Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 66

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

Handling huge files

This huge file has been submitted both as a Quality image and as a Valued image. Given its size, it cannot be viewed on many copmputer screens - when I tried to view it, I received a warning that due to its size, my screen might freeze! This suggests to me that it fails the fundemental Commons test that the file "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - if I can't view it, then it cannot be useful. What, if anything, should be done about this file. Note that Commons:Maximum file size states that files should not exceed 100 MiB and the file in question is over 300 MiB! Martinvl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl, I don't think you posted this on the correct noticeboard, as it is for requesting admin action to deal with a problem user, not advice on large files. The Village Pump might be more appropriate. Anyway, the limit is 4 GiB, the 100 MiB limitation is only relevant for some primitive upload tools. I think there may be some benefit to User:Capricorn4049 uploading another file at 50% -- we don't normally recommend uploading difference sized images because the MediaWiki software can generate smaller versions on-the-fly, but the max size of such smaller versions is quite limited and would be exceeded here I'm sure (it's main purpose is thumbnailing, after all). There are ways of viewing such images other than by loading the whole image into your browser. For example, you can use the interactive large-image viewer (see links on page) or download the image and open it in a photo viewing program. Users may wish to take crops of this at any place, or simply scroll through it on their PC. So "viewed entirely with a browser" is not the only educational purpose. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You can get any size by manually changing the URL: 10,000px wide=2.5Mpx. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a way to specify the number of Mpx (Megapixels) directly. FYI, {{LargeImage}} was added in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Any accounts associated with my name it's not me. Someone has targeted me and hacked all accounts. I'm never messaged or been on ask, music apps and I'm never did any talk radio. My name is Andy Freedman, Jonathan Freedman, anstmabl, fred8187, Fred1106@att.ner, Freed1106, wrneadow etc. Theres too many to list I have reported this to the federal trade commission along with all the unknown numbers. The FBI have just wrote a report. And I'm sending out copies to the local news i'm looking for an attorney to take this case. Please shut down and block any accounts associated with any variation of my name. It looks like I have multiple businesses with different contact information it's not me. Thank you Jonathan Freedman for Burleson Tx 817-903-4688 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Users Andy Freedman, Jonathan Freedman, Anstmabl, Fred8187, Fred1106, Fred1106@att.ner, Freed1106 and Wrneadow are not registered in Commons. And even if they were, that's not a reason to block accounts. This must be a problem from outside. Do not bring problems outside Commons into Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Hussain Pak

Nazim Hussain Pak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia and has subsequently been found to be abusing multiple accounts (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nazim Hussain Pak). With his talk page access revoked there, he appears to be using the Commons to lobby editors to unblock him. Would a Commons block be appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wrote him a warning. A block will be needed if he continues. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behavior and comments

Please see the diff, Special:Diff/257988625. I do not feel it's appropriate behavior or language to use on Commons. Request appropriate action by another user rather than a unilateral block by me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:CO07MhuWgAAzKGK.jpg (Special:PermanentLink/257988816) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cobertura Tsunami.jpeg (Special:PermanentLink/257988816). Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are obvious copyright violations, but this administrator gets on me just to make a point and show me up. I make a bad reply, but incompetence and bullshit like this makes my temper short. These should've been deleted without the unnecessary nonsense from Ellin Beltz. And now she wants me blocked to show she's above me and that administrators are in charge no matter how rickety their point is. What a disappointing and annoying encounter. Kasey1996 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the foregoing, please also see this diff[1]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are obvious copyright violations, and you're going to keep them on Commons an extra week to show me up. Block me if you want, I won't be back. Kasey1996 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a short block. This kind of senseless hostility is not welcome here. Guanaco (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But bullying and pointiness are? Treating new editors like shit just to make a point is? Sad. Kasey1996 (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ellin politely asked that you provide conclusive evidence when tagging files for speedy deletion. If it's not immediately certain, they go to DR. This is longstanding Commons policy, nothing personal against you or your work. "No personal attacks" is also a longstanding policy. Guanaco (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Sigh. ✓ Done You have been warned that such language is not acceptable. Being new does not give you an 'exemption'. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reblocked this account for a week. This is not acceptable. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • INC sock, no? --A.Savin 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And blocked indef as such by Elcobbola--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:فدایی جوان

Uploading of multiple copyvios and mass removal of deletion templates from problematic own uploads. GermanJoe (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This user has been continuously uploading files with misleading file names and descriptions. In some cases, the files don't have any description. The user's recent uploads have been just numbered with the name of the state in India. Examples: File:Bhopal_15.jpg File:KERALA_-_18.jpg. Misleading names include: File:Kondalapalli killa 107.jpg File:Kondalapalli killa 108.jpg; the image depicts a monkey but it is titled after a place name. I have already notified the user on his talk page. But the users doesn't seem to take it. I request the admins to have a look at this issue and take necessary steps. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 04:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request admins to warn this user, his recent contributions show duplicate entries; images photographed with 1–5 degree variation. This user needs immediate attention. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 11:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Matthias Manasi

Matthias Manasi is well known for sock puppetry, in Commons as well in de-WP and en-WP. At current there is a new sockpuppet: User:JournalPolski. He uploaded some files of Manasi, which are very likely copyvios.
Examples (filename and Exif declaration):

3 files, 3 different photographers, all 3 declared as own work by User:JournalPolski.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Matthias Manasi. There were 610 files deleted because of copyvio.

I think it can be assumed, that all files of User:AuditoriumRome, User:Philharmonicorchestra2013, User:Accademia Nazionale, User:KazakhCultureAlmaty, User:ArtistForum and User:LSOrchestra are also copyvios and should be deleted. Some of those users are already marked as sockpuppet.

I'm afraid the Manasi case has the potential to become the next Stuart Styron.

note: after archived without any reaction copied to this place

--Stepro (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Shanmugamp7 fuck you

Inappropriate username. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Already globally blocked. Yann (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shaveddick may also not be an appropriate username. --E4024 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbai Rail Map

were deleted at 01:18, 3 June 2017 by Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs) because they were clear copyvios. Today Jaikishanpatel (talk · contribs) recreated the English version as a wrapper for File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.pdf. Because the old history is only visible to administrators, I can't tell if this is merely a coincidence, or if there's some sock-puppetry involved. Useddenim (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: This is very interesting, however the English version's link is red. Can you fix it? --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 18:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kong of Lasers: Not without a COM:UDR.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hedwig in Washington (talk · contribs) deleted File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.jpg and File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.pdf shortly after I tagged them yesterday. Useddenim (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

This time the Mumbai Rail Map (Version 6.1) does not have an explicit copyright statement on it; however, Jaikishanpatel (talk · contribs) has uploaded them as his “own work” with the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license which is patently false. If not a copyvio, it most certainly is appropriation of someone else’s work. Useddenim (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Hi, I am actually not understanding the problem with Mumbai Rail Map files. and other related files. As this is my original piece of work I have put it under 'My Own Work' category. It was an academic project at the Industrial design centre in 2013 along with other team mates that I have mentioned in the credits section. Earlier the issue was that there was Copyright text of my institute as it was initially planned to be designed for the commercial purpose. But later published it in the website for free use. And the copyright text was left out in the artwork by mistake. Please refer to few links if it's required to be verified the case study. Interview after the project: Making: case study: Jaikishanpatel (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaikishanpatel;,
You mention "Design of the Mumbai Suburban Rail Map: The Design was started as an educational project at Industrial Design Centre, IIT-Bombay in 2013. This is the latest updated version of the map, available for public use. Credits: Designed by: Jaikishan Patel, Snehal Patil Guided by: Prof. Mandar Rane, IDC-IIT-Bombay".
There are several issues here:
  • "Available for public use" is not sufficient for Wikimedia. We need a free license.
  • Each of the persons you mention is co-author, and a permission is needed from them.
A solution would be that the maps are published online under a free license. But actually the website says "All rights reserved". Regards, Yann (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Permission has been received from all three co-authors: ticket:2017091110022845. Guanaco (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I've just blocked Krosklo on for a month for repeated copyright violations (using non-free images in multiple articles after several warnings). I noticed they have uploaded a lot of images to commons, claiming they are their own work. Images like this or this seem to be simply copied off websites, and I would be surprised if this party logo is really their own work. I'm not really familiar with commons procedures, but I wonder whether a mass deletion and some kind of block on them uploading images may be in order? Cheers, Number 57 (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll review their contributions and tag them appropriately. Guanaco (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. All images tagged either no source, copyvio, or DR. I've given the user a final warning. Guanaco (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block User:WiFi and HiFi and User:Hey now.

