Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 75

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

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2

Not sure this is a dispute, but I want to report it anyways. Over the years I have uploaded a bunch of images concerning our art group monochrom. I founded that group, so I clearly have the copyright for the images and artworks, and I'm totally ok with releasing them under CC 4.0. My identity was already confirmed (at OTRS ticket 2016111810012564) and is listed on my user page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Grenz
Yesterday, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 flagged many of my images, and I had to file a ton of OTRS tickets. After doing that I realized that some of the images were already cleared through OTRS tickets years ago and already validated. So I believe the user didn't really check the validity of the images, he just flagged them all. I don't think that's how it should be done. This caused me and probably some OTRS volunteers work and is avoidable. Grenz (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've checked all of the images and I've reverted 2-3 that are already OTRS-verified, Personally I would've no-permissioned some of these too (not all mind!), In regards to re-verifying as far as I know uou don't need to re-verify,
The Arabic editor is probably just being cautious so in this case I don't see a need for sanctions and whatnot. –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, great. So I guess I just wait for the OTRS process on the other ones. Thanks. Grenz (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I've also asked the editor to judge carefully as lets face not all of the images need verifying - Having to have every image reviewed is quite simply (excuse the language) a pain in the arse and generally shouldn't need to happen but like I said a few of yours do seem on the promotional side (which is a compliment as you take excellent images! :) ),
I'm sorry if doing this has put you off uploading but unfortunately it's just the way it is, Unfortunately many people here upload copyvios all day every day so from our side we'd rather know everything is legit and plus it saves your images being deleted by trigger-happy people so in the long run doing this preserves your images but as I said I can appreciate this is a pain, I just wish I had a solution to this problem :(,
Thanks for uploading your superb images here we greatly appreciate it :), –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it was quite some work to create all those emails, but in the long run, you are right. Hope it prevents the images from being deleted. But just for future uploads: is there a way to already state during upload that I am in direct relation to our art group, so that images related to our work don't get flagged? Should I state that more clearly on my user page? Or should I file OTRS tickets per default? Grenz (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the No permission button is directly next to the image I don't think it'd make a blind bit of difference, I don't know if you technically can but can you not ask OTRS if you could use one ticket for all images you upload ?- I've never used OTRS or seen its interface (because I'm not an OTRS agent) so I don't know what's possible and what isn't, To get OTRS-verified for each and every image is a pain so there must be a simpler process ?
I do have one suggestion but I don't know if Flickr has disallowed CC uploads as they've changed everything. –Davey2010Talk 16:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not too familiar with the OTRS system, but a user posted on my user page in 2016 that I'm verified as Johannes Grenzfurthner (with a ticket number). No idea what that means.Grenz (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah sorry Grenz I hadn't viewed your userpage, Jameslwoodward as you added this to Grenz's userpage should they have to OTRS-verify every image they upload or should the userpage message be sufficient ?,
(If the userpage method is fine then for future uploads for the permission bit you could simply add "OTRS verified - See [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grenz&diff=215404762&oldid=201328294 this]" which personally I think is absolutely fine), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


Jdforrester

  • User: Jdforrester (WMF) was blocked by User:Jcb and unblocked by User:PierreSelim after 40 hours.
  • At least 48 hours have passed since the unblock. There is no sign of consensus for reinstating the block at the moment.

4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Jdforrester deleted a proposal using his WMF account. When confronted, he defended himself saying "Also, in a personal capacity, I very much do have the mop, as you put it. Obviously as I'm professionally engaged here I'm not going to involve myself personally".

So how are we supposed to see this? If an admin deletes (not closes, deletes) a proposal like that, we would consider it admin abuse. And to be honest, saying "oh but this is my professional account" isn't a great defense for that in my opinion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: There was no deletion and no admin abuse involved here. James blanked the section as any user can choose to do, Donald Trung reverted (not undeleted) the change James made - elsewhere in the WMF world, we call that sequence of edits Bold-Revert-Discuss.
Could you please apologise to James for suggesting there has been admin abuse and correct the edits you've made everywhere else across this and other WMF projects claiming admin abuse, please. Nick (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it matters if he used his tools or not. He removes it, assuming he can be recognized as an administrator and thus assume he won't be reverted. Donald Trung didn't really revert Jdforrester: he put the content back but also closed the proposal at the same time. I was the one to reopen the proposal. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That's now your personal opinion, claiming that a user who might be believed to be an administrator makes an edit, other users will choose not to revert them. You can certainly choose not to revert an administrator (generally it's sensible not to revert an administrator - they/us being more experienced or having access to deleted material etc) but you're not banned from reverting an administrator and if you think the administrator is incorrect, you should consider reverting them, or at the very least, discussing the issue with them. I notice you didn't discuss with James/ask James to revert their own edit. Nick (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: It's hard to tell "what if", but if Jdforrester had merely closed the proposal (still wouldn't have been right) instead of bluntly removing it from the page entirely, I may have done just that. But with his blunt removal he made it glaringly obvious he wasn't open to any kind of discussion. And this edit proves that that assessment was correct. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: To be clear, this is not a desysop request. But I do think we should establish whether or not this is an acceptable way of doing things. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This action was highly inappropriate, there should be consequences. No WMF employee should /ever/ suppress or control community discussion using their official staff account unless this is an office action. Had this been a deletion, we would be proposing a desysop as an abuse of sysop tools. Blanking a reasonable proposal, rather than engaging with it might be done in error, but Jdforrester has defended their action, and in a dismissive arrogant manner.
If Jdforrester is now incapable of logging in to their non-WMF account in order to take part on this project, then we should consider removing their sysop privileges as they are showing a fundamental lack of good judgement when it comes to supporting this project in a collegiate way. A WMF employee that throws their weight around by taking unilateral actions to suppress community discussion, even when the discussion is technically mistaken, is acting as if they are taking WMF office actions. The community should not simply wash this away by saying that everyone else must be at fault for taking this event seriously rather than laughing it off. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked the WMF account for a week without autoblock, the user can use their private account to participate in the project. While their actions as an administrator have been particularly sub-standard over the past years, this plays no role in this issue, so that we IMHO do not need to desysop them over this case. But they have clearly abused the circumstance that they happen to be a WMF employee, trying to make it seem that they act on behalf of the WMF while they are not. I find this comment rather shocking, because it shows that their abuse of their WMF account was not an accident. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This is quite a bad block. Since when do we block someone for removing text from a discussion once that was subsequently restored and remained? Both accounts are mutually disclosed, so it's not a socking issue. Is there something else I'm missing other than the fact that the block notification template was improperly fill out? GMGtalk 22:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Still, the removal of the thread was dumb. The ensuing pissing contest about who is and isn't an admin was also dumb. But we generally don't block people for doing a dumb thing. We generally block people for repeatedly doing dumb things despite warning to the contrary. GMGtalk 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Might not be the best block because it's mostly punitive instead of preventive I do understand why Jcb wants to protect the project from the disgusting behavior shown by Jdforrester. Perhaps Jcb is willing to lift the block if Jdforrester promises that showing his muscles using a staff account is a one time incident which never should be repeated? Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, if the user promises to refrain from this kind of usage of their WMF account, I will be willing to lift the block. Please note that they can still use their private account, which I have explicitly told them in the block message at their user talk page. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jcb: I think you did the right thing. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't really comment on the block as I'm not aware of the history, which might play a (subconscious?) role. My goal for this thread was to establish if this kind of behaviour is considered acceptable (as I don't think it is) and (if it's not acceptable) make sure Jdforrester will refrain from this kind of thing next time. (if that would require a block, so be it) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Good block Jcb - Most people (myself included) assume WMF accounts act on behalf of the WMF so their edits are essentially WMF-endorsed so to speak ..... To remove (not close but remove) a thread using a WMF account is poor and certainly would never happen at EN,
Whilst you could say "well a warning would've sufficed" you shouldn't need to warn a 2002 editor not to do something so bloody obvious,
The proposal was done in good faith and certainly didn't removing or for childish comments such as "This farce of a proposal is a massively disrespectful waste of fellow volunteers' time. Please, withdraw it. ]",
Being apart of the WMF doesn't mean you get to do what you like - It's no different to being a policeman - You wouldn't punch the living shit out of someone and get away with it "because I'm a policeman" would you ?, Same applies here - Rules are made for everyone period. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The removal of the discussion is in response to Alexis Jazz forum shopping. They started a discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Technical#How_to_propose_a_change_to_the_MediaWiki_software? where James (a) made clear such a security change was not likely to happen and (b) provided some advice on how to proceed with a Phabricator request. This advice was ignored and an additional discussion was opened. I would therefore take this opportunity to caution Alexis Jazz that forum shopping is disruptive and if repeated in future may well result in your account being sanctioned. Nick (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Nick: Please ping me when you talk about me. You did, I appear to have overlooked it. It wasn't forum shopping. I asked at VPT first in an attempt to figure out if there was some "official" way to propose this change globally, like, on mw:MediaWiki or Meta. Jdforrester's response suggested no such thing exists. So I create a proposal to fix the issue locally. This problem was reported on Phabricator in 2010 where Aklapper made it clear: "The only relevant data is https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility#Browser_support_matrix : We provide basic support for IE6+.". Jdforrester said on VPT:

You could file a Phabricator task suggesting that MediaWiki strip it on upload, but I don't know how feasible that would be; given the security implications, it'd probably take a few months to do.

Reading between the lines, that means it may well never happen at all. I mean, it's been on Phabricator for 8+ years already. And his suggested solution is really hard. But even if this happened, the result would be that FlickreviewR couldn't review the files. So we put more unnecessary load on our human license reviewers. So let's skip all that and move on to his second suggestion:

As a work-around, you can trivially strip the problematic content from the image with a tool like imagemagick or similar.

Yes, I'll just download thousands of files from Flickr somehow, write a script that strips the offending code, upload them 50 at a time with UploadWizard or use an alternative tool and after all this still bother human license reviewers. Yes, a completely trivial workaround that will work for absolutely nobody but me! I had a better idea: locally remove this useless security check for dead browsers and call it a day. And how do we propose that? Exactly. Not forum shopping. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: please note that I did ping you when cautioning you to avoid forum shopping in future. Nick (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disregard your warning because I didn't forum shop. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
After carefully reviewing the prior interaction, that was not a proposal, it was a pre-proposal friendly discussion of the options of how to make a proposal. Going on to make a proposal intended to gather opinions and a collegiate consensus, after reading Jdforrester's advice, is not forum shopping. Please avoid threatening blocks when the evidence does not stack up. --Fæ (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Jcb: I don't think that the removal of the content by the WMF account was approprate, but I think after reinstalling the the content, then Jdforrester should have been asked/warned warned not to do that anymore. And in case of recidivism a blockage could be envisaged. Therefore I think an unblock is appropritate. No one is perfect neither the administrators nor the WMF people. IMO unlock the account, close this discussion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The point is that they are defending their action. There is still no statement from their side that they will refrain from abusing their WMF account this way. I think such a statement is absolutely necessary before we can unblock the account. Please note that their private account is not blocked and that I did not apply autoblock. Jcb (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, comment here you seem to think is awful, is in fact a "note for clarity" in response to Alexis's comment " he's ultimately nothing but an autoconfirmed mortal.". User makes an edit. That edit is reverted. User instead makes a request that the proposal be dropped instead. This is not a defence of the edit, but instead an acceptance that the proposal is not going to be deleted/closed and in fact a contribution to the discussion. Terrible block, Jcb. Absolutely no justification -- no abuse of tools, no abuse of WMF position, just an editor acting in good faith, making a poor decision, and then moving on in a positive manner. That we are all human, and make mistakes at times, is exactly the sort of defence you have relied on to keep your bit. Well, I shall support the next de-admin request for you. This is not how admins on Commons should behave. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: this block is controversial (right now there is more support against the block than for the block, counting one side involved and the blocking admin). Per COM:BP, before blocking (controversial block), this should be discussed, please unblock and let the community reach a consensus. Please respect our blocking policies. We admins are here to serve the community, not impose our views on the project. PierreSelim (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion is very strange. I think that people have a desire to punish somebody. The removal of content was definitely problematic, it needed to be reverted (sadly I was not bold enough to do that). But blocks are needed to prevent abuse rather than to punish for prior action. We all have a lapse of judgement every so often, I know I do. I also believe that the discussion about the discussion on VP/Proposals is drowning out the actual discussion on VP/Proposals that is quite reasonable. So:  Oppose blocking,  Oppose removing administrative rights,  Support calmly reminding to let discussios on VP proceed,  Ending this discussion ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unblock only because Jdforrester is listed as a member of respective team and, hence, could plausibly deem that acts in official capacity – otherwise the account should stay blocked. Note that it’s not an endorsement for the censorship thing itself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • While I still can't really comment on the block itself, I'll say this. I wouldn't have blocked the Jdforrester (WMF) account if I were an admin. It's not what I was seeking with this thread either. That said, Jdforrester (WMF) is blocked so that is now the current situation we need to deal with. If Jdforrester (WMF) makes an unblock request with just a single word for the reason (that word being "sorry"), the account should be unblocked. So far, Jdforrester has been silent on both of his accounts. That fact makes me suspect Jcb may have been right: despite the block, there is no sign Jdforrester understands he messed up this one. But it's kind of like throwing someone in jail, and only afterwards finding out that person is actually guilty. They should be in jail, but were thrown in without a conviction. Mistakes were made, but once that point is reached, should you let them go? (that's an ethical dilemma btw for which a Wikipedia article probably exists which I would be interested to read) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WMF, WTF?:
Unblock Jdforrester (WMF)

I propose that Jdforrester (WMF) should be unblocked, I simply cannot say that he acted in bad faith. He acted as a paid editor for the people who actually work with the software concerned and has more insider knowledge than the rest of us, although I think that Alexis Jazz’ suggestions are all rational and sensible, the way that the discussion was closed was simply unconventional but not an act of bad faith as he simply didn't want us to waste our (scarce and precious) time on something they weren’t going to implement anyhow. In his comments later he did not repeat the blanking but responded to Alexis Jazz simply stating that he is an experienced user on the project (one of the first admins), although I’ve seen plenty of essays written by users where they state that people who have more user rights should be blocked/banned faster because they simply should know the rules better than any newbie, I simply do not see how this block is a preventative measure rather than a punitive one for acting on behalf on the Wikimedia Foundation (which despite their hard work for this project are notorious here) rather than in his own personal capabilities. My main argument is simply that there was no “continued disruption” which would justify a block as he started commenting with his personal account afterwards (before the block), we should just try to discuss his actions with him and not punish him unjustly because of some good faith slip up.

