other guy [...] whose user name [was] ending in 88". And it does not matter at all, as I will consider each case on its own merits. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I believe that removing the message telling people about the way to contact a user to receive faster response is very damaging. You didn't even reword it as a request, you simply deleted it. This basically means that other people are now mislead by that text to think that they will receive a quicker response on Commons talk page. If I were that user, I would probably revert those two edits because they are damaging to communication with that user and that is exactly what user page is suppose to be used for. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That is not a "message telling people about the way to contact a user to receive faster response", but a hostile go-away message. All Commons issues should be resolved here at Commons, not any other places. However, feel free to reword that message yourself if you care about it. And your interpretation of the current writing is simply wrong. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The guy with 88 in their username actually requested a username change to clarify 88 refers to the year they were born. Only contributing for a specific subject is generally okay. If I only upload photos of white people because for unspecified reasons I don't take photos of black people (not refusing, just so happening not to be doing it) that's okay. And if someone else would only upload photos of black people, that's okay too. Can't force anyone to contribute in a ethnically balanced way. For deletions this is a tad different for me, because deleting is so easy. But it's often pretty hard to prove deletions are racially motivated. So you would talk to the user, possibly warn them.. But not much more you can do. If Zenwort continues to nominate the same sort of content it may become another story. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Egy writer

Hello.This user uploads images with inappropriate licenses and deletes "No permission since" And the alert on his discussion page.Please act with him.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Warned. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: What about removing "No permission since" from the infringing files?The user has replaced it by repeating the wrong license already located ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: that's why I added User talk:Egy writer#Please do not remove problem tags. Report it if they do it again. I'm not an admin btw. You can also nominate the files for deletion (he can't delete the nomination page) or add {{Licensereview}} if the source is an external website. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

BevinKacon and CSD F10

Nothing more to be done here. The process will not change based on one personal opinion. Some of the taggings as mentioned below may be borderline. Some undeletions were done by an admin who has a broader idea of what's in scope than the mayority of admins. This was the wrong noticeboard for this topic anyway. The 'I don't like the process' part may go to COM:VPP, although the chances that the process will be revoked are about zero. Doubts about file deletions go to COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

I voted against Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/07#Speedy deletions: Selfies. I was the only one who fully opposed it. It was accepted and now worded like this:

"Personal photos by non-contributors, this includes low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of users who have no constructive global contributions."

Time to reap some sour fruits as BevinKacon mass-tagged images for CSD F10 without even notifying the uploaders. And don't say "oh, if this is all that went wrong" - I am not capable of constantly tracking speedy deletions. When I do track speedy deletions, I see loads of wrong deletions. Many of these may need permission, my main focus here is on scope and how F10 is abused to delete all kinds of things.

As admins should be made aware of the ways CSD F10 gets abused, I'm opening this thread. It's BevinKacon now, but there are (or will be) others who will abuse CSD F10 the same way. I voted against it for a reason. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the process is totally fine. Too many people are abusing Commons as their personal photo album. Those files should not clutter our already severely backlogged DR process. Of course both nominator and processing admin should be careful, just like in any other process we have. Jcb (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I have not checked others, but with regard to Dr Nalaka Gunawansa, he has 3 papers in wikidata, so he may well have an item, so having a portrait of his in Commons ..would be OK imho (at least as far "scope" were the issue). Strakhov (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you and have requested undeletion of this particular file. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a 2nd image of the same person and by the same uploader: File:Dr. Nalaka Gunawansa.jpg (currently also deleted). Shall this also be undeleted? --Túrelio (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Only if it's a different image.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but it deleted under the same rationale as the other one. --Túrelio (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done now. --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: Can you confirm that you are reading this topic and that you are taking the undeletions as feedback? Jcb (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that user's too busy being footloose. ;)   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I guess so. After reading this topic, BevinKacon went on to tag some company logos for speedy deletion (G10, files and pages created as advertisements). At least the uploaders were informed this time, unlike the last batch which deleted files like File:Sigtech Logo.jpg (https://sigtechwireless.com/), File:12cm logo BLACK.png (http://www.12cm.co.kr/en/12cm/) and File:ASUS New Large.jpg (which is owned by w:American States Water). I have more filenames for whoever wants them, a few dozen..
So let's take a look at the new batch shall we?
So that's going well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
So? Shall I also nominate all photos that were uploaded by GLAM users? All promotional spam I tell you! Just advertising their libraries and museums, how dare they! Self-promotion is irrelevant as long as the content is in scope. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I restored this one. This is clearly an abuse of F10. It is deleted out of process, clearly in scope, and people are not the main subject. --Yann (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
In that case you should follow through and change the text on Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F10: "This includes low-to-medium quality selfies and other Any personal images of users who have no constructive global contributions." Except that's not was voted for and accepted, so you'll have to create a new proposal. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid you have to brush up your English instead. 'This includes' is different from 'This only applies to'. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to interpret the rules by the letter instead of the spirit, would you really think that won't backfire? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I agree with Alexis here. There are several serious issues here: the uploaders were not informed, F10 is abused (i.e. good quality portraits should not be speedy deleted), and images clearly in scope are deleted with a bogus rationale. This is not OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I undeleted a few images, deleted out of process, probably in scope, and where the uploader was not informed. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I requested undeletion for the Jato-Düsenbau and Kubtec logos. The speedy deletion of the Gracie Barra and Ocean Group logos was denied by Taivo. I don't know if BevinKacon has plans to "confirm they are reading this topic and taking the undeletions as feedback". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