These accounts were created by my brother, User:IExistToHelp to vandalize Wikimedia Commons. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kong of Lasers: Snitch. --IExistToHelp (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fake. --IExistToHelp (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination It is all a misunderstanding. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading copyright violations files continuously

Hello.Please act with User:محمد الدمشقي 2017.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


vandalism Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. --jdx Re: 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Ptlb0142

Most of Ptlb0142's uploads contain as their main or only description, the link This link is completely unrelated to any of the uploaded images. In addition, many of the uploaded images are of very low quality. Is this a strange way of trying to spam Wikimedia Commons? - Takeaway (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user persists in uploading files with the spamlink in the file description despite having been warned by Jeff G. ツ. - Takeaway (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked for two weeks. --jdx Re: 12:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdx and Jameslwoodward: You might want to extend, this may be indefblocked Tekksavvy socking.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but Tekksavvy's last edit was in 2016, so a CU is not possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I was pinging you as the blocking Admin. Anyway, I expect we shall hear from that user in the first week of October.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but since we can't do a CU we'll simply have to wait and see and apply the duck test as needed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Eddaido has started indiscriminately renaming Category:International Harvester vehicles into Category:International vehicles. Not a big problem, just a senseless renaming, lots of work serving no discernible purpose. But he has also misnamed a number of categories (calling the AL-series the "L-series Australia", same for the AR-series). As usual, he will not listen to other users but just keeps reverting, reorganizing thousands of files incorrectly. He even agrees on his talk page that they should be called AR and AL, but says the can be re-renamed later - which is insane. He has also undone the categorizing of hundreds of images into light and heavier duty trucks, something that cannot be restored by a bot. Eddaido refuses to discuss, and insists that he should be allowed to finish wrecking hundreds of categories before anything can be said. I say BRD and hold off on more edits. Help please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.choppers (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of this, or the technical niceties of the naming. But Eddaido and this sort of relentless, IDHT behaviour is far from a novel occurrence. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eddaido is in the process of recategorising all International Harvester images. This is to remove the current "just growed" nature of International's commons categorisation using recognised names that avoid the many clashes Mr C apparently is still unaware of. Mr choppers is wholly mistaken to describe it as senseless. He is also attacking my work when only a small portion is done. Perhaps he could identify his problems here on this page in a less vague and scatter gun manner. When you collect all images of a like subject together a large number of things become clear and the split back to sub and sub-sub categories is quick and easy. Mr Choppers view just as he expresses it above is very superficial. I stand on my record — you want me to list it out? — and thanks Andy, what does IDHT mean? Eddaido (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cease! You're creating a mess by not correctly moving categories (ie: creating new categories and dumping a redirect template into the old category, rather than using the "Move" function) and leaving files sitting in a redirected category. Also don't misuse to rollback function, or you'll have it removed. Bidgee (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have ceased pending the outcome of this discussion. I did not misuse rollback function. Did I? I am careful to ensure no files are left but another editor has been changing things since then so check the history. What does the MOVE function do that I did not? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did, you used the rollback function a few times (such as here for example). Move function is a tab up the top which links to Special:MovePage but from now on I think you should be limited to COM:CfD Also you'll find @Andy Dingley: was saying that you have "I didn't hear that" when he used IDHT. Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What an unhappy group. At least Bidgee makes useful contributions to the images of International trucks. Perhaps I should have referred something to Categories for discussion. I didn’t because the reaction — such as it is now — is a delayed one and until that arrived from Mr Choppers I thought it would be a waste of time. No one had previously expressed interest. Maybe someone should take their concerns to Categories for discussion, the bit(s) that hurt them most that is, and we can go on from there. I used Rollback to fix vandalism. It is a very long time, maybe always, since I welcomed written contact with Mr choppers but I have not blocked or ignored him. Eddaido (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note "International Harvester"
Your comment was "leave me be to finish this enormous job." BRD. The fact that IHC vehicle categorization is not particularly interesting to 99.99% of the world's population and therefore wasn't immediately notice does not make your efforts correct. You are actively doing wrong, and you have also not told anyone what it is you are doing. Sure, some of the category names could use streamlining and systematizing. The fact that you stonewalled me completely (and kept steaming on) is why I brought it here. Here are my issues:
  • Renaming from "International Harvester" to "International" - pointless work, and you haven't provided any supporting evidence. See International Harvester Scout for naming practice accepted for over 11 years. Not saying "International" is incorrect, but such a change should be discussed and could be carried out without the ancillary disruption.
I think you missed this: "I have discussed this with Eddaido, then posted "Trucks built by International Harvester (and Navistar) are branded "International". This is true from the 1908 "International Gasoline Auto Buggies" [2] until the present[3]. I think Eddaido uses this as a reason for name changing, and I support him on this". Unfortunatly, after discussing it with him I encouraged him to just go ahead. I didn't think anyone would care, clearly I screwed up. He shouldn't take heat for that. Sammy D III (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy D III: I don't have a real problem with changing International Harvester to International, it's more concise. It's the additional problems, duplications and misnamings and inability to communicate that bother me. As for renaming, that can be done without disruptions. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, sorry for my part. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AR-130 series
  • Renaming from L series to L line (and so on) - correctboth are used, see the chrome nameplate on an AR-130, but of minor importance.
  • Merging International Harvester R-Series pickups and International Harvester R-Series into the single International R Line trucks. This undoes the work of separating light duty from heavier duty versions and cannot be easily repaired by a bot. If the issue was simply "series" versus "line", then why not simply do that? Same problem with the L line. I pointed this out repeatedly but received no response whatsoever.
  • Personally I disagree with capitalizing "Line" since it isn't actually part of a name, the name is L-110 or L-130 or whatever. I'd prefer L line. (just my 2 cents)
  • Misnaming Category:International Harvester AR-series to International R Line trucks Australia, same thing for AL-line. When this was pointed out he said "that can be changed later." Why go through a lot of effort to rename a whole bunch of pictures just to rename them again later? He then re-reverted me after he had been made aware of the issue and acknowledged that the name was incorrect.
This could easily have been avoided if Eddaido would just read what people tell him, but his reaction is to turn rigid and defensive while attempting to flatter the "opponent" and make them go away. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot more "misunderstandings" and the same complaints. Can we wait until the main name question is solved and then debate Mr C's probs with L line etc? Mr.choppers, did I flatter you? I certainly didn't mean to. Eddaido (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Reader please note. All, that is to say All, I have done is re-categorise with the names used by International Harvester Corp / Co in their own literature. As for L line please see here (there has long been this same link at the top of the new category) that's all I have done, i.e. copy from an authoritative source, the manufacturer concerned. Eddaido (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be honest, Eddaido: what you did really was recategorizing unilaterally the IH main categories, renaming illogically some of them (see the Australian IH truck lines), ignoring without reason some subcategories during your renamings/recategorization (the pickup subcategories almost disappeared during the process) and creating duplicate categories (for example the International Automobiles you created without relation to the already existing IH Automobiles). And then, when people tried to ask you not to act that way, you asked for a merge to cover that mess. A correct behavior would certainly have been to ask before, even if your opinion was that "nobody except me take care of these categories". BarnCas (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will respond to that. "Please be honest"??? Yes I did recategorise unilaterally. Never denied.
About one-fifth of the way through "an old acquaintance" attacked me. You should not judge by his claims or his insinuations or the incompleteness of the recategorisation.
Just one long-established determined antagonist is not "people". There is no "chaotic mess" unless brought on by the reverts. It sure is incomplete. You (BarnCas) display more mistaken impressions.
Reader please note. I repeat. All, that is to say All, I have done is (begin to completely) re-categorise with the names used by International Harvester Corp / Co in their own literature. Eddaido (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can see that you senselessly merged categories that existed, misnamed several (AL, AR) and then kept reverting after you had already admitted you were in the wrong. If all you had done was to rename from IH to International then I wouldn't have cared a bit. Several problematic edits are linked above and are clear for anyone to see. Can't you just say "I'm sorry" like a normal human being? If you cannot admit wrong and rectify your behavior then you simply do not belong in a cooperative project. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This continuous repetition is very difficult to deal with. Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddaido: International used to be International Harvester, and had a long, proud history as such. Many of its old products with International Harvester logos, names, lines, models, etc. still exist, although some don't function as designed any more. Photos of those old International Harvester products' logos, names, lines, models, etc. should be categorized by their original manufacturer's names for them at the times of original manufacture and original marketing. Cross-referencing old with new and vice-versa can be done in the bodies of categories and galleries. Disclosure: I have never used or seen one of their products up close, but my first Usenet connection was via their server ihnp4, and I am sure some of the food I have eaten was farmed with their products.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: International Harvester Co / Corp was formed at the beginning of the 20th century by merger of several businesses making agricultural machinery, shortly afterwards they began to manufacture trucks. Today the difference is that it is named Navistar. The dispute is over the name used for the truck products, not the name of the manufacturer. Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddaido, Mr.choppers, Sammy D III, Bidgee, and Andy Dingley: I have made a new proposal at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:International Harvester trucks#New merge target, I hope you like it.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just a quick attention needed, the Jcb as OTRS and as a sysop here, shouldn't have a posture as this:

  • "So if you want to keep these apparent copyright violations so easy over assumptions, I think it's a good thing that you are currently not an OTRS agent." (SIC)
  • "In the past years I have seen just too many bogus claims from museums"
  • "Did you even read what I wrote above? Apparently not. What we are missing is not a claim from the museum. We need to see a statement from the (heirs of the) artist." (SIC)

From: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:José Wasth Rodrigues and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Henrique Manzo

He also used the administrative tool to force his idea, without any discussion [4], [5]...

Undoubtedly not a posture to maintain a heath environment. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Without looking deeply into the facts of this particular case, I think museums falsely claiming copyright is a serious and common problem. Dealing with it can be extremely frustrating. Maybe a friendlier tone would have been better, but I don't feel that any of the statements here were particularly offensive. The move protection is not a problem in my view, because DRs generally should not be moved in the first place. Doing so can potentially trip up bots and scripts and make a mess. Overall, there isn't much to say or do here, except remind everyone to stay mellow. Guanaco (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guanaco, in this case, it’s the other way around: The Museum has licensed its exhibits allowing photos of them to be in Commons and Jcb thinks that’s not enough. That meatter is being discussed elsewhere, here we’re focusing on Jcb’s behaviour. Concerning this point, Jcb should be asked why does he think that this museum in partucular should not have the same expectation of trust other museums obviously enjoy in Commons. -- Tuválkin 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At OTRS I have spoken to many museums and archives over the years and I have never taken their statements for granted so easily as some other users do. The result of asking questions was almost always that on a closer look the museum or archive did not own the copyright after all. That's why I am cynical on such statements. They almost always prove incorrect. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Rodrigo.Argenton: I contacted you at your user talk page about the merge action on the DRs, but you chose to revert that message instead of trying to talk first. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I contacted you at your user talk page" after I protect the page against you...
So.. how should talk first? And this level of conversation:
"So after tampering with the DRs now you start forum shopping?"
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just came accross the sarcastic fact that you have been blocked before for trolling at this Noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hey it's all good, bite yet another institution, so they will never come back. it is quite a display of making policy by DR, and why talk to an uploader, when you can mass delete.
i see this admin has gone on a deletionist spree, disrupting commons with his cynicism. maybe he needs a time out from his duties, until he can follow long standing consensus.
closing admin - you realize the longer you let this abuse of process go on the less the reputation of commons ? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


false editing, bulling, edit war, edit without reference in File:United Arab Emirates adm location map.svg.Shahin.shn (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahin.shn: Reporting an admin at Administrators' noticeboard. People these days. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to report an admin, this is actually the right place. Guanaco (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shahin.shn, this appears to be a disputed territory. From UAE's point of view the islands are part of UAE, but Iran disagrees. It's not our place on Commons to decide which of the two images is correct. The Commons policy on this is COM:UPLOADWAR: you should simply upload a different file and leave NordNordWest's version alone if there's disagreement. Once we have both versions as separate files, you can switch the map on Wikipedia. From there it is a Wikipedia content issue; you'll have to follow their policies and guidelines and find consensus there if you have a disagreement. Guanaco (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


i'm just saying by international recognition by every organization in world these islands ownd by Iran so till new recognition even by UN my map is correct Shahin.shn (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shahin.shn, without any comment or discussion you did overwrite an existing and heavily used image/map, which had been uploaded 2 years ago. This is a clear violation of our policy, see Commons:Overwriting existing files. After NNW reverted your edit, you repeated it. Only with your 3rd overwriting-attempt, you left a comment on NNW's talkpage to justify your edit. Though NNW immediately provided a counterargument to your claim, you did overwrite the map anyway for a 3rd and 4th time. So, your editing is a repeated violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files. It's you who might have been "reported" here, but not NNW. Instead, you should follow User:Guanaco's advise. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There might be only one thing I can add: The file description says The boundaries on these maps always show the de facto situation and do not imply any endorsement or acceptance. I have no opinion on these islands, this map only shows the UAE claims for an encyclopedic purpose regardless if they are legitimate or not. NNW 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drown Soda

This editor has been steadily uploading images with grossly deficient PD claims, often with claims that are transparently invalid. As the deletion notices on their talk page show, this is an ongoing problem dating back at least two years. Editor was blocked twice a few years ago over copyright issues (flickrwashing).