Also note that I’m not commenting on the above discussion, just this particular sanction. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Using an official account to intimidate and suppress open discussion, and then arrogantly defending doing it, is not acting in a WMF paid position. It is an abuse of trust, and damages the good will of volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Whilst blocking WMF staff members similarly damages the good will of those staff members and does nothing at all to improve the relationship between Commons and the WMF. My assessment of the situation is as follows.
James used his WMF role account to close the discussion on the basis that (a) individual communities cannot vote for the project specific code changes to the MediaWiki codebase that this proposal would need, and (b) they don't feel it is worthwhile for the Commons community to continue to discuss a technical change that the Commons community has already been told will not be implemented (for legal and security reasons). As James used his WMF account and not his personal account, it can reasonably be construed that it's the WMF position that the discussion should be closed.
You can argue whatever way you want, but (a) as we know WMF aren't going to make the changes Alexis and others have asked for, continued discussion isn't going to be of any use here and (b) it was the third place this issue has been discussed (see the initial Phab tickets and then the discussion at COM:VP/T where James confirmed the request wasn't at all likely to be acted upon).
This isn't just a case of WMF not liking something, they've provided an explanation that for reasons of legal liability and security, the Security team will reject this proposal. I would suggest Jcb does the sensible thing and unblocks James, and that the ongoing discussion moves away from discussing changes that the WMF people will reject and focuses on productive solutions that WMF and volunteer developers can implement relatively quickly. Nick (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not, and has never been, the position of the WMF to act as discussion police on this project. Should that ever become a WMF operational strategy, unpaid volunteers like us should push off, set up a mirror project where we are respected rather than treated like dumb cash cows. "The WMF position that the discussion should be closed", no, honestly, I have no idea how you can believe that, there is zero evidence that this was an official WMF action. Jdforrester acted arrogantly, misusing his big hobnailed boots of power. Some time out on the naughty step, to think about how he serves this community will do him the world of good. --Fæ (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"I have no idea how you can believe that, there is zero evidence that this was an official WMF action" other than the fact we know already that WMF have declined to implement the requests made of it, and that the discussion closure was performed by James using his official WMF account and not his personal account, as such, I consider it to be part of the WMF response declining the requested change. It would also be helpful if you could tone down the rhetoric concerning James, it does yourself a great dis-service, you're usually more mellow and measured in your responses (though I do recognise you're somewhat angry with WMF). We know very well what the WMF position is now regarding the requested changes, the block on James account is no longer preventative and as you yourself recognise, has become punitive ("naughty step"). Jcb as others have now recognised the block to be a punishment, could you please lift it at your earliest convenience, thanks, and we can invite James to come back with some suggestions that could be implemented. Nick (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Please stop painting others who wish to discuss this, but happen to disagree with you, in dark colours, making them look like they need to defend their character. Nobody has made any assertions about your motivations, it would be super if you could do the same. Your remark "you're somewhat angry with the WMF" is a tangential ad hominim, not based on facts, nor anything I have asserted anywhere about my opinions of the WMF. Please withdraw it.
Jdforrester has made no unblock request, nor has he deigned so far to explain or respond to questions about his actions which appear a deliberate misuse of a WMF official account.
It is our community norm to avoid over thinking blocks if the blockee is unresponsive and is not sufficiently engaged to make an unblock request. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Must run, comment struck, apologies for thinking you were angry about the events. If you want to reciprocate and strike your description of James as 'arrogant' it genuinely would be appreciated as a way to defuse the situation. If not, no big deal. Nick (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The way I see all parties acted in good faith, Alexis Jazz wasn't forumshopping he was simply trying to find a solution to which he politely suggested to file an RfC in the Phabricator, Alexis Jazz simply wanted to see if there was community support on Wikimedia Commons for such changes. From what I can tell all parties here acted in good faith and are ultimately both perpetrators and victims, Alexis Jazz probably shouldn't have referenced to Jdforrester (WMF) as a “mortal” because of his paid editing account’s lack of user rights and Jdforrester (WMF) probably shouldn't have closed a discussion by blanking it which is usually only reserved for vandalism (which this isn't) or as an act of vandalism (which isn't how I would describe Jdforrester (WMF)’s actions either). The fact that Jdforrester (WMF) hasn't appealed his block yet could also be because users who appeal blocks are always given life long sanctions, but an appeal by Jdforrester (WMF) explaining his perspective would be most wise to help clear up. No one here acted in bad faith and I’m sure that jcb genuinely thought that the Jdforrester (WMF) could be used for further non constructive edits so playing the blame game here will only arouse bitterness and resentment. I’m not saying that acting in good faith makes one exempt from sanctions or isn't disruptive, most edits I see on most projects that are reverted were done in good faith, I’m just saying that attacking the human beings and not addressing their arguments does not make for a good collegial environment and this concerns both sides of the conflict. I ultimately think that both Alexis Jazz and Jdforrester (WMF) have in mind what’s best for both Wikimedia Commons and its contributors, they just have different opinions on how this should be done, both are perpetrators and both are victims here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
All parties, including ourselves, are experienced contributors who understand policies and project norms. There is no need to call anyone here a "victim". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I described Jdforrester (WMF) as an "autoconfirmed mortal" as opposed to an administrator. I was unaware he also has a main account with administrator privileges. I assumed Jdforrester was unaware of our conventions. An autoconfirmed user (or mortal) can't go and blank discussions. If they do that anyway, they would be reverted and warned. Which I believed was what happened and was done. An administrator on the other hand could go around and blank discussions. But if they do that without a sensible rationale, I wouldn't warn them. I would report them to ANU. So upon finding out Jdforrester is an admin, I opened this thread. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I honestly see no justification for unblocking their WMF account as long as they don't promise that they will refrain from using their WMF account this way. I don't believe either that their employer allows them to use their WMF account this way. If it would be the official point of view that WMF personnel should suppress community discussions at individual projects, I think a lot of volunteers would rapidly leave the project. We are not in China, are we? Jcb (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have just informed the WMF about this incident. Jcb (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that just listing him WMF account at "Commons:Editing restrictions" indicating that he may not use his WMF account for such actions would suffice, he has served both the WMF and the community for almost two (2) decades and it would be a bit extreme risking a man’s livelihood over a good faith action closing a discussion in an unorthodox way. Let’s just ask him to appeal his block, be listed on the page "Commons:Editing restrictions" as “a badge of shame”, and let this man continue to improve the software for us. I can’t support having him potentially lose his income because of our hobby, not after having to deal with reading a friend of mine going into depression because of something similar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
For me it's sufficient if they simply state that they will refrain from using their WMF account this way. I see no reason to state the obvious at Commons:Editing restrictions. I don't believe they will lose their job over such an incident. Jcb (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad block, support unblock. Agree with pretty much everything Nick said. The comment here that Jcb and others seem to think is awful, is in fact a "note for clarity" in response to Alexis's comment " he's ultimately nothing but an autoconfirmed mortal." I also agree with Jdforrester in his comment "This farce of a proposal is a massively disrespectful waste of fellow volunteers' time. Please, withdraw it.". This is, as usual, all just an excuse for folk who self-claim to represent the community willy waving to WMF. Juvenile and incompetent. Jdforrester did not abuse his tools, did not edit war, and did not actually defend his edit. Absolutely no reason for any block other than "to teach the WMF a lesson about who is the boss here" mentality. Grow up. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
He wasn't blocked "to teach WMF a lesson", He was blocked for using his WMF accountin a manner that implied "I'm part of the WMF so therefore I can do as I please without any fear of repercussion (or atleast that's how I saw it), No but he removed content under a WMF account to make it more authoritative (He could've used an personal account but better still he didn't need to remove the proposal at all - I simply comment objecting to it would've sufficed)
"Grow up" coming from the guy who screams "DE-ADMIN JCB!!!" at every action he makes, Oh the irony. –Davey2010Talk 12:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(Struck as was rather a pointless reply - I agreed with the block so no reason to badger anyone else tbh. –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC) )
Davey, you must be reading different comments from Fae and Jcb and others than I have. The guy made an edit to end a discussion that was, he perceived, a pointless waste of everyone's time. Further, the edit was a consequence of an earlier discussion where Alexis did not heed his advice but went on to forum shop and start yet another proposal. Jdforrester did the close in a rather dumb way - deletion - and should have known better, but absolutely did not edit war or defend that edit. Jdforrester has a WMF account and an admin account. As Alexis claims at the top of the page, if he did it with his admin account "we would consider it admin abuse" (a point I don't agree with -- really depends on the circumstances). I don't think using his "WMF" account makes it "more authoritative" and you are speculating as to his motive for using that account. It suits people's viewpoint of the block to think this was abusing WMF authority, when in fact there are rarely any cases where WMF employees comment with authority (e.g., takedown notices) and those are made clear. As for the "de-admin Jcb" comment, you really really haven't been paying attention for the last few years, and the irony that Jcb should block someone for making one edit mistake and not even breaking any policy is damning on Jcb. In this case, I think Jcb abused his tools. There is nothing in our blocking policy that supports this block, and Jcb's interpretation of the "actually I am an admin" comment as "they are defending their action" is just careless misreading of the situation. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of anything before that - I had no idea there was an earlier discussion, That is indeed true had he used his admin account all hell still would've kicked off, Well we'll agree to disagree on the paying attention part, I genuinely don't see anything wrong with the block but maybe it's just me. –Davey2010Talk 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You know what the real irony is, Davey? It's that here, on the "User Problems" noticeboard, many real issues are ignored or brushed aside. I had a rare need to post here recently about a real issue affecting many files, and it took me many "bumps" to get anything done. You've had issues with the same user, just as an aside. Yet when there's a little drama from the "usual suspects" with a bit of "ooh - controversy...", here we are in an instant mega comment-fest/bun-fight with no end of willing participants. I mean, it would be uncharitable to suggest that one of the main purposes of these boards seems to have been lost, and they've rather become places for people with unresolved grudges to leap into perceived opportunities to further them by pouncing on each other, so I won't do that, but it's food for thought, perhaps... -- Begoon 14:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: There's nothing at COM:BLOCK supporting this block. I don't read Jdforrester (WMF)'s contribution as defending their edit - they're clearly changing tack, which means that this block is clearly not preventative. In fact, it's ironic that Jcb is continuing to defend their block on the (false) basis that Jdforrester (WMF) is defending their edit. This isn't the first time I've encountered Jcb not refusing to countenance that they were wrong to take a particular admin action - I am not restoring it. End of discussion. -- revision of User talk:Jcb. While I'm not pushing for a desysop, this is the second time I've encountered what I'd see as stubbornness from Jcb in relation to an admin action - and I'm hardly a regular here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ talk 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Colin basically word by word, the ban should be lifted. There are things we don't have control over as the community, like other people's security. This security exception can lead to breach of user's private data in countries like Iran. Have you thought what's the real life effects of such action is? Seriously, be less arrogant. Amir (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Other people's data is not the issue here, there's never going to be a change that damages any user's security, none of us really expect that outcome, so trust us to be smarter than that when presented with the facts and technical issues. Jdforrester's actions do not protect anybody's safety, they were to suppress community discussion about what to do with files that we would like to upload that have these problems with the EXIF data. Suppressing discussion does nothing more than cut out more eyes and brains that could help solve the problem in a way that would continue to ensure safety. It is not Jdforrester's job to censor community discussions because they personally believe there is no solution. The WMF have been extremely clear in the past, especially WMF legal, they do not want the job of loco parentis or to replace our unpaid administrators, so let's not force their employees to wear those hats. --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: no. The discussed change concerns IE6 and IE7. Microsoft dropped support for those years ago. Those browsers are not secure by any standard. If you are using IE6 or IE7, you are fucked and there's nothing the WMF can do about that. Otherwise, where will it end? Why not support IE5? Or IE4? Netscape Navigator? And ancient Adobe Acrobat readers? All files that are uploaded here are processed by a virus scanner, which is more than enough. The discussed check for that IE6 and IE7 design flaw generates lots of false positives. It may have been decent when IE6 and IE7 were still supported by Microsoft and widely used and many files were uploaded without any EXIF data at all (actually it was a poorly designed check even back then), but today, the check is nothing but disruptive. It doesn't protect anyone. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment It's shocking that Jcb would block the WMF's account without discussions. This sort of controversial block itself may be considered abuse of administrative privilege/tool. Do you have an idea of why you still remain a sysop here? It's simply because we believe you are not perfect and occasional mistake is compatible with your status as an administrator. This is certainly not a good block and I'll recommend that your account be blocked for the same reason since you failed to lift this block despite being told by many users (including other administrators) to do so. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check the facts before being shocked. There was preblock discussion, and our policies do not actually require preblock discussion. --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Our policies in fact require preblock discussion for a controversial block. BTW... Where is the consensus to block the WMF's account before Jcb unilaterally blocked the account. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
See "may be", that means not a requirement, neither is waiting for a consensus. In practice we often see more extensive discussion post block, understandable as otherwise it would introduce a 7 day delay which like desysop votes would make them only possible for the most egregious cases. Good governance means polices and blocks are applied equally and fairly, not in a way that treats those wearing big hats, or with a known employer, differently. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocking a WMF staff member's account without discussions is in fact a clear definition of an egregious poor judgement and this is not the sort of judgement we want to see in someone we trusted with admin tool sets. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There was not a preblock "discussion". Alexis queried Jdforrester's edits. Nick was very opposed to Alexis's interpretation of events. You got very angry and said there should be "consequences" and possible de-admin. Then out of the blue, after 90 mins, Jcb blocked a very long term contributor, for ... making an edit that got swiftly reverted. Oh my. Looks to me that Jcb was trying to curry favour with the editor that has been out to get him de-admined for several years. The irony that now others are suggesting he be de-admined over this. There was never a consensus for a block: not even any suggestion of a block. Now there is clear consensus the block be lifted and that it was a bad block: blocking policy does not permit this block, not even close. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

. Two editors responded to Alexis: Nick was totally negative and you were totally for and Alexis hadn't even suggested a block.

 Comment "Looks to me that Jcb was trying to curry favour with the editor that has been out to get him de-admined for several years."
Wait wut who is that editor? Not me, because my history with Jcb is less than one year old.. Right, Fæ.
T Cells, the first time you said it I thought it was a typo. But you said it again. Jcb didn't "block the WMF", Jcb blocked the WMF account of the Lead Product Manager of the WMF. There are plenty of other WMF peeps, none of them blocked. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course it was a typo Alexis Jazz and that was in my first response to Fae which I have now corrected. You may wish to read my first comment. There is no place this was repeated twice. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You said "It's shocking that Jcb would block the WMF" (corrected now to "It's shocking that Jcb would block the WMF's account") at 8:08 and said "Where is the consensus to block the WMF's account" at 8:50. Jcb didn't block "WMF's account", I'm not even sure there is a "global" WMF account. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
this was my first comment and it clearly reads WMF's account and this was referring to Jdforrester's staff account. I doubt anyone would think WMF has a global account and think I was referring to WMF global account (that never and will possibly never ever exist). T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
User:WMFOffice --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support Unblock of Jdforrester (WMF), I do not see why the block can be seen a preventative and in fact don't see it being warranted. All this has done is shown just how toxic Wikimedia Commons has become. I'm shocked and rather disgusted at the handling of this, Jdforrester was acting in good faith but just made an error in judgement in removing the discussion but that doesn't mean that a block is required. Bidgee (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support - I wasn't aware that Alexis made a comment at Village pump/Technical prior to Village pump/Proposals so I now feel the removal was done in completely good faith (ofcourse it still shouldn't of been removed) but now I know there was a discussion at VP/T first I don't really see this as being "authoritative" (I would've done had no previous discussions occured),
IMHO Jdforrester (WMF) should be unblocked as time served. –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblocking of jdforrester

I'm unblocking jdforrester staff account:

  • It's clear there is no consensus for the block
  • There is no immediate danger to Wikimedia Commons requiring an immediate block, if the community reaches a consensus for the block, I'll be happy to reinstate the block.