All tagged files were tagged correctly, but policy isn't perfect. Scope is subjective, F10 & G10 less so. File:Mithun daa.jpg is the only tagged file where I missed its usefulness. Feel free to continue the in-depth analysis of every edit. I'll prepare the next batch shortly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Someinfow

User has been blocked. Please come back here if behaviour continues after expiring of the block. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

In spite of the warnings, Someinfow keeps on uploading copyright violations. Although many of his/her uploads are legitimate, a meaningful amount of uploads aren't. Furthermore, s/he hasn't shown any interest in understanding why there are are problems with the uploads (see here, here or here). What should be done? --Discasto talk 19:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Someinfow for a month. All 65 uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patrick Rogel

I left a warning at the user talk page of topic starter for removing problem tag from their own upload. A regular DR has been started in the meantime. Nothing more to be done here. Jcb (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The user insist on removing the source, institution, and description and tag files as without source. [16] [17]

And now is creating a edition war with absurd requests, as saying this File:Ziraldo, Fundo Correio da Manhã.tif is a derivative work.


-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The example file fails COM:DW and COM:DM in my opinion. If you wish, I can raise a deletion request to discuss it. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I thank @Rodrigo.Argenton: for having NOT being notified of his ANU. He may follow a wider discussion regarding some of his uploads at Commons:Village pump#Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional. Nevertheless I may add he's wrong (or a liar) since I havent tagged any of his files as "without source" (it's @Magog the Ogre: who has) and it's him who has reverted this tag. It's again Rodrigo.Argenton who is used to revert other user's deletion templates despite warnings on his Talk page and who "archives" it a lot too. Side note : "edition war" is a Wikipedia thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Wrt first issue, please follow that wider discussion.
Wrt second issue, I agree with Fae. That pic shows some serious DW issues. It should be cropped, but feel everyone free to open a DR.
Strakhov (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a liar?
" I thank @Rodrigo.Argenton: for having NOT being notified of his ANU."
When I use Patrick Rogel you receive a notification, and I'm a liar here? Otherwise how you get here?
And why you yelling at me?
The edit war that you start is...? How do you call that? Because is not rare to see this occur here.
--
For my understanding it's De minimis, the main subject is the author, shouldn't be cropped, but tag as DW is not the correct way. And we are discussing about the behavior of the volunteer, that is clearly violent.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The notification was not proper. The proper way is explained in the header on this page. As to conduct you have come off in this as though you have an axe to grind. It isn't winning anyone over. Saying the behavior is violent is a gross exaggeration. I have an opinion on the file itself but frankly this is probably better settled in a DR not on the noticeboards. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
First, this notes was written when this tag function was nonexistent, second "It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned" not mandatory.
Third, DRs are not the proper place, we have a Village Pump to discuss about copyright issues, I moved the discussion that the volunteer created in the wrong place to the best place to discuss.
And no, I'm here to stop the conflict, but you start to change the subject. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ, Rodrigo.Argenton, Patrick Rogel, Strakhov, and Sixflashphoto: I have raised such a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ziraldo, Fundo Correio da Manhã.tif.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aiwd IpSQLVKR

Sock vandal, recognizable behavior, can be blocked indefinitely. Gikü (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked globally by Tegel. Thanks! Gikü (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

HELP: I cannot understand how to use this site

Files deleted. Sorry that you don't understand how Commons works. Pleclown (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I have tried to read everything in the FAQs and such, but I simply don't understand how any of this works. I am not a code person, don't want to be. Truly don't have a clue about all this here. Can someone help me delete the 3 pix a friend helped me post? I can't do anything with them, so I'd like them taken down. If you ever convert to a site w/ need of being a programmer I'll return. Thanks so much. Please get back to me -- I have tried everything and can't even figure out how to pose a question on here. Thanks. sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsdcraig (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Gsdcraig: Hello, you have also made a mistake of thinking that this page is about problems that users are having, rather than problems with users. Such questions are best asked on something like COM:Village pump. However, a quick answer is that you cannot recall a free licence. If you have published something under a free licence, it is under that licence unless the person who uses it violates that licence. If you have uploaded the files recently, you can ask for them to be deleted here, but you should keep in mind that somebody will have a full legal right to re-post these images on their site, provided they follow the licence you chose. To nominate files for deletion you need to go to the page with that file and on your left inside the Tools menu you will see "Nominate for deletion" link. Hope this helps. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_72&oldid=551191323"