Among the problems in recent uploads have been:

  • Claiming PD-US-no notice on an image with a clearly evident copyright notice (File:Eve Arden 1938.jpg, speedy deleted)
  • Claiming PD-US-nonrenewal on an image sourced to a 2005 book, with no information regarding the original (or any prior) publication, and therefore no plausible way to search for the copyright renewal (File:Jean Brooks headshot 1939.jpg, deletion pending)
  • Claiming PD-US-nonrenewal on an image with no information regarding the original publication, and therefore no plausible way to search for the copyright renewal, as well as metadata text suggesting European publication (where renewal would not have been required) (File:Carroll Baker headshot, The Carpetbaggers.jpg, deletion pending)
  • Claiming PD-US-no notice on an image with a clearly evident stamp from a UK photo agency, indicating UK publication, where no notice would have been required (File:Amy Irving 1978.png, deletion pending)
  • Claiming free image status on an image with a noncommercial use only CC-license (File:Doris Duke portrait.jpg, speedy deleted)
  • Claiming PD-US-no notice on a photo found on Ebay with no information indicating prior publication, described as part of a collection of mostly unpublished photos (File:Lana Turner and Susan Peters in Keep Your Powder Dry.jpg, deletion pending)
  • Claiming PD-government work on a newspaper photo donated to a public library, with no indication that the copyright was also donated (which wouldn't make the photo a government work), where the library states that images in its collection are not necessarily public domain (File:Defendant Barbara Graham.jpg, deletion pending)
  • Claiming PD-US-no notice on a photo carrying two different copyright stamps (for Italy and Sweden), but no indication of US publication (File:Carroll Baker c. 1965 in Rome.png, deletion pending)

The list goes on and on. It appears to me that the majority of this editor's uploads (not counting flickr transfers and modifications of other Commons images) are deficient, sometimes indisputable violations. Despite the many violations reported on their talk page, the editor has not meaningfully responded or corrected their misbehaviour. Given the past history, I don't think anything short of a block or topic ban will convince them to improve their uploading practices. The amount of other editors' time and effort that's likely going to be required to clean up this mess will be substantial, and without action it's only going to grow. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm not understanding the parameters of licenses in regard to publicity photos & stills from films/of actors, which is mainly what I upload. The bulk of these from my recollection I tagged with the PD-Pre1978 tag, which to my understanding applied to publicity photos that did not have clear copyright markings on them which were published prior to 1978. So far as File:Lana Turner and Susan Peters in Keep Your Powder Dry.jpg is concerned, it would seem to me that this qualifies; I also never described the image as being part of a set of unpublished photos, so I'm not sure if that's a mistake/misattribution intended for a different file. One of the images you cited (File:Carroll Baker c. 1965 in Rome.png) does in fact have the copyright stamps which I had not noticed, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded it. The now-deleted Doris Duke portrait was also a mistake as I didn't realize the non-commercial reuse was part of the licensing. As I said, I'm not particularly well-versed in copyright statuses for photos, and I've mostly learned what does/doesn't qualify and what is/isn't acceptable based on images that are already uploaded in the Commons and based it on those parameters. I received the numerous notifications on my talk page this afternoon, but see no need in defending each of them as my judgment has been proven incorrect for most all of the notices. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Down Soda, your understanding of the standards for "publicity photographs" is dead wrong. Just labeling something a "publicity photograph" does not excuse you from providing evidence that the photo was previously published, that the original publication occurred in the jurisdiction the licensing tag pertains to, the date of publication, and the manner of publication, to the extent that is relevant to the licensing tag. With regard to File:Lana Turner and Susan Peters in Keep Your Powder Dry.jpg, you provided no information whatever regarding these points. The year the photo was taken wasn't relevant. Not only that, the Ebay source page described it as coming from a collection of mostly unpublished photographs. When the source says it's likely unpublished, that pretty much tells you it's not suitable for Commons. (There are exceptions, but they require a license for the specific country where the photo was created and under whose laws the PD claim is made). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:We_hope might be able to provide information about best practices in this area... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I file yet another complaint against user Tm, who ignores issues raised about one's work, doesn't let other people resolve such issues, and doesn't care to discuss nor explain one's actions. One ignores category talk comments like this and only cares to revert attempts to resolve an issue, again without meaningful explanation. A talk thread about similar issues on one's own talk page gets reverted with a harassing edit comment. That sort of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated on Commons.

Issues raised at COM:AN in July about careless categorization also persist. Now after bringing that issue to different venue (a CfD, where Tm participated mainly in order to cast personal attacks) Tm still keeps categorizing images en masse as "unidentified politicians" without caring to check whether depicted persons are politicians or whether they are unidentified or whether any depicted person needs to be identified. 13:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The post to Tm's talk page was read and deleted. I find it perfectly reasonable, and within policy, for any logged-in contributor to ignore anon IPs, rather than taking the risk of being later accused of aiding banned users, considering that the repercussions may include being WMF blocked without chance of appeal. Given this context, removing posts from anonymous accounts from your own user talk page, is not something one should be required to defend, or even have to worry about.

Given that yesterday, one of our long term contributors has been so worried by an anon IP, that they have been considering retiring from this project, if Tm requests it, it may be reasonable to temporarily protect their talk page so that only logged-in accounts can post there. -- (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is a rather lame excuse to ignore actual content issues. If there are concerns about some other user, no matter whether logged in or not, for one's behaviour or for an actual reason to believe that one's a sock, then this is a different issue. I'm happy to discuss concerns on other venues than user talk too, and I've tried to do so, though being ignored.
Simply editing without being logged in is in compliance with terms of use and privacy policy, harassing someone for that however is not. 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those IP's are all the same?