--PierreSelim (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

PierreSelim thanks. Jcb, you demanded an appeal. Per blocking policy (of which you seem to have misplaced) this requires either:
  • An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated
  • An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake or an unintended side effect
This should have been dealt with by a conversation with jdforrester without threat or actual block, and then may well have resulted in an admission that it was a dumb edit. But to require him to ack the block was appropriate: well nobody agrees with that except for you and your best friend Fae, and is simply rubbing someone's nose in it. Bad blocks should be lifted and Admins must respect community consensus. You no longer respect the community so I have no respect for you as an admin. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You are reading this page selectively. 'Confirmation bias' we call that in human performance terms. You only see what supports your personal opinion. Jcb (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this comment is it is just wind. You haven't mentioned any specifics that you disagree with. For example, you claimed there was no consensus against the block, when in fact the consensus against the block was overwhelming (13:2). So, while none of us are perfect, the facts speak against your interpretations. -- Colin (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The block was procedurally defensible, although understandably longer than others may have considered appropriate. It's good practice to wait for the user to request an unblock (with reason). On the circumstance that we're talking about a staff account, the disappointing mix of personal opinions and official positions predictably makes it hard to do one's job correctly, but that's not a problem created by the block. So we still need to learn how the user intends to avoid such mix-ups in the future. Nemo 21:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' English Wikipedia talk page

It may be puzzling to see some accounts that rarely participate here, until you realize that this has been flagged up on Jimmy Wales' user talk page.

Naturally, anyone is free to comment on discussions about administrator actions, but canvassing in this fashion opens the door to a criticism of gaming the system using dog whistle politics. As well as encouraging flaming of discussion, seeing a sudden influx of irregular contributors will make any vote more of a popularity contest, rather than a considered consensus based on evidence. A symptom of this effect is reading tangential comments from "irregulars" which are little more than vague griefing criticism of Wikimedia Commons like "how toxic Wikimedia Commons has become", when in fact Commons has been procedurally and in terms of community dynamics, very stable for several years.

If you have arrived here from the English Wikipedia, feel free to participate whatever your viewpoint, but please review past discussion and take time to consider the evidence, please do not rely entirely on reading others second hand summaries or rhetoric. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, you go off and use my comment ("how toxic Wikimedia Commons has become") for you little opinion that everything on Commons is all rosy, sorry but it is toxic. By using my comment you're also implying that I'm a "irregular" when I'm in fact a active contributor (who has just got back from a deployment) and FYI, I saw this discussion when looking at the COM:AN/U but not on Jimmy's talk page. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Jimmy enjoys "fuck", but I do not appreciate it. Take your abusive language off wiki, if you are a "regular", you know it is not an acceptable norm here. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, you think it’s ok to use my comment and indirectly put me in the “irregulars” basket and I’d be ok with it? Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I fuck and shit all the time, with the occasional goddamn. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Outdent

Somehow some people seem to think that the block of the Jdforrester WMF account was a way to ignore the community. It should however be rather obvious that the block was meant to protect the community and to protect our possibilities to discuss whatever we like in freedom, without dictatorial interference. I have no hidden agenda in this case. As far as I am aware I am not known for being in conflict with the WMF. Also I am not involved at all in the discussion about the old browsers. I just stepped in to protect your freedom to have such a discussion. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How was it done to "protect" the community? Don't you think blocking someone the way you have done is very much removing freedom and dictatorial interference, while ignoring the community who stated it was a bad block? Bidgee (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, our admins are expected per policy to work "constructively" with others. If you disagreed with Jdforrester's approach to ending a discussion he felt pointless, then you could have talked with him. You might have found him reasonable. You did not, and neither did anyone else. Alexis came to this page to query things, and to talk Jimbo, basically setting fires all over the place saying how we'd been "silenced". Nobody believes your claim that a block was necessary to protect the community, Jcb. Nobody. Everyone can see that long before the block, Jdforrester had accepted the restored text and was adding his 2p-worth to the discussion. We do not want our freedom protected by bullying blocking admins thank you very much. The community did not request this block and the community has made it overwhelmingly clear the block was bad. Jcb, why did you claim the community consensus against your block was "nowhere to be seen" when in fact it was 13:2 and quite voluminously against your block? That is why you should not be an admin. You exist to serve the community. Your references to "china" and "dictatorial interference" suggest you are playing the role of the US of A, protecting the world from evildoors by war and toppling regimes without a clue about what happens next. That is not the kind of "freedom" and "peace" Commons represents. You should have talked with Jdforrester. Commons was never in any danger: the swift revert and restoration of that daft proposal is evidence of that. We don't need you as admin. Please resign. -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm with 4nn1l2 here. If the 7-days-blocked-user (because of blanking a proposal) were a regular guy probably nobody would be giving a [...] about it (this block by no means would be a "larger event"). Wrt to the de-adminship process I think they should be (in general) more affordable than usual (I consider myself neutral on this particular one), but basing the whole thing on this 7-days-block on Jdforrester (which I do not agree with, not needed at all IMHO) does not seem very convincing to me. I may add it surprises me no one has complained yet about this thread having degenerated into a vote. Strakhov (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Colin's thread (this thread) is supposed to be a vote. We require "some consensus" to start a de-adminship request. It's bonkers, but it is what it is. We need to have a vote that results in "some consensus" (more than 50%) in order to obtain permission for a desysop request that will succeed with 50%, so most desysop requests are formalities. It makes no sense, however, it makes no sense. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, that's why I say they should be more affordable. I recall... in the last pre-desysopping effort there were complaints on the "vote over consensus" thing (maybe it was about Jcb too). If someone in the future wants to desysop this account please skip this part and go straight to the vote. In this case.. although I'd normally say go for it, the particular trigger seems a bit weak IMHO. Strakhov (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: that's unfortunately not possible. A bureaucrat would shut down that vote. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jcb

I opened this proposal, which is meant to be a "quick show of hands" way of determining community consensus for a formal de-admin procedure. The community is evenly split on this: no consensus. I don't think such polls should be kept open any longer than necessary, as they become a magnet for airing random unconnected grievances. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

As noted above, Jcb blocked Jdforrester for trying to end a proposal by blanking it at an early stage. Donald Trung then restored the text and closed it more conventionally. It was then reopened by User:Alexis Jazz. Then Jdforrester contributed to the proposal with his opinion of it. In the space of 30 minutes and three editors, the edit was reverted and the user who made it contributing quite normally to the discussion. It was a dumb way to close the proposal, but then Alexis had already been told here not to make such a proposal, as it would be a waste of time.

Although Alexis queried Jdforrester's actions, his interpretation was rejected by User:Nick but User:Fæ wanted "consequences" and for his other account to be de-admined. Nobody had suggested a block, but Jcb applied one anyway. The block was rapidly called out as a bad block by Nick and others. Subsequently there is clear consensus that the block was a bad one and should be lifted.

Our Commons:Blocking policy does not permit blocking in this circumstance. Jdforrester has been on Commons since 2004 and had a WMF account since 2012. A longstanding user should not be blocked lightly. Rapid action, without community discussion that leads to consensus for a block, is only needed for situations where there is a real immediate danger of further disruption (preventative, not punitive). There was no, zero, discussion with Jdforrester about his edit. He has not defended it (despite claims above). He contributed, after it was reverted, in a positive and normal editing manner by joining the proposal discussion. This is clearly someone who is not about to blank the section again: no edit warring occurred. There was also no, zero, community discussion proposing a block. We simply do not apply blocks like this out of the blue for a simple mistake that is swiftly resolved and where the editor shows clearly that they are not about to repeat it. We now have strong discussion against the block and repeated requests it be lifted. Jcb continues to edit, ignoring this discussion, and ignoring community consensus and ignoring our blocking policy. It is sadly not unusual for Jcb to totally ignore community discussion about his actions, sometimes with good reason, but often frustratingly not.

I propose Jcb's be de-admined. He has abused his tools, blocked against policy. Admins are required to respect community consensus and Jcb is openly ignoring it. Opening discussion here prior to formal de-admin request. Note: this is not a formal request for de-admin, but a proposal to the community that we open such a request. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Jcb, since you seem ignorant of Commons:Blocking policy, let me remind you that an appeal that promises to not repeat the mistake also requires an admission that the block was appropriate and valid. Nobody except you and Fae believe that, and demanding this of Jdforrester is not acceptable. You could have asked Jdforrester about his edit and asked him not to repeat it without blocking. A block was not required. Your admin bit does permit you to bully other editors. As admin you are required to respect community consensus and the consensus was against you before your block and more so afterwards. You ignored that consensus and still do so. I would not have created this proposal if you had swiftly realised your mistake and admitted it was a hasty block, made in error. That some people are upset about the edit does not mean you have community support to block an account. Policy does not permit blocking just because we disagree with each other. Let me remind you: Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends -- you did not work constructively with Jdforrester towards a common understanding meeting the goals of Commons. Also let me remind you: Administrators should also ... respect community consensus. -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Both Jdforrester and Jcb acted very poorly in this case. But fortunately many other admins and other volunteers commented very wisely here. Hope both of them now learned how wrong they were. I expect an admin or crat will revert the block of Jdforrester and close all these discussions. There is no need to force Jcb to do it. Nothing better we can do now. :) Jee 12:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - There's issues with both editors actions here, In all fairness Jcb may not of even known about the VPT discussion but I feel desysopping is OTT, Unblock Jdforrester (WMF) and then we can all move on with our lives. –Davey2010Talk 13:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jcb's deletions are a completely different story; I may or may not support a de-sysop pre-discussion scenario because of their *bold* deletions. However, I vehemently oppose a de-sysop pre-discussion due to blocking an experienced user who has acted wrongly but has not requested an unblock yet. If and only if they request an unblock, I am willing to grant it based on the discussion above, and then we can all move on. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support de-admin. Jcb does not listen and always thinks his actions are justified even when he acted poorly. This egregious poor judgement should not be allowed to continue in a project like Commons where collaboration is the bedrock. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    The “egregious poor judgement” consists, first and foremost, of unwillingness to lick a superior’s boot (blocking as punishment is IMHO a secondary issue here). Surely an anti-social behavior somewhere, but let us remain Wikimedia Commons where kissing-up isn’t enforced as a social norm. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi this is the second time you are directing your "Kiss up kick down" neologism to me. I would ask you to refrain from directing this personal attack to me. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The neologism has been in use since 1993 but… on the opposite bank, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, I can't remember asking you when it was coined. That it's been in use since 1993 does not give you the liberty to direct it to me. This is personal attack, and that is not acceptable by any standard. This should never ever be directed to me again. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Whether it's vitriolic or not, "omg desysop Jcb" is a topic that comes up often enough that it is basically it's own Commons inside joke. For any user, I would expect that this would be taken as an indication that there are issues that need to be addressed, and attention needs to be paid that their actions likely to not align with community expectations. For a sysop who has been desysoped previously, I would expect this doubly so. One bad block is not grounds for desysoping, but choosing this as the hill to die on, in the face of a pretty clear community consensus to the contrary, and even protesting after a functionary has intervened to lift the block, and after a desysop request went to a !vote after they'd been desysoped one before, and after probably a dozen threads over the past year raising concerns about their performance... it's very difficult to interpret that as anything other than "screw the community, I do what I want". That's the wrong answer. It's the wrong answer for any contributor to a collaborative project, and it's definitely the wrong answer for a user with advanced permissions. GMGtalk 16:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    Where were all these critics when Jcb lawyered about overturned block of Incnis_Mrsi? Or on other Jcb edit-warring incidents? Well… all these repressed dumb users don’t worth losing one Commons sysop at the end, whereas one (WMF) certainly does. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sanctions against Jcb for this matter. Jdforrester acted inappropriately. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose this action might be controversial, but not absolutely unwarranted and cannot be interpreted as abuse of rights. Ankry (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Jcb has made several errors in the past, one of them is still not dealt with on Undeletion requests, however, any sort of punitive action in this case should either be applied across the board or not at all. I vote for moving on. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Gone Postal here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Jcb's response to PierreSelim's unblocking action: "It's rather unprofessional and poor practice to not wait for a response of Jdforrester." I don't think Jcb is really in the position to say something like that now. @4nn1l2: I see your point. The warped thing is, on Commons, it's impossible to ever start a desysop request over a history of smaller poor actions. One larger event, like this one, is required for that. Really, Jeff G.'s post should have been part of Colin's proposal. If this results in a desysop request, I can't imagine this event with Jdforrester will be the only thing that would be discussed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Also note Jcb's talk page response today "Several users still agree with the block. Your 'community consensus' is nowhere to be seen". I count two users who support the block (Fae and Tuválkin), one who agrees it is dubious (Natuur12: ""Might not be the best block because it's mostly punitive instead of preventive") while not opposing it, and at least 13 users including several admins who are strongly against it. This ignorance/defiance of community consensus is a key reason for the de-admin proposal, and is a pattern of behaviour with Jcb. A "preventative" block, without community discussion, might be acceptable if there was immediate danger of further disruption. In fact, everything indicated that Jdforrester accepted his edit was reverted and moved on to contribute to the discussion. Any concern that he may make a similar edit in future could have been discussed with him, without any need for a block, and Jcb nor anyone else discussed the edit with Jdforrester before blocking him. This block was political, not preventative. -- Colin (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    Certainly I wouldn’t speak in defence of Jcb had the desysop motion be honestly motivated by protection of Commons from abuse, not intertwined with Colin’s feud against Fæ. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    Incnis Mrsi your various comments here seem to be an attempt at creating a diversionary tangent. Please stick to commenting on Jcb's fitness for adminship. Other concerns belong elsewhere, and your speculation of dishonest motivations should have remained inside your head and not let loose on your keyboard. -- Colin (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: No, the warped thing is this block was not a "large event" nor a big deal at all, but it is getting pushed to become one, mainly because 1) User:Jcb has too many enemies here; 2) WMF or Wikimedia chapters have become involved. This is not about the Commons community nor the project, but about ego. Unlike you, I really think it is important what event triggers User:Jcb's 4th de-adminship vote. Even if you manage to de-admin User:Jcb over this incident, there will be no glory for you. But I bet you don't give a damn about glory. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any inundation of votes from Wikimedia chapters, and the ironic thing is two of Jcb's biggest "enemies" supported his block. No thats not a factor here at all. The community has for some time been frustrated that Jcb does not seem interested in the community, does not engage when criticised, and is defensive in disappointing ways (see above for his claim about consensus). In the past, he hasn't abused his tools, and his flaws with deletion actions seemed often a symptom of bad procedures that the community needed to fix. Here we have quite a scary abuse of tools, with an admin using the block as a bullying tool rather than engaging in constructive discussion. That is not how Commons admins should behave. 4nn1l2, could you stick to discussing Jcb's actions and fitness for adminship rather than speculating about motivations of third parties. -- Colin (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Colin: I see at least one user who is not a regular of Commons administrators' noticeboards and is affiliated with WMDE and has commented here (the thread above, hint: Ctrl+F:"Iran", a notorious country for a typical Westerner, just like China which was ironically mentioned by User:Jcb themselves). I wonder why User:Jdforrester (WMF) did not make an unblock request, but many users (including irregulars and Wikimedia affiliates) have commented about the incident. Does the same pattern really happen if a normal Commons user (not from ENWP or big projects) gets blocked? No, this is the reality of Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... I understand your frustration here. I verily doubt that users like this guy would ever upload a single photo to Commons again. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Jcb informed the WMF himself and I had asked Jimbo about this. Mainly to try and figure out how all this is supposed to work when browser support is carved in stone. So that explains that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Strongly oppose any sanctions against Jcb. As pointed out above, Jdforrester's actions were inappropriate. AshFriday (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Strongly oppose dessysopping Jcb on the grounds of this issue. I do think Jcb has properly explained the rationale behind the block. In fact, I haven't seen any acknowledgement from Jdforrester's side. That is, it seems as if Jdforrester hasn't understood at all what's going on and, in fact, I do  support Jdforrester's desysopping as he's not able to understand the difference between community consensus he's committed to support as administrator and his (paid) duties as WMF staff. --Discasto talk 13:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per User:T Cells Amir (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Determine Jcb's community mandate: a vote of confidence

If everything above is saying one thing, I think it is that Jcb's community mandate is not beyond any doubt. (to put it lightly) Incnis Mrsi, 4nn1l2, Abzeronow and Strakhov made a clear point that I actually agree with: desysopping Jcb over just the Jdforrester thing is over the top. And I wasn't sure whether I would even be writing this subthread until a few hours ago, when I found Magog the Ogre, probably no stranger to most of us, saying "You know what? I'm getting pretty sick of your attitude. For someone who routinely ignores policy, you sure can be awfully condescending and smug." to Jcb. Those are pretty strong words. Jcb shouldn't be judged over this single action, we should evaluate all his actions, both good and bad.

I'm not going to say Jcb must be desysopped. That doesn't work. If the community wants to give Jcb its mandate to continue like he has, Jcb should continue like he has. That's how voting and mandates work. But even for Jcb himself, I think it would be better to see a fresh vote and a fresh mandate. I believe it will ease these discussions, at least for a while, if we know Jcb still has that community mandate. Let's not call it a "de-adminship request". Let's call it a "vote of confidence" instead.

Do we support the organisation of a vote of confidence?

I may or may not have nicked that term from 4nn1l2. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I have no confidence in Jcb's ability to administer this site fairly, honorably, and equitably given all that has been written by and about him and his actions and inactions. However, I am unclear as to which !vote would apply. Please clarify with a statement we can support or oppose.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support the organisation of a vote of confidence.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Alexis Jazz what is the point of this thread? I don't think it's a good idea to open multiple thread especially when you feel the previous ones does not lead to the result you expected. In this context, a vote of no confidence is in fact a request for de-adminship. Why not allow the above thread to run its course. If you have additional evidence of why Jcb should not remain an admin on this project, why not include it in your statement in the open thread above. I recommend that this thread be speedily closed by any user in good standing. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Colin's thread was very specifically aimed at the issue with Jdforrester's block. Despite not necessarily opposing a RfD (or, with a more neutral name, a vote of confidence), several users took issue with that. So I think a suggestion with a wider perspective is useful. I don't believe these suggestions, mine and Colin's, exclude each other. Colin offers more detail on the Jdforrester case, I try to have an angle with a wider perspective. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No, this isn't correct. I agreed that Jdforrester incident triggered Colin's thread above but many users explain why they felt Jcb admin bit should be removed and their arguments were not based on this single incident alone. Jeff G. for example listed all Jcb's previous request for de-admin and other thread where Jcb actions were questionable. The Jdforrester incident is one of many examples of Jcb's poor judgement. Nobody would want an admin desysoped over a single incident like this one. I disagree that people want Jcb desyoped for blocking Jdforrester staff account, that is a misrepresentation of the position of the community on this case. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: How about we let a Bureaucrat decide?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The same user left a note on Jimmy's talk page partly to attract attention and they never thought of vote of no confidence until they noticed that the previous thread result is becoming the opposite. I maintain that this thread be closed either by a Bureaucrat or any editor in good standing. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: please withdraw that statement. I left a note on Jimbo's talk page to inform him about a situation regarding one of his employees. And to prove beyond any doubt I didn't do it to attract attention towards Jcb blocking Jdforrester: I left the initial note on Jimbo's talk page at 19:56 on 25 January 2019. Jcb blocked Jdforrester (WMF) at 21:41, 25 January 2019. I do not own a time machine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that you left a note on Jimmy's talk page before Jcb's desysop request. Thus, I have struck my comment accordingly but I maintain that this thread is pointless. BTW.... Jdforrester is not Jimbo's employee but an employee of the WMF. Jimbo is just a member of the board of trustees of WMF. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have closed my proposal above (which I believe I should be permitted to do). Such a proposal is designed to be a quick show of hands, to see if there is a consensus for formal de-admin procedure. It is clear the community is evenly divided so no consensus. We've had a chance to air our views on the events surrounding the block, and I think we should agree-to-disagree and move on. Like T Cells, I disagree with opening another vote. I don't think we should keep opening "vote of confidence" proposals just because the last one didn't get the answer you wanted. Much as I and many have issues with Jcb, no admin should have to suffer continued or prolonged attack purely out of long-running grievances rather than over a specific serious failing. I strongly advise this section be closed and we move onto other things. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
With this thread, I hope to address some of the issues raised by some of the voters on the now-closed thread. I can only speak for myself, but if I knew Jcb still actually has a community mandate, I would cut him a lot more slack. In that case I may strongly disagree with things he does, but the community wanted it that way and I'll have to find a way to deal with that. As long as it's rather unclear if Jcb would even have a mandate today, it all appears to be undemocratic and unfair. To put it in simple forms: if Jcb believes he still has a mandate, it would benefit him to support this proposal. He'd have nothing to fear and everything to gain. If he believes he may not have a mandate anymore, he should ask himself if it's really democratic for him to hold on to his adminship without a mandate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I personally think it is time to move on. What we know is that Jdforrester (WMF) done something that was in good faith but not the best choice but it wasn't an action that required a block or at least should've gone to the community first, but instead Jcb without any warning blocked Jdforrester (WMF). Community agreed both contributors wronged and Jdforrester (WMF) should be unblocked. We then ended up with a discussion for a de-sysop request which clearly was mixed, with Jcb's past issues being raised. Is this discussion/vote needed? No, or the community would have been majority for a de-sysop but it didn't. I feel letdown by Jcb, as nothing has changed but like it or not, we have to deal with it. Bidgee (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

And also closing this subthread. This isn't going anywhere like this. Unless Jcb initiates a vote himself, he will continue to be an admin without a clear mandate. Discussions won't stop. Drama will continue until the end of days. Everybody loses. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Gentleman Biaggi7

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted speedily a lot of unused, unsourced, undescribed and uncategorized maps. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

JoKalliauer and attribution chain

Certainly extracting (and uploading) images from one-image PDFs is a good job, but shouldn’t Commons preserve attributions records carefully? These poor PDF files are IMHO candidates for Guanaco’s proposed deprecation feature, whereas deletion is IMHO ill-advised. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I do not change the description page, therefor the .png/.jpg/.svg has the same author/source/lizense as the original .pdf . PS. there are too many different authors that uploaded {{FakePDF}}. I think Special:ListFiles/Johanvictor uploaded the most FakePDFs, some without author/invalid source and a age that is unclear if they are already PD.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
For public-domain things attribution problems may be ignored; I don’t object to deletion of PDFs which have no original work inside. And also… “FakePDF” is an inappropriate term and the assumed analogy with non-vector SVG is misleading. A PDF containing one page only and a single image on it isn’t something going contrary to the idea of the Portable Document. It merely is inconvenient in Wikimedia with its emphasis on Web, not printing. {{WrapperPDF}}, perhaps? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Maybe WrapperPDF is a better Name, but I made it analog to {{FakeSVG}}. I know view examples (a plan that should be in scale, or Printed on A4/letter-size-paper) where it makes sence to embedd a Photo to a PDF. But check the pictures in Fake PDF, that are not used for scaling/meassuring/printing in real size (except maybe the peacock). The JPGs embedded as PDF has the same size as the PDF (The PDF is even about 3KB bigger). There are more viewers for JPEG/PNG than for PDFs, therfore I don't see an advantage in PDF.
@Túrelio: You deleted some of the PDFs, maybe you should read the disscussion above. (But I think they should be deleted, since I don't see a problem mit the attribution chain.)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: please ping, I hardly watch this page.
The difference for SVG:
Why are {{BadSVG}}s mostly desired: f.e. File:BasePairing.svg conains a picture from a microscope, but most of the picture is vector, therefore it contains the rasterimage, but it should stay vektor.
And SVG maps with topographic raster graphics are also desired, since a rasterimage from a satelite is combined with vector-text for describing the cities
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
A BadSVG contains a Raster-image
A FakeSVG only contains (one) Raster-image
A SVG that contains a Raster-image and Vektor-Data(Lines,Pathes,Text,PathText,TextPath,Rectangles,Circles) should be tagged with {{BadSVG}}
A SVG that contains only one Raster-image it should be tagged with {{FakeSVG}}
In German there is a longer explantation: User_talk:Sarang/Archive/2018#BadSVG_in_FakeSVG_und_sinnvoll_eingebundes_PNG_trennen?
If you need help in distinglish between {{BadSVG}} and {{FakeSVG}} you can use User:Perhelion/simpleSVGcheck.js
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: forgot to ping, if you do not watch the page regularly  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Vergne advertising

Hi,

I came to believe that Vergne is not here to contribute inside COM:SCOPE because

  • User page: Little advertisement about a man in robe posing free for photo and video illustrated by an external link;
  • File:Bretelle.gif: The description is a little ad about posing man, gives his location and ends with "contact me";
  • File:Travestis en possition.jpg the description is the same little ad.

Please, take action.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jp04pabebr

Doesn't understand nothing at copyright: everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted all his contributions (except last) due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

IP user (possible IP sockpuppet) removing an image from categories

I have issues with an IP user from Estonia who uses different IP addresses in order ot make a number of edits that push his/her POV. The user is very insistent, and uses the variable IP address in order to make controversial edits and avoid accountability. At this time, the file at issue is File:Rein Veidemann 2004.jpg, file history here . As this user is apparently using a watchlist, I believe the user also has a regular account both on Wikipedia and Commons. I have had encounters with this user before, where they'd push for a bad translation from English to Estonian. -Mardus /talk 14:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of contention with this file is, that there are three people in a photo, two of whom are slightly out of focus, but discernible well enough, that I put the photo into two categories with their names. The IP user has been removing the file from the two categories, simply on the basis of this IP user's reasoning, that the two men are out of focus. -Mardus /talk 14:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The user has a strong interest in physical geography, and seemingly a way above-the-average knowledge. It is an uncommon signature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The issue here is that you for the most part avoid discussion and then report me for being in disagreement with you. You use discussion only to provide some laconic remarks that don't really explain your edits and for the most part in order to cast personal attacks and smear (as here). I don't need a watchlist to keep track of a couple talk pages where I've participated lately. Since we both work on Estonia-related stuff then I occasionally come across your unconventional categorization practises. Large part of your edits are like the one being reverted here. So obviously I'm not the only one who might have problem with that. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B11D:51A9:A201:9579 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There was enough discussion, where I provided clear rationale from Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips for why the file should be kept in the two categories of the people depicted, and for why you should not remove the file from those categories. -Mardus /talk 20:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
In actual fact, most of my edits have not been reverted, and most other users have not found cause to revert my edits. You, the IP user, are supporting your argument with only one reversion of my edits. -Mardus /talk 21:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I should also point out, that I did not notify the IP user, but he found out anyway, that I'd filed this ANI complaint. My conclusion was, that this user was following my edits (public as they are), if not tracking them outright.
The user's IP address has changed from
2001:7D0:81F7:B580:98FE:7CDD:36D0:57AD to
2001:7D0:81F7:B580:EC3B:A3FE:E8F4:3301 (both at file talk) and
2001:7D0:81F7:B580:B11D:51A9:A201:9579 (this page).
-Mardus /talk 21:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Another IP address is
2001:7d0:81f7:b580:3161:6045:b2bb:f003 from 16 January 2019, when he edited the file on that day. -Mardus /talk 22:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Can Mardus stop spamming the noticeboard with ridiculous observations on changes of an IPv6 within a fixed /64 block? Note the link in my postings from 8 h ago. Documenting movements of crows, geese, or even ants can have more merit, especially if Mardus would care to release resulting videos under a free license ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope that was not a personal attack. -Mardus /talk 22:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
...by User:Incnis Mrsi. ^^
  • Neither do I consider this spamming; this IP user acts like an IP sockpuppet who makes controversial edits, and I believe I have every right and duty to report such action. -Mardus /talk 22:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact it was me who initally referred to COM:CAT in order to show why adding these categories was, if not inappropriate, then at least very much obscure. Then you quoted the same page, but your quote was in my opinion out of its context and hence didn't explain anything, as previously explained in file talk.
Link to this revert by another user was to illustrate your typical editing pattern where you categorize by small/hidden details, that most likely aren't the subject on given image. I don't know how much reverting or disputes with other users you have had on this, but I'd be surprised if this unconventional use of categories hasn't attracted at least some more attention.
Well yes, my past interactions with you haven't been pleasant, and so I already suspected you might do something like make a report here after reverting. By the way, to my understanding good manners is to let the subject know of discussions like this, instead of trying to hide it ("he found out anyway"). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6509:9AFE:B323:2504 22:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding the file to these two categories by me was correct, because these two people are there, and so the file deserved to be categorised to the names of these two people. They are a bit out of focus in that photo, but not obscure, and so are very much discernible.
Per your invocation of COM:CAT, I brought out the passages that applied to my reasoning at file talk.
So far, you are the only person I have had issues with on Commons and elsewhere on sister projects.
I'd decided not to notify you for two purposes: Since you change your IP addresses so often, then it's impossible to tell which of these addresses is in use by you at any time. The other objective was to determine, if you are specifically tracking my edits. -Mardus /talk 22:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected the file for a year. Taivo (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I doubt it will change much for that user. Estonian Wikipedia users and administrators also have issues with him/her, and as of this posting, there are no less than two threads about that person on the Estonian Wikipedia general discussions page here and here. -Mardus /talk 22:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This is smearing. I'm sure you can't provide link between me and these other users in question, besides using IP address. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6509:9AFE:B323:2504 22:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The users and administrators at the Estonian Wikipedia also complain about an IP user who makes controversial edits, and if one such IP address is blocked, he is certain to reappear under another IP address that has not been blocked yet. Your pattern of behaviour is not dissimilar. -Mardus /talk 22:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yauza02 ignores OVERWRITE

This ru.Wikipedian seemingly thinks that may willingly scorn Commons’ official guideline. Because of my strong dislike of their site, it would be better for somebody else to deal with the issue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a strong warning, all uploads reverted. Yann (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanawit suksapsang

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done You already warned him/her. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Yann: but continues the copyvios today despite the warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Bad user. Blocked for a month, all uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Elman Həsənli

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 3 months. Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pancet56

It appears that the only purpose this user has here is uploading low quality personal erotic images. Looks like most everything has been deleted or nominated for deletion. Yes, there is an educational value to unique quality photographs of a sexual nature, but given this, it doesn't look very much like this user is here to upload educational images; it looks like they're here to use Commons as a way of gaining personal pleasure out of exhibitionism. GMGtalk 13:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

What does GreenMeansGo propose – to block the user indefinitely? Unless licensing problems or illegal pornography, there is no serious problem with such uploads; mass Flickr uploaders make more pollution on Commons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't much like having a user around whose only purpose here seems to be exploiting our latest files reviewers for their own sexual gratification, especially when they are additionally taking up community time in repeated deletion requests for their poor quality personal pornography. Or do you feel it's likely that a user who feels the need to inform us that he wants 50 males ejaculate in to my mouth and fill it up with sperm and be made to swallow it all and thank them as their slave is actually here to be a productive member to the project? GMGtalk 15:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t much like having liars around, and indeed Commons blocks many liars, but some liars—albeit created sockmasters—have de facto permission to upload stuff (such as PD-ineligible logos) to Commons despite large-scale sock puppetry and other infractions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I quite agree with GMG. It is rather obvious that this user is not here to provide educational images. I suggest deleting all images, send a strong warning, and block if behaviour continues. I already deleted all talk page comments, clearly out of scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
+1, agree with GMG. --A.Savin 16:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem user (IP)

IP. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Yann (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ComputerHotline

Nothing actionable --Majora (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The user was found to have a number of problematic works (photos and videos) over the past month, mostly related to the Category:Mouvement des gilets jaunes (known as Yellow Vest Movement in English). Some even said that the admin may have to block the user, but IMO it is too much. --219.79.126.243 16:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean User:ComputerHotline? Do you have diffs to back your claim? I notified the subject user for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Special:Diff/337792612--B dash (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This looks like French internal politics spilled over to Commons... Yann (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It's me. What is the problem exactly ? I've hacked an another account ? I've verbally abused another user ? If you don't like my works : don't look it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do here. Considering the unnecessary use of a real name, this could do with a prompt close. --Fæ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not your work, its the videos you import without checking first if there are copyrighted or if they're not copyvio. It's messy and it is unconsiderated for an experienced user as you are. What bothers me the most: Mikani and I left you messages to warn you that their might be a problem with your imports, but you simply deleted our messages from your talk page. You did not bother to give me an answer, and the imports of copyvio content keep on going.
Please, keep up the good work with your (own!) photos and videos, which are very valuable to Commons imho. But please, be considerate enough to check before importing other people work that it is indeed their own work and properly licensed (nothing new here). I think an experienced user as you should know better. Gyrostat (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Z3greb's youtube screencaps

Z3greb (talk · contribs) has been uploading derivatives of youtube videos since Nov 2018. Between 11 Dec 2018 and 4 Feb 2019, there have been at least four User Talk messages asking him/her to use the licencereview tag. Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Z3greb was filed on 27 Jan 2019. special:permalink/337967501 s/he continues to ignore the advice today. What should we do with this as well as the deletion request?