If yes: Problematic edit pattern - Controversial edits under multiple ip's. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be some sort of behavioural evidence to tie different names/numbers. Based on what you tie three first addresses with me? (If something is believed to be there, then please make it into a different topic.) Obviously I haven't had the same address since the beginning of times, but this in itself shouldn't be a problem. 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read you comment carefully enough earlier. Seems you suggest that in addition to possibly problematic edits by these other IP addresses my edits are also controversial. Could you please elaborate on that? Feel free to leave me a note on my talk about specific edits, and I'll explain and, if necessary, revise my actions. 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am concerned by this user's behavior. It cannot be putting much thought into its edits when it makes 96 of them in one minute.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be objecting to Tm using cat-a-lot. That's hardly a fair complaint considering that most of us use the tool and consequently are guilty of the same crime of making these numbers of edits this quickly. Please put down the pitchfork until you have spent time checking your facts. -- (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact earlier COM:AN topic and CfD topic referenced above both already have fair amount of examples where Tm miscategorizes images without checking, and it's easy to find more examples from given category. 14:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to initial comment: being told that I shouldn't be given a voice reflects significant level of arrogance, and that followed by "tough luck to you" sounds pretty much like bragging about getting away with bullying other users. Do we really have to bear that hostile work environment? 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdforrester (WMF): Hi, could you confirm that by responding to any of the IP addresses listed in this thread that logged-in contributors are at no risk of later action by the WMF? Thanks -- (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you know that editing wihtout being logged in is allowed. I don't see how it'd be possible to edit the same project without certain kind of users not interacting with one another. So you probably know the answer to your question, which seems to be plain picking and an attempt to distract. 13:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@: , James Forrester reached out to me, because he was wondering if you were thinking of my role in Office Actions instead of his role in Product. Given our previous conversation on the topic of IP editors, I suspect he may be right. If you have another reason to ask James Forrester about conversing with IPs, please do clarify, and I'm sure he'll be happy to respond. My answer is unchanged from the last time we talked about this. In a nutshell, users who knowingly assist globally banned users to get around their global bans could be at risk whether that globally banned user is anonymous or not. Sanctions would only be issued on actions that were both knowing and, honestly, quite obvious (i.e generally after a fairly clear warning as well). We are still not able to give pre-clearance or an advanced "blessing", just as we can't pre-clear all conversations with named contributors. It is and will always be contextual. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: unless an account or IP address has been either locally blocked, or globally (b)locked, there is no (definitive) way for any reasonable user to feel "secure" interacting with any user or IP address which even in the slightest way could be seen as only suspicious. Unless clear guidance whether or not responding to help requests on notice boards made by one of these IP addresses, or user accounts which have not been (b)locked, would be in the slightest considered to be "helping a banned user", most admins will not feel secure or want to actually engage with IP addresses, or new accounts which seem to have read more than one of our internal pages (polices/discussions etc.). This is causing great harm to the admin corp of this projects, wo don't know whether or not they are allowed to even discuss the topic raised by this IP address here, or by any IP address on any noticeboards, without being afraid of a global ban being issued the next day since something should have been obvious (to some). I don't expect any response or action or any clearer guidance than as been given, I just thought I should went my thoughts about your comments an the psychological harm to this project and those users who want to help and/or discuss on these noticeboards etc. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: Yes my mistake, I'm suffering from J-blindness.
The reply does not answer my question about the IPs listed in this thread. I have to presume that you are not going to give a useful answer about these accounts/users who have attempted to interact with me.
It is impossible to predict what is in your head, and you have resisted writing down any useful policies or guidelines to restrict or define your powers to ban us contributors with no possibility of appeal, nor any right to ask for evidence. Consequently this appears to repeat your a non-specific threat to permanently block anyone that responds to anonymous IPs or sock accounts that turn out to be previously banned users. The fact that the threat is to block users that "knowingly" take action is entirely subject to interpretation, and as your previous threat against me was based on zero evidence, just your feelings that I was doing something somewhere, this is no reassurance whatsoever.
As I have done in this thread, the only way I can think of to reduce the risk of my accounts getting perma-banned for arbitrary or even entirely spurious reasons, is to ping you any time a newbie attempts to talk to me. At least in this way, you cannot justify your blocks based on me acting in a way that you were not very clearly and publicly informed about, and that I did not first attempt to ask your permission to help such users. I'll consider how to word a banner for the top of my talk page so that newbies are aware of how it may appear that I am being rude, but I'm actually just trying to protect myself from your damagingly heavy-handed approach to protecting us from harassment. As you appear to be refusing to give meaningful replies about any specific account, this effectively means that to stay safe, nobody should have discussions with new accounts or anon IPs that behave as if they have edited this project before; this obviously includes "" that I shall continue to ignore.
I look forward to the time when the WMF introduces proper governance and transparency for these WMF blocks, though considering how badly discussion about the blocks, and the absence of published procedures for deploying them has continued over a period of years, I doubt that governance will improve until those that currently hold these tools get promoted or move on to other pastures and more collegiate ways of working might be seriously considered.
Thanks -- (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps time to create one of these templates:
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I protest against using this thread for having a bone to pick with WMF officials (or authorities in general), and against spreading paranoid attitude according to which all newly registered users or unregistered users who have read policies (or why not established users too, since no evidence is needed for paranoia), are likely socks. This is against having healthy environment where to contribute and discuss. Fæ, you speak against making threats or accusations based on zero evidence, while this is exactly what you do yourself here in this topic by considering me a likely sock simply because I'm not logged in. Secondly, you imply that I "attempted to interact with [you]" while I didn't. I've no idea why you got involved in this thread in the first place if you are afraid of being banned and if you "ignore" me, as you say. 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to move generic, undirectly related and rather extensive side-conversation about responding to IP addressses to talk page.

Now, the latest revelation is that Tm is monitoring my edits (in a kind of stalking way) and reverting them randomly. E.g. see following page histories, where I quite carefully explain what and why I'm doing, and which to the best of my understanding isn't controversial, nonetheless, as in above examples, it gets reverted without any explanation whatsoever: [6], [7], [8]. 13:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And this person, stills continues to try to delete text that is not of his convenience. I´ve readded the comments by other users that this person is trying to hide. Tm (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hiding anything, as referenced in last comment: this side conversation, started with a clear intention to distract, was moved to talk page. It doesn't tell anything about my motives, it barely even mentions me. And my motives wasn't the topic here anyways.
You are carrying on with made up accusations. I repeat, I never admitted anything but not having had the same IP address since the beginning of times. Regardless that, I don't think that I've deceived you in anyway, and neither have you pointed out any actual circumstances to be suspicious about.
What you mean by "proper categorization" is in no way evident. Unlike you I explain what I'm doing, and I put effort into my contributions so that they'd make sense. 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please help resolving this? My experience with Wikimedia projects is that naturally users who don't contribute in a civilized manner are blocked, this includes e.g. users who don't ensure it'd make sense what they are doing and users who bluntly revert or override edits instead of participating in discussions if necessary. If blocking for some reason is seen as an excessive measure here, then I expect there should be some other way to resolve this. Part of the problem has been up at CfD over a month, though without any step towards resolution either. Other than that, page for another possible venue, COM:RFC, suggests that COM:ANU is for dispute resolution too. So, here we are. 07:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another recent example where I try to correct file description (date, author, license) that's plain wrong, nothing to dispute about, and uploader had partly corrected it earlier anyways. Regardless of this being a rather obvious edit, I've explained this in considerable extent. Tm only replys "per original upload", leaving it unclear what this should prove, an repeatedly reverts the correction. This pretty much amounts to vandalizing. 07:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Elisfkc is overusing his privileges

user:Elisfkc is a troll overusing his privileges, removing my uploads with no solid reasons rarely even giving any explainations and not responding to my valid arguments. --Bololabich (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bololabich,
So far as I can see, Elisfkc is right. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this user their last warning for continued copyvio uploads and now I see this. Result: block. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bololabish, calling an experience user a troll when they are clearly not is unacceptable in this project of ours. I support Jcb's block proposal. Wikicology (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion: I did not propose a block, I applied it. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I just found this section, after never getting notified about this. Elisfkc (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary massive categories renaming

Hello, I bring this topic here because talking to User:GT1976 is useless, he keeps his crusade to execute probably more edits than files we have in Commons. Long story short: GT1976 aims to change all date-related categories in Commons from e.g. "2017 in Alaska" to "2017 in Alaska photographs". There have been some discussions about this and there is no agreement or consensus, but GT1976 keeps doing it. I have warned him/her so far 3 times to stop it [9] [10] [11] and in the last occasion even with a block as reaction (which I didn't apply but ask for it here). I asked him also to use a bot after there is a consensus (which he is not even looking for) and gave him/her hints to do it, no reaction. He's flooding my and many other's watchlists (with over 500 changes in a few minutes, so all other changes are gone) but it looks like this priorities are others. On top GT1976 is of course not checking the contents of the categories to sort out what is actually not a photograh, as you can see here. I ask for disciplinary actions. Poco2 08:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked 3d --A.Savin 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This person has been uploading copyrighted photos. The description translates to "yilin fashion model management group" Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for a week. All uploads deleted. Guanaco (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jononmac46 possibly mixing own photos with found images

After noticing a watermark with a different name on File:Trewhiddle Chalice (BM).JPG ("(C) 2011 Genevra Kornbluth"), this user's uploads look like they might be a mix of their own original museum photography backed up by other people's content of similar objects. A lot of the user's uploads are photos taken with a Canon PowerShot SX260 HS in and around the British Museum, which are great and I'd hope were all their own, but these are intermingled with uploads in very different styles (includings some old black and white shots), some of which have already been deleted or questioned as copyright violations, with no talk page response from the user. All are uploaded as the "own work" of Jononmac46.

Checking the user's upload history, there are sections where (as with Jericho skulls here) the user uploads pictures of similar artefacts from museums all over the world - where the photos have metadata, these are all taken with different cameras, and some look like professional shots outside of a case, rather than those of a museum visitor. From a 2014 upload of four pottery Luohans, File:Boston Museum of Fine Arts Luohan.jpg, File:Nelson Atkins Luohan.jpg and File:Penn Museum Luohan.jpg all appeared in this 2011 Flickr gallery, and File:Nelson_Atkins_Museum_Luohan_(2).jpg appears to be the same photo (different background and cropping, but exact same angle) as was used on this 2009 book.

Is there an easy way to separate out the SX260 shots from the others so they can be checked? --Gapfall (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VisualFileChange will do this. Guanaco (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll see if I can put them up for deletion discussion. --Gapfall (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mouauia rafii


This user don't respect the rules, because many uploads are copyvios. See his talk page.
Please block this user.

--NB80 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see old postcards, which could be regularly discussed in a DR. not so blatant copyvio imho. --Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Je réponds en français : les copyvios ont déjà été supprimés. La liste, plus que trop longue, est mentionnée sur sa page de discussion. Comme le problème revient régulièrement, j'ai un doute quant à la compréhension des règles par cet utilisateur. --NB80 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NB80: I gave him a final warning.
Si tu vois des fichiers problématiques n’hésite pas à les proposer à la suppression. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merci Thibaut120094. --NB80 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Du fait d'énièmes copyvios (File:Intérieur de la granda halle.jpg, File:Porte monimontale.jpg et File:Intérieur des anciens abattoirs.jpg), je redemande le blocage de Mouauia rafii, de préférence pour une durée indéfinie SVP. --NB80 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try my best

One day old, already using Cat-a-lot a lot, definitely INeverCry. Also, Erowid per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try my best is blocked. Guanaco (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Daphne, but we all try our best. While all those "petty" accounts get blocked everyday, another one is running fast to become an experienced user and perhaps ask adminship soon. Don't ask me which one, because if I can see a pattern admins can do better. --E4024 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Commons talk:Requests for checkuser#Possible Joe Jobs. A sock account simply saying they are someone is not "definitely". Please stay aware of Joe Job attacks, they have significant potential for disruption and any of us could become a target. Thanks -- (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Ducksoup a machine?

This person has been consistently uploading stuff all day and night. Ok The uploads are hgiher quality items of pictures. However, I am concerned this may be a bot or some sort. I've noticed it operating constantly and I am a little surprised. Artix Kreiger (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're potentially a returning user, but they seem to be doing good work with no problems that I've seen. I doubt it's a bot. Guanaco (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: This shows something different!? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiven2240: What are you showing me? I see that the account edited its user page, then days later moved on to its pattern of overwriting old artwork. Guanaco (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting dosent counts contribution?.--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's that, or CentralAuth is slow to update edit counts. I'll do some tests. Guanaco (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Guanaco testsock is listed as having six contributions. Four are live, two deleted. Guanaco (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwrote a file - still six contributions. Guanaco (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited a page. Immediately, it updated to 7 contributions. I think it's confirmed that overwrite uploads aren't counted as contributions. Guanaco (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have stopped updating old photographs for now but I would like to carry on. If my account name is an issue, it is based on World War II slang, not because of the way 'duck' is used to talk about accounts. I am uploading a backlog of public domain photographs using a helpful tool, not bypassing a block on any other account to do this, and wish to contribute without accidentally outing myself or being outed, which is why I would rather not say much about how I am technically doing the uploads (I did not think anyone would care about that). --Ducksoup (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ducksoup: I don't see a problem here as long as you're verifying the images and not running this as a fully automated bot. If you want to do that, file a BRFA. Otherwise, carry on. Guanaco (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I am a relatively experienced wikipedia editor in English with new pages reviewer rights but I am not an experienced commons editor hence this question here. The above user has added quite a few references and photos to a certain Emil Eikner in wikipedia. Here he has added literally dozens of photos of this person and his interests her in various galleries that seem to be in violation of Commons:NOT notably COM:NOTWP COM:ADVERT COM:NOTHOST he also seems to using his userpage here to promote this person. He has added over 1000 photos to commons a very large part of which look like personal family and friends photos notably amateur cabaret performances. I have cleaned up his spamming on wikipedia but this may end up being conflictual there. The galleries and categories contain encyclopedic information and are referenced on google. When you search "Swenglistic Underground" on google here2 commons pages are in the 1st 4 pages referenced and the second link here has clear encyclopedic content. In my view this is a clear attempt to promote. I may be wrong as I am not familiar with the commons project over and above the stated policies and I think I need some help here. Here are just a few of the galleries and categories that seem to be problematic. Category:Lars_Jacob_birthday_parties [12] Category:Emil_Eikner. --Domdeparis (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Emil Eikner and en:Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see this which is what I have been going by since then, well aware to try to be constructive and relevant and be careful with any conflict of interest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation here is to nominate files for deletion if they are out of scope. Then, if there are empty galleries left behind they can be speedily deleted. Guanaco (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: I have tried to discuss this subject with this editor here User_talk:SergeWoodzing#Emil_Eikner because it's a general problem on numerous pages on the English Wikipedia with autopromotion but he prefers to multiply the discussions. I was wondering if there were a more general solution because there are over 1000 photos to trawl through. If there is no violation of the different policies that I mentioned then I think I will just keep an eye on his editing on the English and French wikipedia project and eventually request administrator help there if there is clear violation of policy there. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may shed some light on my concerns. [13]. This editor was notably blocked for having breached guidelines on Conflict of interest, related to photos from Southerly Club and the person Jacob Truedson Demitz. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Notably blocked" - a new expression, as far as I know. No matter how notable the block is, it's irrelevant here and cannot be assessed because it's way too big and all in Swedish. I might suffice to say that many users defended me. Where is good faith in all of this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 ways of using the word notably, it can mean "remarkably" as you thought I was doing but it can also mean "in particular" or "especially". Sorry split infinitives can cause confusion sometimes, if I had written "this editor was blocked notably for having..." it would probably have been a little clearer for you. I should try and remember that commons is not an English language site. Here's a link to the Oxford dictionnry definition of notably in case I wasn't clear about my use of the word [14]. By the way congratualtions your English is very good! --Domdeparis (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must sadly assume you're being condescending and/or sarcastic, or else you haven't bothered to visit the user pages of a person whom you are now so actively pursuing. There you would have seen that English is my first language. I might add that I taught it for over 50 years, though my many typos (eyesight & brain problems) could deceive one about that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I hadn't visited your userpage as I find them usually of quite little use as one can basically write what one wants about oneself and there is no way of knowing what is true or not. I honestly thought that as you hadn't understood my use of the word notably and the fact that you edit in Swedish you were from there. Please accept my apologies for presuming that English wasn't you first language. --Domdeparis (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This guy has 2 uploads but I honestly think the 2 photos are too "professional" to be "own work", unless he is the photographer. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the upload were an error. I was trying to figure out how to delete them. My apologies for the mistake. The images are taken by a personal friend. I was given permission to use them. What would be the proper course of action to correctly upload these? socialmediasphere

Have your friend send an email to We'll need a licensing statement; they can use the template or the release generator located at COM:CONSENT. Guanaco (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The task would be to jading for my friend. I would rather volunteer a delete before doing that. What about the fact that these images are shown here with "Free use" listed on the data? ( socialmediasphere

"Free use" is the kind of language found frequently in connection with promo photos and such, but not usually acceptable on Commons without more specific information. AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To jading? Anyway: Stale. ✓ Done for now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's uploads