User:Z3greb, please put the {{Licencereview}} on youtube screencaps you upload.--Roy17 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support user has had 22 files deleted for wrong licenses (but seems to improve indeed not really: has a batch of 14 more on deletion, which makes 36!) after a first warning (given by me). May Administrators ask him/her not to "archive" his talk page at every deletion notification and to reply to personal messages? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All files I checked are OK. Could you be more specific? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Concerning the deleted files please look "imports" at Z3greb (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information); my warning. Besides @Titlutin: has send him/her several messages here without any reply as well as in French at Wikipedia. @NicoScribe: is awaiting reply too for a Wikidata thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 Support Like Patrick Rogel mentioned, I wrote them several messages (in French, since this user is active on French WP) both on their Commons talk page and on French WP. The problem is that not only did Z3greb never reply to any of those, but they continued their problematic behavior. I had to pass behind them on several files to add the correct {{YouTube}} template, as well as {{LicenseReview}}. When I saw this user wasn't reacting, I got discouraged and stopped. Now I see they still haven't learned, and every time one of their files gets deleted, Z3greb deletes the warning message on their talk page as well (not a problem of course, but it may trick uninformed users about the amont of files deleted for copyvio). I'm sure this user has good intentions, but they are really careless (not checking if the video uploader really has the rights on the video for instance) and don't listen to other users, which is a problem since several users have to pass behind them, which is a waste of time imo. Something must be done to make Z3greb understand the problem and change their behavior (and messages don't seem to work unfortunately...) --Titlutin (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Stan old

Hi, User:Stan old was blocked in November for a month for uploading out of scope content, They've returned today to upload 2 files that were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stan old so I was wondering if they could be reblocked for a month or longer ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked 2 months. --Mhhossein talk 06:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks User:Mhhossein much appreciated, As a general side note I've again left them a message informing them what is and isn't acceptable, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That is nice of you, Davey. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi T Cells, Thanks, Well I don't want to see valuable editors blocked and so If I can help not to get them blocked then I'll try :) –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Davey. Nice job. --Mhhossein talk 19:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mohsen1248ahmaghsagpedar

This user is here just for insulting. Hanooz 08:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block for a start. Yann (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jotzet

Hi, I recently changed the width of Jotzet's talkpage[6] as I felt it was way too small for desktop users however they've simply reverted[7],
Should the talkpage be this small and if not could someone revert?

Talkpages need to be accessible for everyone not just mobile users and I did mention the mobile site to them,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool… two months ago Davey2010 fiercely defended an en.Wikipedian who definitely fooled Commons users by means of namely his user_talk page. How can the same Davey2010 detract anybody for a mere inconvenience of the user_talk? Ah… perhaps because Jotzet is from other site(s). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but what on earth has that got to do with this ? .... Andy never made his talkpage (IMHO) inaccessible to everyone ... he simply added a template ..... these are 2 different things and are unrelated to each other. –Davey2010Talk 15:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done noted, withdrawn. –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Domenikos2003

Continues copyvio just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

ThatBPengineer

A multifaceted bad file-tagging problem, including (but not limited to) attempts to use {{Copyvio}} as a speedy deletion vehicle for pretexts not endorsed by the respective policy. His user_talk page is full of complaints. And today we see unsubstantiated Revision of File:Cube_4x4x4.png (note that Chris2refuge (talk · contribs) is not yet another Internet zombie as people in some quarters may think, but rather an original-research-pusher named Christophe Roux, hence no serious doubt about authorship has place here). Please, stop the long-term abuse of tags by ThatBPengineer with some definite countermeasure. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, some tags are not OK, although many others are:
Yann (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: any opinion on the {{No source since}} bollocks cited by me? Note that I didn’t mine deeply into ThatBPengineer’s contribs – given all evidence on the table, we could reasonably extrapolate expectations for such abuse. At very least, any objection against undoing the disruption boldly? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you as my actions has bring out some of the copy vio issues faced and that is why Commons are at now effectively still riddled with contents that are obviously copyrighted and why the Commons File Upload Wizard should be integrated with Google Reverse Image Search so that the images which are obviously from the Internet should be stopped from be uploaded onto Commons. Whatever your decision in banning or blocking my account, I am resting my case here.
As per said earlier in my talk pages , my main motivation for "copyvio tagging abuse" is one of my cousin friends have one of the pictures Photoshopped in unpleasant ways and posted to Commons, which well stayed over for 5 over freaking years (Since 2013) before I tag it for removal. Plus over the few months, I found out that there are many images that are in gray area too such as blatant advertisement (self promotion materials)and the copyrighted images (recent years newspaper/television,etc) and the sloe actions of moderators in removing the pictures, there are still images pending for Regular Deletion : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletion_requests_April_2018 , the slow or rather inaction of the Commons moderators allows the uploaded images of copyvio to be continued.
Thank you and good luck to all moderators of Commons for your hard works all this year, hopefully my actions can bring out a fruitful consensus on how to prevent upload of copyvio images to Commons in first place. ThatBPengineer (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The user can’t quit the “look how am I good” mood even now. How long block may advance critical thinking into necessary areas of the crust? Please, look at the user_talk again and count how many Commoners lectured ThatBPengineer about his errors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve blocked them for a week for continuing to mistag files as copyvios after multiple warnings. -- 1989 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock?

There’s an account named Mister NightMoon that just signed up recently doing similar actions. @Elcobbola and Krd: What do y’all think? 1989 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi crapped out

IMHO these are different users – Mister_NightMoon genuinely doesn’t understand what they are doing, whereas ThatBPengineer tries to exploit Commons processes to further his agenda(s), and sometimes successfully. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, during a cursory inspection certainly saw Category:Writings_in_Hindu (hist • logs • abuse log)—an obvious Mister_NightMoon’s signature—but didn’t pay attention to it. Sorry for my weak attention this time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

We also hear a blatant IDONTHEAR. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thatonewikiguy. Yann (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Repairs

A.Savin mostly eliminated Mister_NightMoon’s “contributions” to the namespace 14. Any ideas what to do with creations by ThatBPengineer and those pertaining to his oldest account Thatonewikiguy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ? Also, I hereby request inspection in

to identify and undo abusive file tagging, especially “silent” deletion of our legitimate users’ own works. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There are some issues with ThatBPengineer's contributions, but quite a number of edits, including requests for deletion, are OK. Hopefully ThatBPengineer will correct his way of editing. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I insist that such things as

are unacceptable here and must meet blocks if continued, especially as a routine practice. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So yes, the tags may not be the right ones, but there are issues with these files. You need to AGF, that the intention was good, even if the edits were not. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Does Yann understand what BOUDHA.png is at all about? It is a table of physical dimensions. Anyone who doesn’t like it, feel free to nominate for regular deletion, but please not in a disparaging form like “you, Miladseyfi1, stole the picture [from a book], and now you must confess from where namely”. As for Bruno Lubryart, can Yann look at File:Bruno_Lubryart_-_Paixão_de_Cristo.jpg #filehistory? Or possibly back the link then, look at the filename, forth again, and then on the image itself? I estimate that three such cycles will be sufficient for ∼ 98 % probability to get the point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

ThatBPengineer Confessions

Dear all admins, I am admitting guilty for these parts:
(1) Using the speedy deletions a.k.a Copy Vio to rid out the files which in based on my judgement. So, I had read the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion to gain better understanding and in my part, many images I had tagged for copyvio are self promotions (in my judgement, if you put your phones num/IG/FB), it is considered as the candidates for speedy deletion.

(2) I had read comments below, I found that I may be creating a lot of categories for my this and former accounts (If you use the judgements of the Category:Writings in Hindu ) as mentioned by Incnis Mrsi . Well, don't blame me, when I want to categorize the images and I found that the categories are not existed yet, I will create a new category, in the future, I may search it using the Commons Search Engine first , if I couldn't find the category, I can ping the mods in discussion pages on which proper category to be placed

(3) I admit I have 2 accounts which is this account and Thatonewikiguy. But in my defense, it is not sockpuppet as the @Incnis Mrsi: had alleged and as well as defaced the whole userpage. Based on definitions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry , I only creates this account as I am locked out of my former account AND I never use former account since I started using this account.

NOTE: Admins can delete my former account @Thatonewikiguy: to prevent any issues now and in the future.

For the Mister NightMoon part, in my defence, he is coming here at wrong timing. If you still insists he is another sockpuppet, well it is up to you.

P.S: This is the confessions and not "look how am I good" as alleged by some editors which whom I believe, I may have a hidden agenda. Whatever agenda that you think I might have,I think I already spell out my intentions and my motivations loud and clear. Whatever judgement you want to pass on this account, it is up to you.

P.P.S: Due to overlapping comments of my alleged "abusive" copyvio , the sockpuppets comment are posted below. and I just moved the statements around abit BUT I do not altering ANY of the original meaning to prevent further damages. Kindly note that .

Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatBPengineer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 February 2019‎ (UTC)

  • @ThatBPengineer: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So you are Thatonewikiguy. That means that e.g. this can no longer be seen as a dumb action by a new user, you did this although you knew very well that it was wrong and when confronted you played the dumb new user. I think you should look for a new hobby, we can do without users who create a mess on purpose. Jcb (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

After witnessing

support harsh measures too. Indefinite block and the Wikipedian standard offer. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about uploads

@ThatBPengineer: you have uploaded a number of images white white backgrounds, such as File:A 200W green colored OEM hair dryer.png and File:A silver coloured OEM Electric Oven.png as your won work. There is a series of images that you have used to illustrate injection molding defects. File:Plastic Defects - Contamination Defects.png is an example. That image appears to be a derivative of a product shot found on Ebay and elsewhere. Since that shot is just one of a larger set, I assume that it, not yours, is the original. Is that correct? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

And File:Lego Mould showing the gating and spruce.png appears to be an image from [https://www.core77.com/posts/53790/A-Rare-Look-Inside-Legos-Production-Facilities a website article about the LEGO factory, just cropped to remove the identifying caption and logo. Is that correct? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
When tagging File:BzRFuZ Halle S.jpg as copyvio because ThatBPengineer doesn't understand German didn't work, they just erroneously tagged it as "no source". @World's Lamest Critic: actually it is a screenshot from Sariel visits LEGO: inside LEGO molding factory, LEGO vault & LEGO Ideas House. See the outline.
Nuke the DRs and indefblock, imho. w:WP:DENY. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BLOCKED

I HAVE 2 ACCOUNTS I CANT ACCESS SEE TOC — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.254.130.128 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your password was not accepted because your "caps lock" is turned on. Turn it off and try again. If this does not resolve the problem with your computer, try turning it off and on again. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Aawwad1's uploads

A number of recent uploads by this user are screen grabs of a copyrighted website, and therefore outside Commons' scope. I would suggest that an admin delete them all and talk to the user about this. None of the images are in use as pages they were used on on en.wp have been deleted as spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Bad screenshots deleted and I left them a note. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

警告给予干预，大家一定小心Roy17此人。

大家请关注一下Roy17的所为（尤其是管理员，一定要特别关注一下Roy17在2018年圣诞节期间到现在对我做了些什么，特别是我那些被删的文件）。他所提出的理由都是一模一样的理由，就是“derivative, no FoP for INDOOR works”那个理由来恶意提删。不过我去了Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China那边查过一下，其实那些都不属于中华人民共和国著作权法的范畴里面，而且外网都没有的，加上也不是什么模仿电视或动画作品的内容。如果按照维基图片分享那些上传规矩来说是可以保留的。他曾经在粤文维基百科里面因为乱提出删除的行为已经被很多管理员投诉（请看zh-yue:WP:管理員留言板#擾亂維基百科、zh-yue:Wikipedia:管理員留言板/2018年、zh-yue:WP:刪文討論#糖廠 (搞清楚) and zh-yue:Wikipedia:管理員留言板#人身攻擊、破壞、濫用程序、針對、騷擾、挑釁、糾纏，請封鎖Cedric_tsan_cantonais），这些已经构成恶意提出删除的行为。还有几次在我的用户页面讨论来冒充管理员，散布一些虚假内容的谣言（当时我是没有讲什么不雅内容，但是他已经至少三次所为：special:diff/332618077、special:diff/332614128、special:diff/332519324）。我在这里特别提个醒：Roy17是一个危险人物，因为Roy17以上这样的行为不是过来清理维基的内容，而是想来破坏广东地方的特色，对维基进行挑衅和做过一系列恶意骚扰的行为，这种行为在维基百科可以构成封禁。--PQ77wd (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Translation:

Woulld everyone please notice what User:Roy17 did (Especially for administrators, please notice what Roy17 did on me from 2018 Christmas to now, specifically those deleted files uploaded by me.). Those reasons he raised are all same, which is "Derivative works, no FOP for indoor works", to maliciously delete my files. But when I searched Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China, actually such (objects in the files) are not protected by the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. Those files are also not released on the Internet, and are also not derivative works of television programme or animations. They should be kept according to the policies of Wikimedia Commons. Roy17 was also complained on Cantonese Wikipedia administrators for reckless deletion requests （Please refer to zh-yue:WP:管理員留言板#擾亂維基百科、zh-yue:Wikipedia:管理員留言板/2018年、zh-yue:WP:刪文討論#糖廠 (搞清楚) and zh-yue:Wikipedia:管理員留言板#人身攻擊、破壞、濫用程序、針對、騷擾、挑釁、糾纏，請封鎖Cedric_tsan_cantonais）, these acts are already malicious deletion requests. He even pretended to be an administrators on my talk page and spread rumors （I did not said any obscene, but he already did 3 times：special:diff/332618077、special:diff/332614128、special:diff/332519324）. I want to remind that Roy17 is dangerous, as what he did is not just clearing content of Wikimedia Commons, but also attempting to destroy the features of Guangdong, provoke and maliciously harass others. Such acts on Wikipedia (?) should result in a ban.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @廣九直通車: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoengGaaiSeoi.jpg testifies against integrity of PQ77wd, whereas Roy17 made IMHO a valid point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This user's (and some more from yuewp that may or may not tag along below) actions speak for themselves. I did not bother replying to a smear campaign. I had directed about 20 of this account's uploads and some of his previous account's to speedy deletion last year, way earlier than Christmas. All but one went through. Unfortunately I did not find the gadget to automatically issue notifications or issue them manually until Christmas.
On a side note, I just noticed there had been a last warning to WKDx417 (talk · contribs) at 2016-08-13 21:58, issued by User:Wcam. This account continued activity until 2016-08-14 09:13. PQ77wd was created at 2016-08-18 00:13, and alleged WKDx417 had been hacked. I wonder whether this was a pure coincidence or not.
In the first deletion request on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_WKDx417, in case you cannot understand Cantonese, this user said on 2016-08-14, Wcam, don't take matters into your own hands and arbitrarily nominate photos non-existent online for deletion. Those were never found online and taken by me. Quality was bad, because I was using my old camera when my new one was in repair. (My old one could support 1024×768 at max, but mostly produce 320×240 or 640×480 photos.) When I was about to upload them to Commons, an error of "corrupt photos" occurred, so they were converted to PNG and then uploaded.
I call this an elaborate story.--Roy17 (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: did at least one unambiguous evidence of copyvio by PQ77wd / WKDx417 exist? Or it was a purely no-Exif-hence-stolen line of thought? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I found several e.g. on news websites. Some files had traces of being cropped from a screenshot (a frame of a few pixels wide from the surrounding website). Jcb (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I just frankly to tell every invited to talk about this topic: Wikimedia Commons is not compulsory. I have seen Roy17's new contribution. Just search his mind to hustle and fight for what we do. Please let everybody pay attention to comprehend this meaning.--PQ77wd (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment@PQ77wd: 其實我認為User:Roy17的提刪都有其理由，而不是User:PQ77wd認為的胡亂以至惡意提刪。例如File:SaiCyunZaam WORD.jpg(如無意外就是你認為的「derivative, no FoP for INDOOR works」)其實確實不受中國的FoP保護，因為肇事檔案內的作品是在室內的，而中國的著作權法規定「在下列情况下使用作品，可以不经著作权人许可……对设置或者陈列在室外公共场所的艺术作品进行临摹、绘画、摄影、录像」，而且也有相關的刪除請求所以該檔案確實不能在維基共享存放。而其他提刪也有明確的理由，只不過他的部分提刪確實過於急進，如對只適用於一般提刪的檔案進行快速刪除請求。因此我認為User:PQ77wd的投訴不能成立。
English: In my opinion, deletion requests by User:Roy17 are not reckless or even malicious, as claimed by User:PQ77wd. Take File:SaiCyunZaam WORD.jpg(should be the file deleted for "derivative, no FoP for INDOOR works" said by User:PQ77wd) as an example, as Chinese law only grant FOP for outdoor artistic works, the file is copyrighted and unfree, thus is eligible for deletion, backed with relevant deletion requests. Other deletion requests also have clear and reasonable reasons, though some of them should be processed through normal deletion requests. I therefore believe that the complaints made by User:PQ77wd should not be accepted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way, User:PQ77wd also made several lobbying attempts to User:Wcam and User:B dash (both were users who can speak Cantonese), describing User:Roy17 as a dangerous and evil user who attempts to cause nuisance and provoke others, without proving relevant evidence (Per User talk:B dash#Please pay attention and User talk:Wcam/archive/2019#Wcam，您好，很久不见。), which, in my opinion is against COM:AGF.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of paintings

@Владислав Резвый: is removing categories from paintings (example) because the Commons images are in black and white. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Vladislav is now warned, I reverted the edit. Let's hope, that the problem does not repeat. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

FabianFrei

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:GrazyPolis

Upload many copyrighted photo and most of them had been deleted. Safe to assume not yet deleted one were also copyrighted and need a block to prevent the user to upload further copyvio image. (Also received last warning on 6 January 2019 from User:Hedwig in Washington.) Matthew hk (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a sockpuppet or associate of it.Wikipedia user Luca wiki 06 (no account on Commons). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. They can't be a sock of an account that doesn't exist here. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: GrazyPolis use GrazyPolis account to add the image to en-wiki, not sure the it-wiki one just coincidence by adding image uploaded by someone else, or sock. Anyway, since that user did not have edit in this wiki, technically it is not a sock. Matthew hk (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And he seem opened a sock account. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GrazyPolis. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Postaire

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Hasn't learned from previous block so blocked for a year. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Good block Rod. Well done. -- Begoon 11:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleting photos that have been given permission now over two months ago.

'Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. If an OTRS agent handles a valid permission, they will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


I have given permission to use all of the files below. No restoration of the files has been accomplished. I have reached out to several of the Wikipedia community to try to understand why. I decided, since nothing was happening, to reinstate a couple of photos and again give permission. AGAIN now they are being deleted.

Deleted photos after granting permission Ticket #2018121710006255[edit]

Permission was sent and received (see acknowledgment below and reference number) on December 17th.......... photos were deleted as of Dec 27th 2018. I hope that they will be restored. How do I proceed from here? Copy of permission letter was resent to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org Thank you. '


December 17, 2018

To Whom It May Concern, I am the sole owner of the artistic works represented on Arlene Anderson Skutch Wikipedia page and grant full permission to use them. Arlene Anderson is deceased and I now am the owner of the works on this page. • 1File tagging File:Red Trees.jpg • 2File tagging File:Brown Pitcher.jpg • 3File tagging File:Blue Green Mountains.jpg • 4File tagging File:Country Road with Red Barn.jpg • 5File tagging File:Garden in Summer.jpg • 6File tagging File:Sunflowers in vase.jpg • 7File tagging File:Forest Lake.jpg • 8File tagging File:Red trees by Pond.jpg • 9File tagging File:Blue Abstract.jpg • 10File tagging File:The Pink House.jpg • 11File tagging File:Red Abstract.jpg • 12File tagging File:Large Tulips.jpg • 13File tagging File:Purple Trees.jpg • 14File tagging File:Orange Abstract medium.jpg • 15File tagging File:Large Yellow Abstract.jpg • 16File tagging File:Westport Marina.jpg • 17File tagging File:Still Life with Pitcher.jpg • 18File tagging File:Blue Green Lake.jpg • 19File tagging File:"Spring" by Arlene Skutch, oil on canvas, 40x60.jpg • 21File tagging File:Portrait of Laura.jpg • 22File tagging File:Portrait of Susan.jpg • 23File tagging File:Summer Porch resized.jpg

The photos on the website are press/publicity photos, and thus are generally considered in public domain (see below). • 20File tagging File:Arlene in studio cropped.jpg • 24File tagging File:Arlene Anderson.jpg •


From Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_still#Still_photographers

As explained by film production manager Eve Light Honthaner,[10] prior to 1989 publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted, and were intended to remain free for publications to use wherever possible: Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary.[11] In 2007, media lawyer Nancy Wolff,[13] wrote with respect to the "photo archive of entertainment industry publicity pictures, historic still images widely distributed by the studios to advertise and promote their then new releases": It has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain or owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation. Archives will lend these images for a fee to publishers and producers of documentaries for 'editorial' uses, in keeping with the original intent to publicize the movie or promote the actor. Seeing these images in print years later, some photographers, or their heirs, attempt to assert rights that most believed to be extinguished or abandoned.[14] As a result, she indicates: There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them.... Without knowing where the photos came from, or what long lost parent may appear and claim the 'orphaned work,' licensing the work becomes risky business. For publishers, museums, and other archives that are risk-averse, this leads to a large body of works that will never be published.[15] Film historian Gerald Mast[16] explains how the new 1989 copyright revisions only protected publicity works that complied with all earlier requirements in addition to filing a copyright registration within 5 years of first publication: According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."[17] Fair use[edit] Kristin Thompson, reporting as the chair of an ad hoc committee on fair use organized by the Society for Cinema and Media Studies, contends "that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements. . . [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."[20] Thompson also notes that even if such images are not already public domain, they could be considered "fair use" under provisions of US law: Most frame enlargements are reproduced in books that clearly fall into the first provision's categories of "teaching," "criticism," "scholarship," or "research," and hence there seems little doubt that such illustrations would qualify as fair use by this criterion. Since most university presses are nonprofit institutions, illustrations in their books and journals would be more likely to fall into the fair-use category than would publications by more commercial presses.[20] In addition, Thompson refers to the argument that the burden of proof of copyright for such publicity images would fall on the studios producing them: One important argument has been made concerning the publication of publicity photographs. If such a photograph has been circulated for publication at some point and reproduced without a copyright notice accompanying it, it should then fall within the public domain. Throughout the history of the cinema, many publicity photos have appeared in newspapers and magazines without such notices. If a scholar or educator were to publish a publicity photo, the burden of proof would then fall on the studio or distributor to prove that the still had never been published without the copyright notice.[20][old info]

Thank you,

Laura Skutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundrup (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hannele Terese Olenius COE.

Does anyone know what Hannele Terese Olenius COE. (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) is doing? These edits look like nonsense to me. Blocked for a day. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Spamming continued so talk page access revoked and block extended for now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Globally locked now. Yann (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted a lot of empty categories and incorrectly named redirects. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Modanung

Back in June, Modanung was blocked from wikipedia for edit warring, for repeatedly trying to upload a logo he'd personally created to the chaos magic page, here: [10]. He's just started doing the exact same thing, but by uploading his self-created image to the wikipedia commons page instead, here: [11]. He's done it three times now. I've also asked him to stop on his talk page, and he hasn't. Can we do anything about this? Get him blocked here as well? For reference, here are the details of his previous block [12] and his previous edit war [13]. He's clearly learnt nothing in the 8 months since his wikipedia block. Rune370 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Made the mistake of reverting back to their upload, I have reverted my error, I didn't realise the file history is now two pages (lesson learnt)! Modanung is clearly violating COM:OVERWRITE and has warred on the said file. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
File split, original restored, Modanung warned, and original file page upload protected for two weeks just for good measure. --Majora (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It's called contributing. Please explain how your actions of threatening and blocking people with a different opinion increases the correctness of articles and its imagery. I am motivated by a truth that is clear as day! Modanung (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No it's called disruption, something you clearly fail to understand or choose to deliberately not listen based on this comment. Bidgee (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User PetrusdictusA keeps adding previously deleted images

User PetrusdictusA keeps adding deleted images previously uploaded by him/her despite being warned several times to desist by various users. See User_talk:PetrusdictusA and: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Banat.png Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Banat.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Banat with coat of arms.png. Mentatus (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. PetrusdictusA has been inactive for more than half of year, so block is not practical. Files are nominated for regular deletion and E4024 warned Petrus more than half of years ago, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ishtar365

I have checked his upload and I wonder if almost all his files uploaded are violating the copyright. --WQL (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blamed

Continues copyvio despite warning. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. Strakhov (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Zrosz - self-promotion, mass-addition of nonsensical redirects and other pages

and probably related with a clear overlap (i.e. in File:E.M.S.jpg):

(Likely) self-promoting non-notable rapper. See also the deletion discussions at en-Wiki (unambiguous) and Wikiquote (stale, but unambiguous)). The mass-addition of nonsensical redirects for every minor spelling variant or alternative creator name (for example such nonsense like redirecting Creator:Maurice or Creator:M to Creator:E.M.S) just shows that the editor is not here to contribute free media to the project, but solely to promote himself (not only here, but also on en-Wiki, Wikidata and Wikiquote).

Most of these "contributions" should probably be removed (and the editor at least warned), but I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into the issue more closely. GermanJoe (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted a lot of crap tonight plus blocking two socks and the sock master. Ugh. 1989 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Гончиглувсангийн Энхбаатар

Everything is copyvio, already warned twice. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that the page 2 of File:Setgelin_nud.pdf lists one “Г. Энхбаатар” among authors, hence this one file may be a sort of own work. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Gave him a final warning. That said, other admins may even consider blocking, if necessary.--Mhhossein talk 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Attack account?

Is this account being used to attack someone? All image uploads are same person, and harmful to them.

--BevinKacon (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sex games, rather than an attack. Out of scope, they should stick to amateur porn sites unless they have especially great photographs.
P.S. same chap is on Pornhub, so it's definitely not revenge porn. --Fæ (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that we have to think about that is an indictment on human society. Thanks for checking. Their latest upload was a very clear privacy violation and after the numerous warnings about Commons's scope I've blocked them. I was going to give them one more chance after a final, final warning, but the latest upload eliminated that possibility. --Majora (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
OK Good block. The last upload was totally unacceptable. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Majora, Fæ, Taivo, and BevinKacon: Is one of their uploads deliberately left undeleted? Cherkash (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably not deliberate. You can always create a DR if it appears to have no realistic value. --Fæ (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: Done. Cherkash (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:LavoWiki

A possible sock of GrazyPolis. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/GrazyPolis. Just like the sockmaster, ignoring copyrights. LavoWiki, as a sock account, may need a indef block to prevent further copyvio. Matthew hk (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked LavoWiki indefinitely. All uploads are nominated for deletion by others. Taivo (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Mypurplelightsaber

Mypurplelightsaber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Mypurplelightsaber is a Flickrwasher. https://www.flickr.com/photos/166324498@N03/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/156133138@N03 are clearly their own accounts. (insource:"166324498@N03", insource:"156133138@N03") - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Uploads deleted, flickr accounts blacklisted. Are we sure that this person is the Flickr uploaded as well? Could just be tired but what am I missing, Alexis Jazz? --Majora (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Check your mail. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename image please - James Campbell Besley

Hello! While uploading the jpeg image for James Campbell Besley, I maistakenly titled it

File: Joseph Campbell Besley.jpeg

Would you please rename the image as:

File: James Campbell Besley.jpeg

Many thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WmArbaugh (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WmArbaugh (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WmArbaugh ✓ Done Next time you can request a move by using Template:Rename on the file's description page. GMGtalk 19:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge accounts User:RM21 &User:RM21~commonswiki

I’ve been a Commons user for many years, and my username was always RM21. However, I forgot that it was moved to RM21~commonswiki. Is it possible to merge my accounts back to RM21??

Many thanks. (RM21 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

Not on topic to your request however when making a topic/section on this and any other page (unless otherwise stated) please add it to the bottom of the page or use +comment, which will do it for you. Bidgee (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Nope. Sorry. Merging of accounts is not technically possible. Although it is probably possible to do a sort of renaming shuffle. Rename RM21 to something else and then RM21~commonswiki back to RM21. You'd have to ask at meta. --Majora (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. (109.157.179.78 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

Deleted photo

Sorry, really not sure how to file this complaint - have been chasing links telling me where to go a quite sometime.