This user has uploaded 3 images following the Richmond Tigers win in the Australian Footbal League on September 30, 2017...but they all appear to be from copyrighted sources and are likely unfree. Can someone act on them. I have to sign off now as its late at night in my time zone. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Images deleted. Guanaco (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done by Guanaco --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This is promotion campaigh of non-notable underage model (no mention in The girl often poses as horror film character (different characters), mostly under heavy makeup. This makes me worry. Normal girl models are depicted as happy children, wearing beautiful clothes and almost no makeup. Here we find almost no such images. Why? The girl does not choose, how she is depicted, the photographer (parent?) chooses, how she is depicted. Let's imagine, that the photographer speaks to her often: you are especially good in depicting unhappy characters, so we'll specialize on that. Rubbish! Really good models (like actors) can play every kind of characters. And if the photographer makes the girl to play only unhappy characters, then this makes me feel uneasy: this girl does not have a happy childhood. Taivo (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Nuked and blocked. Spamming and having underage model without consent. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone look at the uploads and behavior of User:Austintexasart? Either they're making legal threats or attempting to advertise their legal case, but something's up. They've also reuploaded a bunch of images deleted by DR. Until the user either stops or verifies their identity to OTRS, perhaps a block may be necessary. Train2104 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any link to the legal threat? Wikicology (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file is this. This, at least, is not a legal threat. Guanaco (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this. May not be a legal threat, but it definitely looks inappropriate to me. Train2104 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Austintexasart: : These removals of your uploads were made to protect the artist because everyone can claim to be that person online. Please read COM:OTRS for more information on how to prove that you are indeed the artist of these works. If you are, then COM:SCOPE also applies which under COM:NOTUSED states "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Even if you prove that you are indeed the creator of these works, your files can still be deleted. It is highly unlikely that some personal enemy of yours is deleting your uploads here on Wikimedia Commons. - Takeaway (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: The file was wrongfully removed. I have published several original artworks of Daniel Pavon Cuellar under permission granted in writing by the artist itself at For this purpose is hereby requested all deletions be reinstated, the artworks were legally released under the license carefully chosen. In regards to "legal threats", no legal threat to Wikipedia, no legal threat at all, but actual proceedings in Travis county Court, as seen at with case number and evidence online. in fact is a legal document of proceedings taking place, release under author rights, and for the purpose of education on the legal and law fields, after all Wikipedia purpose is for education and knowledge of it's viewers. The question is, why such attack in the artist? The education provided by the photos of artworks, nature, and legal, provides a unique education field and one of a kind, viewers look for the artist on Wikipedia as seen in google predict on searches. As nobody else creates the miniature forest see Arte.Land or Atx.Farm in Austin Texas, nobody else creates multidimiensional art as the artist does, nobody else does gardening as he does, all in a multidimensional way, including justice. Education is to provide different tools, different techniques, different ways, for the people who wish to learn, expand their knowledge, make available all information possible. Type in google, wikipedia "multidimensional art" perhaps maybe you could create an article on MULTIDIMENSIONAL ART. by Austintexasart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexasart (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Austintexasart: please reply below contributors responses rather than above them and sign your comments. Bidgee (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] would seem to address any copyright issues; I'm not commenting on any other aspect of this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks promotional at some level. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fgl98 uploads

Fgl98 (talk · contributions · Statistics)

To many notices on talk page of improper uploads. Also many are/look like Copyvios. Needs to be sorted out as many uploads in short time. feydey (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I researched their images, and they were blocked by another admin. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is User:Smoking puddles 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] - Please don't do this again, We're gonna need a bit more evidence than your opinion. –Davey2010Talk 19:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Brand new account. Starts immediately with nominations with deletions. Typical of other accounts 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are - to quote Davey as above - going to need more than an opinion on this. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities with User:Проступок and User:Leonard Reeves (and probably earlier socks):

  • Early edits include creating a user page and a common.js containing mw.loader.load( 'ext.gadget.VisualFileChange' );.
  • Using VFC to file mass deletion requests.
  • Using Cat-a-lot to mass-categorise uncategorised photos of wildlife.
  • Deletion requests with the text “Out of scope - unused personal image”.
  • No, or almost no, other actions.
  • All within 24 hours.

This is either INC or someone deliberately pretending to be INC. --bjh21 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I tagged this file with {{Npd}}, but User:Kasir removed the tag without resolving the issue. I think the tag should be restored, but considering his recent blusters at my talk page, it might be better to let an admin handle it. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I reverted the edit and added the image into my watchlist. Taivo (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I had blocked User:Jlannons99 for apparent vandalism, but from his subsequent edit on his user talk page, he may just be very confused, not intending to vandalize. I don't have time to pursue this the next day or so. If someone else does, please feel free to take this over, and I won't be the least bit bothered if someone else undoes the block I imposed. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case for @Cookie: . Can you have a look, please? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RA Discasto

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

I will be closing this thread per the OP's request below. No admin action is required. Wikicology (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Bonjour, si un admin pouvez stopper les agissements et harcèlement de Discasto (talk · contribs) qui c'est érigé en censeur de mes contributions et reverte toutes mes améliorations. Ce contributeur qui semble vouloir faire fuir les autres et qui est déjà banni indéfiniment de son wiki espagnol, pour des raisons qui semble identique, mérite je pense d'être recadrer voir interdit un temps. Cordialement. --KAPour les intimes 06:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. I'm reviewing your editions just because you keep on breaking policies rules and popping on my watchlist with wrong categorizations. My "harcèlement" seems to relate to this. You've been given proper explanation, but instead of uploading, as suggested, a new file, you've just removed the message (fine, it's not necessary to keep it, just to acknowledge it) and broken again COM:OVERWRITE. No more comments from my side. --Discasto talk 09:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comme l'indique ma page de discussion personnelle, vous pouvez passer votre chemin si vous ne parlez pas le français sur cet espace privé, veuillez donc vous abstenir d'y rédiger quoi que ce soit, dans une autre langue que la mienne. Et cesser de me harceler en suivant toutes mes modifications pour les reverter comme cela vous a été signalé par un administrateur. Demande de blocage maintenu à l'encontre de ce contributeur banni et multi-récidiviste qui cherche visiblement le conflit.--KAPour les intimes 10:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the message at User talk:Kagaoua is telling here. Commons is a collaborative, multilingual project, and people will need to communicate with you. If you refuse to cooperate with people not speaking French, I think you should stick to editing French Wikipedia. Leave Commons to people who are tolerant of other languages. Guanaco (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guanaco . Je dépose mes photos ici en tant qu'auteur, et je le fais en français. Si vous voulez y rajouter des infos dans d'autres langues libre à vous. Je tolère parfaitement les autres langage, mais ne les parle pas. Donc inutile de communiquer avec moi dans une langue que je ne comprends pas, vous perdez votre temps. La tolérance n'a rien à voir avec cela, votre assertion est hors sujet et déplacé en jugement. La question est celle du harcèlement d'un utilisateur à mon encontre et non le fait que je ne communique pas dans d'autre langue. Ayez donc l'obligeance de retirer votre avis qui n'apporte rien au débat et qui n'est pas sollicité en la matière. Mes choix de vie et de communication ne vous concernant pas. La tolérance commence par admettre que pas tout le monde est obligé de parler votre langue, collaboration constructive ou pas. Si cela vous dérange, vous pouvez aussi rester sur votre wiki linguistique (c'est un peu facile de mettre les gens dehors parce qu'il ne parle pas votre langue de prédilection). Cordialement. --KAPour les intimes 12:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word " harassment " must have been vaguely used here. There is nothing showing that you had been harassed by Discasto. People have the choice to disagree with you and this does not qualify as an harassment. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bien. N'étant pas apte à débattre dans une autre langue et à comprendre nombre de conventions non traduite, je demande la clôture de cette requête. Et me retire de ce wiki. Cordialement.--KAPour les intimes 14:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only "convention" mentioned here is COM:OVERWRITE. It is indeed translated into French and the existence of such a translation was duly mentioned to you in here. Maybe you removed my message without even reading it, but it does not entitles to you claim that "not translated policies" are being used here. It's actually the opposite. On the other hand, this policy exists in the French Wikipedia and possibly applies to your statements when opening this request (read fr:WP:WAT, please) or to your summaries in editions such us this. I don't have any problem with you and feel really sad to see you left this project. However, this project have some rules and trying to understand them helps to all of us. Best regards --Discasto talk 16:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.