The following photo was removed:

(cur | prev) 19:05, 19 February 2019‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,663 bytes) -129‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Marcela with PM.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Dyolf77 (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marcela with PM.jpg).) (undo)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcela_Bilek&action=history

I don't understand why this photo was deleted as this is a personal photo and it not subject to any copyright. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AParticle (talk • contribs) 11:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @AParticle: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).
I oppose undeletion of this file. You neglected to respond to this edit. Your assumption that "a personal photo ... it not subject to any copyright" is unfounded in all countries party to the Berne Convention. In what country did you snap the original photo?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Dyolf77, 1989.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@AParticle: hello, can you, please, indicate who photographed these two people and who are they? Thanks. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dyolf77: Per the removal, they are alleged to be Marcela Bilek and John Howard, and the photo appears to have been snapped in Australia, which has default copyright with a standard term of Life + 70 years.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Dyolf77, 1989. Sorry, I have never used this stuff before and it is far from clear, to me, how it works. The photo in question is a family photo taken by Ian Bilek, the father of Marcela Bilek, at the award of her Prime Ministers for Physical Scientist of the year. The people in the photo are Marcela Bilek and John Howard. Bilek owns the copyright for this photo and has asked me to upload it to wikipedia. AParticle (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

ჯეო

Uploads copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How isn’t this a clear-cut block case? Some months—if not indef—definitely are earned already. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Blackcat

User:Blackcat

Admin making controversial decisions and edits without discussion, Removing Category:Stadiums in London and all its contents, edit waring even after being asked "who decided this? discussion link? why does Category:Stadiums exist?" this looks like vandalism but I am informed it would be strange for admin to act in such a way. Oxyman (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

category:Sports venues in London and category:Sports venues in London by sport. I was clear. COM/AU is not the place where to discuss edits. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If the only issue is the movement of the category, then Categories for discussion is the proper place to discuss this. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No the only issue is not Categories for discussion There is also the users edit waring, Edit, revert, discuss, Can I just revert the users vandalism until a proper discussion happens? The user was not clear why stadiums are no longer in building category and his edit waring and unilateral decisions amount to vandalism, can someone properly look at this users actions? Oxyman (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I created Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums in London, is anyone going to fairly look into User:Blackcats edit waring? Oxyman (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel this users latest edits amount to bullying, is this taken seriously or do admins get a free pass on that? Oxyman (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Blackcat is making aggressive edits on my user talk page then permanently deleting them, how is this behavior within reason? Oxyman (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok yeah. That is an abuse of revision deletion and totally out of line with COM:REVDEL. Blackcat, please voluntarily undo the revdel or I'll undo it. --Majora (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
+1. Revdel is not for obscuring your own poor judgement. --Fæ (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I obscured the revisions because the user was misusing them. I had voluntarily deleted an entry by me written out of misunderstanding and he used it to accuse me of bullying. I read the user's talk page on en.wiki and frankly I don't know how to deal with what he is saying. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You should let others decide for themselves how they want to interpret what you wrote and published on their talk page. Using our tools to obscure such things is not really what we were given them for. I understand that you don't know how to deal with it, but that is why it shouldn't be hidden. To hide them just makes it appear like you have something to hide. The bullying comment is making a mountain out of a relative molehill anyways. Something that should be taken with a grain of salt by other's reviewing the complaint. --Majora (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes but the whole point is that I had rollbacked my own edit because it was clearly written out of a situation that I had mistakenly read, @Majora: ; once retreated by me, that edit was not meant to be used in misleading way which was actually happening. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Fine to remove (undo/revert) your own comment however revdel is not a wise move and see no reason why it should be revdel. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Cherkash

The user was lectured about Commons {{Superseded}} policy and its differences from Commons: Criteria for speedy deletion #F8 no less than twice, the last time some six day ago. Yet:

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Countries_adopting_Metric_System_2006.png&action=history&offset=2019021804&limit=3
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:G20countries_(IN).png&action=history&offset=2019021804&limit=7
  3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:G20_countries_(DN).png&action=history&offset=2019021804&limit=4
  4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BlankMap-World-v7.png&action=history&offset=2019021804&limit=3

Please search for such things in Special:DeletedContributions/Cherkash as some bad request could pass through a distracted (or dumb) sysop. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, should I rename G20countries_(IN).png and G20_countries_(DN).png to indicate their historical quality explicitly? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No action ensued except for upload warring in these images:
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the list of png/jpg images which have been speedy-deleted because of the existence of a similar svg version:

4nn1l2 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: It's interesting you consider yourself in a position to "lecture" another editor – whereas in reality that brief discussion was initiated by me because another editor (Wdwd) violated both a policy and a simple courtesy by A) not leaving their reason for a revert in their revert edit summary, and B) not being careful in their revert and reverting more than necessary (which you readily admitted in that brief discussion as well).
So your adversarial tone in this post starts showing from the get-go, as well as the fact you consider this a "user problem" by posting here. Where is your assumption of good faith?
Also, you seem to have an issue with my use of the "duplicate" tag, but you end up claiming your objection to the "superseded" tag? I'm confused, this doesn't seem logical or be related to the edits you brought up, or to the brief discussion you mentioned (your alleged "lecturing"). So I'm responding here by assuming you actually meant to say "duplicate" instead of "superseded".
Here are my specific responses to the 4 examples you brought up:
1. This image is identical for all practical purposes to the file I tagged (in this revision).
2 & 3. They were marked by me as duplicates before you reverted the images (by invoking Commons:OVERWRITE) – more on this below. In fact at that point they were exact duplicates of the images tagged. So clearly you couldn't have an issue with my use of the "duplicate" tag, as you tried to claim in this post – but you are de facto objecting to bringing those images up-to-date, don't you? So then this is a whole different discussion to be had – again, more on this below.
4. It's practically identical to the "v8" image (File:BlankMap-World-v8.png) I tagged (in this revision). So it's clearly the case of a duplicate again.
So now having established quite a bit of a stretch and disconnect between what you claim you object to (my using of the "duplicate" tag), and what you actually seem to object to (my bringing images up-to-date), let's talk about it specifically:
I don't understand why you have a problem with updating outdated versions of older files to reflect up-to-date information. This is routinely done, and a lot of maps (as is the case here) undergo a lot of such updates routinely. E.g. I don't see you objecting to either of these two edits (just an example based on the images you already brought up):
  • 2015 update to the Image #2 (7 years after the original upload, by a different editor not the original uploader)
  • adding the South Sudan border as was done in 2018 on the Image #4
If you are so adamant about preserving the "historic" nature of every image, you should be objecting to such revisions – and yet you aren't doing this. So what is your actual stance on this? Please formulate something consistent, as I fail to see either your personal position that is consistent, or even better, a reference to an internally consistent policy that is routinely and widely applied.
(The Commons:OVERWRITE which you just used to justify your two reverts – to the Image #2 (your revert) & Image #3 (your revert) – doesn't seem to be widely applied to the maps: in fact, this is the first time I personally saw it invoked, and it seems more of a sniping thing to me – something akin to your "I don't like it" stance towards my edits. Please discuss.) Cherkash (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As for File:G20countries_(IN).png #filehistory and File:G20_countries_(DN).png #filehistory – overwriting these with pictures looking like other images and then applying {{Duplicate}} was fraud. I obstructed a fraudulent attempt by another user—using my rollback privilege in the process—and am sure that the Commons community will not admonish me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Both of them were legitimate updates of outdated images. Also telling is that you fail to answer the main points I raised above – it shows your partiality and desire to push your own liking above anything reasonable. Cherkash (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If a Commons file is overwritten, then the upload history is visible for all the world and everyone may discuss borders of (South) Sudan on it. But when it is deleted, it becomes invisible for everybody but Commons sysops, Wikimedia staff & stewards, and few similarly privileged persons. That’s why I may ignore a benign “update”, but don’t tolerate all the bollocks intended for deletion of files, some of which bear records of work by multiple persons for many years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"whereas in reality that brief discussion was initiated by me because another editor (Wdwd) violated both a policy and a simple courtesy by A) not leaving their reason for a revert in their revert edit summary,"
Wdwd is an admin, they are allowed to remove speedy tags and they did leave a reason. On one file they didn't, but I can understand Wdwd getting a bit fed up with this after a while and expect you to read at least one of those edit summaries. You are edit warring and I highly recommend you stop that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"This map is outdated and is an inferior version of the original. Since it's also not used anywhere, this can be safely deleted. This request is part of the clean-up effort for the blank world maps and their derivatives."
@Cherkash: cat·​e·​go·​ries. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Colin (again)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is going nowhere. Discussion was opened as a way of intimidation (trying to force a user to revoke a DR) rather than to bring up a real user problem. DRs are closed based on arguments, not on who has the biggest mouth. This discussion won't have changed the outcome of the DR anyway, the file is in use in Wikipedia articles and not a copyright violation, so 'keep' was inevitably the outcome. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Dispite a sincere friendly proposal for closing the conflict, Colin continues to attack and insult me. He now calls me a troll twice. Therefore I request a block for insult and harassment. This kind of speech and behaviour should not be tolerated on Commons. Colin has already a history of blocks for similar issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me first state that the claim I have " already a history of blocks for similar issues" is a bare face lie and Yann knows it.
  • My first block by Denniss occurred when Denniss repeatedly inserted text from a globally blocked user, text that contained blackmail threats on some admins. Many admins criticised the block and it was lifted by none other than Yann. Denniss lost his admin bit for that block courtesy of WMF. The first and only time that has ever happened.
  • My second block by Ellin was ostensibly a "cool down block", and as such disallowed by policy. It turns out it was Ellin who lost her cool. The block was criticised by two other bureaucrats (odder and Michael Maggs) and several other admins. Eventually Ellin apologised "Directly referring to the sentence which started the upper level of this section, Colin is absolutely right. This is too much for one person to have tried to do, I chose wrongly and the three day block I applied to his account was a mistake...There is no reason for any of the block, the template or the additional discussion to be retained as it is all moot; the block action was wrong...I hope Colin, and everyone else in the discussion and its sources, accepts my apology given for my mistaken action in the same good faith in which it is offered." The issue that led to the heated admin discussion Ellin failed to resolve, was later resolved by other parties who took the time to properly investigate.
  • My third block by WhiteCat was, as you can see from the log, lifted by Yann an hour later. Whitecat had made some offensive remarks to me in the past and I had removed a talk page post by him because I had no wish to engage with someone like that. He blocked me for this, which is rather petty and was highly criticised. Whitecat sought scrutiny of his bloc which just resulted in more criticism of the block and a wish that Whitecat would go way and stop pestering everyone for more comments. There was even an edit war between Yann and Whitecat over closing discussions. There then followed a request that Whitecat be blocked and desysopped. Yann wrote to WhiteCat: "I have to say that opinions of people who come here after you did forum shopping on IRC have little merit, specially when they are not contributors on Commons, and therefore they do not know the history of the issue. Then you doing forum shopping is another reason you should not have the admin bit from now on. Regards, Yann"
Yann of all people knows the history of those ill-considered block that have all given their admins cause for regret. I would like an apology from Yann for this blatant and defamatory lie about my block log.
As for the green-tinted photograph Yann created with Gimp on his laptop. I stand by my comment that if a redlinked user had created such a monstrosity, and went about Wikipedias and Wikidata replacing a professional copy of a world famous print hanging in Getty museum with this false-colour one, edit warred on Fr Wikipedia to retain it, and acted with extreme and continued hostility to the user who opened a DR on it, they would be blocked for vandalism and trolling Commons. Yann has posted eight times on my talk page since yesterday, and has continued repeatedly to post there despite me making it very clear I do not want engage with him further. It is Yann who went to my talk page to harass me about the picture. Reopening another AN/U on this photo that was already previous archived is disruptive and I would argue is trolling this forum. An admin telling lies about a user they are in conflict with is a serious error. It is, I'm afraid, Yann who should be blocked. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Christian Ferrer for closing the DR. However two things remain. Firstly there was consensus at the DR that the file must be renamed to remove "Google Art Project" and make it clear this was a user edit. We don't want any project mistaking this for the real photograph. The file licencing currently states "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" which is clearly not the case. I don't know if it is possible to adjust that to say it is "colour altered" by Yann. Further, the "Source/Photographer" field must be adjusted to state that this is a colour-altered variant -- it simply dishonest to claim it "comes" direct from GAP. There was also a note by User:Jeff G. concerning Yann's edit warring on fr:wp. I would like Yann to agree to not insert this again to any sister project. I won't revert his edit on fr:wp but leave it to members of that project.

But secondly Yann's lie about my block log remains above and I want him to strike it. The lie is all the more hurtful in that Yann consistently defended me concerning the blocks, so knows first-hand they are faulty. I don't find that acceptable at all, and certainly not from an admin. I do not want this closed until the lie is struck or Yann blocked for it. -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Without a comment on the RfD issue, which seems to be resolved anyway, I think Yann should strike his comment on Colin's blocklog as libelous. The blocks were definitely NOT for "insult and harassment". I'm not for blocking anyone, Yann simply should strike it voluntarily, as potentially libelous statements against long-term users are problematic especially for a sysop. --A.Savin 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "insult and harassment", but similar issues> Let's review the block log:
  • 16:37, 14 March 2016 by Denniss for "edit warring + threats". Unblocked by me.
  • 19:19, 14 March 2016 by Denniss, "restore block for threatening". Unblocked by Jcb.
  • 07:12, 24 June 2016 by Ellin Beltz, "Necessary wiki-break to calm down".
  • 21:36, 25 June 2016 by Christian Ferrer, "Necessary wiki-break to calm down".
  • 01:46, 27 June 2016 by Natuur12, self-request (?) following a dispute with Fae. Unblocked by Natuur12.
  • 17:30, 6 December 2016 by とある白い猫, "Disruptive editing". Unblocked by me.
So this is what I would call a long history for behavioural issues. I don't need to comment further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
For crying out loud, Yann. You unblocked me twice because "bad block" and then use those blocks against me? What a liar and a hypocrite. You know quite well repeatedly removing posts by a blocked user isn't "edit warring" [there isn't an admin on this noticeboard who hasn't done the same numerous times] and Denniss's lack of an admin badge testifies that he's now aware of that too. All these blocks have been rejected by members of the community, including yourself or apologised for. This is a low low move Yann. I have a long history of speaking truth to power and some don't like it. Two abusive blocks and on incompetent one, later apologised for, do not represent anything other than bullies do not scare me. We had a dispute over a JPG for goodness sake, and you have been a bully about it right from the start. A block is required for Yann for his continued disruptive behaviour after being warned above by A.Savin to strike the remarks. He is an ongoing disruptive problem and so a protective block of Commons is justified per policy. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I have removed three lines from Yann's list above as one was just admin wheel warring, one was a self-block and the other was the restoration of email and talk page access, so not a block at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yann it is not a copy of my block log. You have removed lines and edited them to look like there are 6 blocks but there are only three and in all three I have been exonerated -- you know this. You have removed the details from Christian's line that states he only "changed block settings". And you removed the vital lines which expose your hypocrisy and lies:
  • 13:41, 14 March 2016 Yann (talk | contribs) unblocked Colin (talk | contribs) (no reason for blocking)
  • 16:29, 14 March 2016 Jcb (talk | contribs) unblocked Colin (talk | contribs) (Per Yann)
  • 13:05, 6 December 2016 Yann (talk | contribs) unblocked Colin (talk | contribs) (see talk page)

-- Colin (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Break

If nobody is going block Colin for Yann, Yann needs to request an alternative sanction, otherwise nothing more can be done here. --BevinKacon (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ryan Van Wagenen2018

Uploads and reuploads already deleted COM:OOS images. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. Completely disinterested in what this project is for over quite a period. Uploads gone and blocked for a couple of weeks. Who knows they make use the time to read up on Commons. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wan254

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Maayanathi

Continues copyvios after block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Smartop_Computer_Solutions

Bad username and copyvio uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Already blocked by Jon Kolbert. Yann (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

special:contributions/Heiko813 spammy

Can I please get a second opinion on these images, and their product links to a commercial website, and their subsequent use at deWP. I know that I get caught face buried in the abuse space, and consider much to be spam, so a second opinion would be useful. I will have the abuse report for m:User:COIBot/XWiki/plastimat.de refreshed. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, These files were copied from an external website, and I don't see any evidence of a free license there, but I don't read German. So to me, these look like copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of First Upload of Fringed Fimbriated Folds

Hello, I uploaded Fringed Fimbriated Folds.jpg with location data unknowingly. Then, I updated the file with a stripped image.

I would like the first iteration deleted so the location of my creepy tongue can't be tracked. I do not want the second, sterilized image removed. Just the first one.

Thanks! SligPants (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Pleclown (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pleclown: Thank you. Similarly, would you please delete the first version of File:Andrew Kim (42414828242).jpg to get rid of the distracting nose on the left?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 Not done We do not delete revisions for such reasons. The file has been overwritten, and that suffices. --Ruthven (msg) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Timestatement

All of User:Timestatement's uploads are stock images edited to promote a particular product called "TimeStatement". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian770

Wikipedian770 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) keeps uploading OOS files related to his fictional run for POTUS despite multiple deletions and notifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Second block, one month. --Yann (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jathreee

Jathreee (talk · contribs).Uploads seems evidently a promotional only account. Tagged one for speedy, the rest should also follow suit. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user templated. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Zrosz - new socks

Obvious socks of Zrosz (talk · contribs) (self-promoting rapper, blocked by User:1989). Recreation of nonsensical redirects and promotional pages. See also the previous ANU report. GermanJoe (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and nuked, -- 1989 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexshorter

All images uploaded by User:Alexshorter are copyright violations. Taken from various Verison sites. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user templated. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Lomojo

User keeps overwriting paintings, got warned, but doesn't respond on talk page. Blocked the uer. Please unblock if you notice the user has responded and I haven't noticed it yet. Multichill (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Themightyquill

User:Themightyquill

User has made several attacks against me as he joined a discussion caused by admins refusal to deal with edit warring admin User:Blackcat actions which had led to discussions in another forum, user then embarked on actions intended to cover up edit warring admins behaviour by inventing confusion as to what a stadium is, I post here as user is no threatening more abuse of admin tools in an attempt to avoid fully discussing. Oxyman (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

All of my recent interactions with Oxyman can be seen at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums in London, Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums, and at his talk page. I don't feel I have made any personal attacks, but perhaps they can be pointed out? Oxyman is obviously feeling attacked by his interactions with User:Blackcat, and believes me to be part of a conspiracy to shelter Blackcat from criticism. He has repeatedly made that accusation [14] [15] [16] [17] -- despite the fact that my argument in the CfD runs contrary to Blackcat's argument, and supports Oxyman's argument -- simply because I have suggested the CfD is an inappropriate place to complain about anyone's behaviour. While I'm sympathetic that it's hard to achieve results at the AN when an admin is accused of wrongdoing, I don't feel that this justifies further accusations regarding my character. I would prefer that Oxyman simply stop making these accusations and respectfully discuss the category issue and Blackcat's actions separately. I don't think that's unreasonable. - Themightyquill (talk)

I attempted to discuss issues with the edit warring admins behavior, but was refereed to another forum. You have been repeatedly informed of this, ignoring this point and just attacking my actions when I did what was demanded of me is unreasonable, the discussions can't be separated by me I do not have the powers required and it remains to be looked at how the discussions became entwined as you said it is "hard to achieve results at the AN when an admin is accused of wrongdoing" thus we need to look at ways to improve this situation not obscure it. Oxyman (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyman: , could it be that you might have possibily misunderstood someone's behaviour and mistakenly interpreted as a "personal attack"? Nobody has attacked or bullied you, so it's hard, and not only for me, to understand what's the whole point of this fight against the administrators. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no fight against the administrators. please do not accuse me of stuff I have not done. I have a problem with abuse of admin tools, something which you have repeatedly done. You have been quick claim other users, not just me of making personal attacks, so that post is just a continuation of the theme. Also Slow to discuss in English your reasons for abuse of admin tools. So no, don't just attack me, deal with the issues leading upto this post. Oxyman (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Blackcat: With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate for you to be contributing to this particular discussion. I can accept that you feel involved since you've been named and tagged, but I don't think it will be helpful to the two primary people involved. I can't make you, of course, but I'd appreciate if you would restrict your comments to the AN section related to your own actions, and (if you want to discuss the category) to the CfD. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I read of some of the pages (not all), and it is my opinion that I see nothing wrong with the discussion of Themightyquill, I didn't see attacks. I do some grumpy and accusational editing by Oxyman, though think that are reacting to some provocation. I see belligerent and provocative editing by Blackcat, please knock off implementing your own PoV rather than acting on community consensus and we don't get the biffo.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see anything in Themightyquill's interactions with Oxyman that can suggest any kind of attack. This accusation has simply no grounds. --Ruthven (msg) 16:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I was required to start a discussion on Stadiums in London, I was required to explain my motives for doing so, I could not avoid this. Themightyquill repeatedly criticised my actions, actions that I was required to do whilst ignoring other editors "belligerent and provocative editing" continued unfair criticisms for actions i could not be expected to avoid and apparent selective blindness coupled with threats to take further actions made this AN post unavoidable. Oxyman (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

it seems that following this post on the AN that Themightyquill has removed himself from Blackcat's conflict with me as following pleas from Blackcat [18] [19] Themightyquill posted [20] There obviously was some kind of bond between the two admins as Blackcat's pleas did not go to some random uninvolved admin. Oxyman (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're using my AN complaint about your personal attacks against me as a space to make further personal attacks? You think this is going to help your case? I have repeatedly suggested that I don't want to be involved in Blackcat's conflict with you. That's the very reason I asked you to keep your complaints at AN instead of a the CFD. I also told him that directly on my talk page. I've also publicly requested above that Blackcat should not involve himself in my complaint about you. And yet, in your mind, all of this avoidance is somehow evidence that I've secretly been plotting to do you harm in some way? I'd say it's pretty solid evidence of the exact opposite. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333

If you have a problem with local uploads on local projects bring it up there. Don't import problems from other projects here. We genuinely don't have time to care what nonsense happens on Wikipedia. We can't predict what will happen in the future re transfers nor should we try. Enough. Editing a closed discussion is not a blockable offense. Ritchie333's comments, while crass, are not a blockable offense. Them having photos on Facebook is not a blockable offense. Whatever they do on Wikipedia is not a blockable offense here. If you have a problem with them on Wikipedia, their w:WP:ANI is that way. They aren't going to be blocked for this and your request for a topic ban is denied. You not notifying them of this conversation is bad form but the ping in this closing should do it for you. And my name is Majora. Majorly was an administrator on Wikipedia many many years ago of whom I get confused with by people who have been around Wikipedia a long time. --Majora (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Ordinarily I guess users would be allowed a little time to learn the basics of copyright, but there are quite a few red flags about this guy to take some strong action now.

1. They are a Wikipedia Administrator

2. The insults, belligerence, had faith and trollery toward Administrators here

3. They have a non-trivial amount of edits/time here

4. The stated intent to "do something about it" other than just moan over at Wikipedia

5. The fact they intend to keep uploading at Wikipedia (risking unwitting transfer if not blacklisted)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vince_Cable_Peoples_March.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=prev&oldid=336578735

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=next&oldid=336578792

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Quiet_Woman_sign.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&diff=prev&oldid=336579108

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=next&oldid=875910982

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_July_23#File:Trump_Baby_Balloon_at_Parliament_Square.jpeg

Since I suspect they would relish the martyrdom a block might represent, I think it more appropriate to topic ban them from uploading and commenting on deletions, and filing a formal protest with the English Wikipedia ArbCom about this guy's apparent willingness to operate well below their expectations of competence and behaviour, simply because he crossed the border into another wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryBerran (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A brand new account coming here and complaining about an administrator at another project and threatening another project's ArbCom as their first edit makes it really seem like you are an enwiki blocked user here for revenge. Note, we don't care what happens at enwiki and enwiki does not care what happens here. This is a pointless request and I recommend you find something else to do. --Majora (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
What seems pointless is you speculating on my motives on such little information. I've brought you a report about what a user on this site is doing to violate its policies and their reactions to its Administrators for attempting to stop him. I provided details of his status in Wikipedia for context only, so that you would not assume they were not theoretically capable of better. If that doesn't interest you, if you find this request pointless, perhaps you picked the wrong Foundation site to be an Administrator on? If you care so little about the wider context, then perhaps you chose the wrong movement to be involved with completely? You do what you want, I think I'll wait for the opinions of people who have to actually deal with this user here, in their capacity as Administrators here, as I clearly stated was the nature of the request. If they genuinely don't care, if they like being treated this way, if they like dealing with copyright violations from people who really shouldn't need any help, then hey, more power to them. It's not my idea of how to be productive, not when there are users out there who have legitimate reasons for not understanding copyright and not behaving properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryBerran (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BarryBerran: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, maybe it is just me, but I really don't see the following edit as a productive use of a Commons Administrator's time, when the person they are having to deal with has absolutely no excuse for doing what they are doing:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vince_Cable_Peoples_March.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=341199291

Was that seriously your idea of a productive act Majorly? Or would you have rather I not have even raised it here, so you wouldn't have had to go and clean up after them? Maybe you genuinely don't have time to worry about what happens on Wikipedia (perhaps because you're doing that kind of clean-up here), but when the guy who is capable of wasting your time like that over such a clear and obvious failure on his part to understand copyright, is making noises about what they can all do about it that isn't just moaning, I'd sit up and take notice. I'd ask him what exactly he plans to "do about it". Educate himself and respect other site's policies and users, like an Administrator is expected to do, or just cause further disruption? It is not a theoretic a risk I don't think, him staying over there in a sulk, continuing to upload locally what he wrongly believes are his images to upload, and then some inexperienced user innocently transferring them over here on the basis they couldn't possibly be wrong about their image's licensing status because they are an Administrator. Not only that, he seems to regularly give other people advice on what they should and should not be doing, so who knows what problems you are giving yourselves by pretending none of that is an issue for you to address here and now, when you had the chance, when I flagged it up to you.BarryBerran (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If I were an Administrator here, this is the sort of message I would be sending this guy......

Several times now you have had images deleted, quite correctly, for being copyright violations, and have responded in ways that are totally unacceptable. As a Wikipedia Administrator and a long time user of Commons, there really is no excuse for you not knowing how to behave, or where to get assistance if you genuinely still don't understand what are to be honest, pretty basic principles of copyright. There is nothing particularly complex about how to determine who owns the copyright of images which feature other creative works, such as balloons, signs and screenshots. There are case specific issues of course, but none that cannot be overcome by someone who is starting from a genuine acceptance that what they have previously assumed was correct, was wrong. Rather than accept you are wrong and respecting this site's policies and users, you are making noises about "doing something about it" in conference with people you apparently see as fellow travellers over at Wikipedia. So I will ask you directly, in my capacity as someone who intends to prevent disruption to this site from any vector, domestic or foreign, what exactly do you have in mind? If not educating yourself as to what is correct and indeed legally allowed, what is the "something" you had in mind? You are free to moan, you are not free to ignore or disrupt. As I am sure you have said many times in your capacity as an Administrator over at Wikipedia.

If there's is no appetite among the Administrators to send it, I may simply do so myself, suitably altered to reflect I am not an Administrator, even if that carries with it the inevitability of them simply ignoring me, or worse.

BarryBerran (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Multichill

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Multichill asked the topic starter to use their filemover right more carefully and told them that the right would be retracted if they don't. I don't see what would be wrong with that, unnecessary renamings often cause a mess. In the meantime, topic starter has resigned as a filemover. Jcb (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User Mutichill is abusing, not its rights as administrator, but its position as administrator, in threatening people : [21]. Please, give him a warning not to do so.--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly Havang. I warned you because you did a rename not in line with Commons:File renaming. You made a mistake, someone warns you, you should learn from it. Instead of that you started to demand things on my talk page and blanking your own talk page. I waited a bit with responding because I hoped you would cool down a bit.
You're overreacting. Be mellow, maybe take a small break from Commons (beautiful weather this weekend). I see no reason at the moment to retract your file mover rights. Multichill (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
You were the one not being Commons:Staying mellow. It was not a warning, it was a threat, and you know that. The filemoving was about the name, nothing more. You may discuss your different with the uploader elsewhere, but the renaming was correct. I want you to retract me from filemover rights, I do this as a volonteer, and I refuse threats. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This was a classic warning. You might want to consult your favourite dictionary like Wiktionary.
The renaming of File:Bartholomäus Spranger 001.jpg under Commons:File_renaming#FR2 is incorrect. This is part of one of our first batch uploads uploaded 14 years ago. File renaming is not here to improve file names, it should only be used on incorrect file names as described on the policy page. Multichill (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It was not just a warning, it was a threat. And you did not respond to my talk page messages. Admins, give Mutichill a warning, and retreat my filemover rights. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Havang(nl), this happens more on Commons. I once made a mistake and someone was talking about 'kicking me of the flag' (one mistake in years). Also by removing something an administrator started about blocking me if I did it again, while it was a mistake. Not Multichill, but more administrators react like that, maybe something to discuss among the administrators? - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything threatening in @Multichill: 's behaviour. That apart, this AN/PU looks like the player on the ground that urges the referee for a yellow card to the opponent which he claims to have received a foul from. That doesn't mean that admins don't make mistakes: we all do sooner or later, but in this case I don't see anything problematic in the said admin's behaviour. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Multichill was involved in a conflict with the uploader, but I could not know that : it was not on the file history. Multichill did not repond to my messages, he reuploaded the secondary file and gave it the name I had given by renaming, so the renaming was not a bad one. Multichill had no reason to threat me taking away my filemovers rights, his threat was an aubuse of his position as an administrator. Admins, I ask to give him a warning, and I want no longer to be a filemover, so retract that right from me. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Unknownweb

✓ Done All files deleted. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Multichill

This is your second attempt to reopen a closed discussion. One more time and you will be blocked. Jcb (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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

AS has been asked, I make my subsequent comment in a new section : Hello, now that I have given away my filemover rights, I explain further why I want Mutichill to be warned. The source of File:Bartholomäus Spranger 001.jpg is https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/en/artist/bartholomaeus-spranger/angelica-und-medoro ; the title didn't match the source data ; so it was a normal renaming request to move the title into File:Bartholomeus Spranger - Angelica and Medoro.jpg. Now I have asked for a renaming into File:Bartholomäus Spranger - Angelica and Medoro.jpg, keeping exact title and artist name. For undoing the overwriting, there was no need to undo the renaming. Multichill had no valid reason to threaten me. I repeat my demand to give Multichill a warning, that he has abused its administrator autority to threaten another user. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I understand dutch very well, this is really insane. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Đạt Ngọc Lý

Đạt Ngọc Lý (talk · contribs) has been overwriting files with significant crops as seen here, here and here. This user also has been reverting images, most likely because the previous versions had more excess space here, here, here and here. Based on the file histories of some of the images, i's possible that this user is edit warring with different accounts, so I opened up a sockpuppet investigation on this user a couple days ago here. If all of the sockpuppets are related, then this user also uploading copyright violations after being warned not to do so. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Walk Like an Egyptian I would notify the user with our regulations regarding com:overwrite, as the very first step (I'll do it now). As for the violations, I'd rather wait for the SPI result. --Mhhossein talk 11:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_75&oldid=372572707"