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.

Unathorized bot. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct. The bot is almost approved, the BRFA hasn't been closed yet. Ping set in BRFA. I don't see problem here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then . Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files by User:Amzon-net india

the account name is promotional by sound.

Also, User:Magog the Ogre has tagged a bunch of files for no permission, all of which were removed. Please note: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amzon-net india.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done All uploads are speedily deleted, account is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I came across this editor by way of a thread over at AN/I on en.wikipedia. They'd been making legal threats. The account there has been indefinitely blocked for this behavior [15]. Here on Commons, this editor uploaded 32 images here 4 years ago. In going through them, I'm finding quite a number of problematic images, such as File:Sheriff Don Smith 25.jpg taken from the New York State Sherrifs' Association. Noting from their website, "Copyright © NY Sheriffs Association All rights reserved." As I go through these images, I'm seeing images from a wide variety of sources, some with metadata, some not. I suspect the vast majority of these images are just images the uploader found somewhere on the Internet that are related to his work with Sheriff Don Smith. Some other eyes please, but I suspect all or nearly all of these images are either out of scope or copyright violations. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Wikicology (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: I nominated the images for deletion. However, no admin action is needed here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User warned and images nominated for deletion. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User upload imaginary/un-sourced flags of Vietnamese dynasties

  • User: An12vua12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log
  • Reasons for reporting: User uploaded imaginary/un-sourced flags of Vietnamese dynasties. This has happened multiple times, with insertion the false flags to the related article of Vietnamese dynasties in multiple wikipedias. I have blocked/banned him many times in viwiki, then he uploaded to commons.

Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuanminh01: I've moved this here, because this is the best place to discuss issues which are not blatant vandalism. You said this person has been blocked many times on viwiki; can you show us other accounts? Guanaco (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving it here. I have removed the images from User Joker_Emperor, with the identical deleted images in viwiki (you can view it with global admin right, since they are deleted). Another possible sockpuppet is Bqn1996, who often uploaded the false flags to commons. Regards, Tuanminh01 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuanminh01: I think sockpuppetry is possible, but our checkusers wouldn't be able to prove it. The other accounts are stale on Commons, and there doesn't seem to be enough evidence of abuse here. At this time, we can tag the images {{Fictitious flag}} or nominate them for deletion. I'll let you do this, because I don't know anything about Vietnamese flags or language. File:Tay Son Flag.png is in use at vi:Nhà Tây Sơn; I'm not sure if that's legitimate or not. Guanaco (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related -- there have been several usernames who insist on uploading bogo-SVGs (i.e. with an embedded PNG but no actual vector data in the image file) of historical Vietnamese flags, no matter how many times they're told not to do that. The only example I can turn up quickly right now is User:南文會館 (now blocked), but there have been several such who pop up from time to time... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that uploading "Special or fictional flags" onto Commons is not really against Commons policies, as long as such images are clearly labelled, and there's no attempt at hoaxing or hatemongering... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: are bogo-SVGs against policy, and if so can we programmatically find and delete them?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: We have Category:SVG images with embedded raster graphics. Sometimes these are fine, such as a photo with vector annotations. I would say that purely bogo SVGs should be replaced and deleted. Theoretically, it should be possible to make a bot to extract the underlying image, upload it, replace usage, and tag the SVG for deletion. Guanaco (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An SVG file can legitimately contain an embedded raster, for various reasons, but an SVG file which contains absolutely no vector data at all defeats the basic purpose of the SVG format. What makes the Vietnamese flag bogo-SVGs even more annoying is that they're uploaded to overwrite real vector SVGs (see File:Hoa Hao flag.svg for an example)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by User:Kruusamägi

Could somebody evaluate the recent comments by User:Kruusamägi? If I would not have been the subject of their continuing personal attacks, I would have blocked them by now. "You are an absolute idiot." is not suitable language, but shocking when the offender is an OTRS agent. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 24 hours. If it were only the one comment, I would only give a warning, but their recent comments show a generally hostile attitude. This is precisely how you should not request undeletion of images. Guanaco (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Globalphilosophy isn´t a sockpuppet of Geógrafo23, it was an error from eswiki. He was unblocked there today. @Hedwig in Washington: Ezarateesteban 11:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: ✓ Done, unblocked. Thanks for the update! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over metricating railway gauge categories by Gürbetaler

Gürbetaler (talk · contribs) has recently decided to metricate all of the railway gauge categories. (Root at Category:Track gauge by size) Undiscussed, naturally.

An issue for some time has been Category:2140 mm track gauge, which was only created by Tobias Conradi / HSRTrack, an infamous sock and obsessed with this same issue. I raised this three years ago at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:2140 mm track gauge, but garnered no interest from others. This gauge was Brunel's 7 foot broad gauge, only used in Britain and finally removed 125 years ago. Not a big user of the metric system, Brunel.

Britain was an early innovator in railways and British engineers built many foreign railways, from the outset. As a result, many of these were defined in Imperial units (feet and inches). Some (Sweden particularly) were also defined in local units, such as the Swedish foot. These dimensions remain today: railways are almost all defined in "round numbers". A gauge of 610mm is a two foot gauge railway, following the British standard. The French equivalent was built to 600mm instead. There are similar pairs for 750mm and 2 ft 6in (762mm).

Gürbetaler has proceeded to move all of the imperially defined gauges to their metric version, in a few cases leaving the imperial unit as a mere suffix, mostly removing them altogether.

I asked them to stop. I put a lot of effort in last night fixing the mess they'd made. All I got in exchange was sarcasm and a claim that "almost all countries are metric"

Category:5 ft 6 in gauge railways represent the Indian broad gauge. Unsurprisingly, this began with British engineers and Imperial units, which are still used. Gürbetaler has since begun edit-warring to rename this as 1676mm - and removing all mention of 5 ft 6 in from it.

This should stop and stop now. These gauges have long been a problem, both here and at en:WP, and they have been broadly stable and accurate for a long period because it has been recognised that gauges originating from imperial units had value in keeping that. Gürbetaler evidently disagrees. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept these accusations of Andy Dingley. It was him who started to move categories without discussion (on 18th October) and he also started to revert my edits. Seeing what Andy Dingley did, I tried to make a better proposition by introducing categories with metric and imperial units. He reverted them all and continued to move originally metric categories to imperial units (the above mentioned 5 ft 6 in was 1676 mm until 20th October 2017, wnhen Andy Dingley moved it!). Thus the mess we have is the merit of Andy Dingley. I don't want to continue this controversy here but have opened a proper CfD page where some more users might tell what they think. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A belated CfD in my view. Anyone should realise that you can't mix metric and imperial units, otherwise their spaceship won't even get off the launchpad; hence such categories are bound to be controversial. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: - you can, and should, mix imperial and metric units for rail gauges, for reasons I explained at the CfD. What you shouldn't do is metricate imperial gauges or imperialise metric gauges. Nobody's ever heard of 3' 338" gauge, have they? Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what you said is what I meant. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An image that I posted was linked to the "Category:1435 mm track gauge". In the last few days this category was changed to "Category:4 ft 8½ in gauge railways". When the line was built, it was certainly built to the 4 ft 8½ in standard, but standards are upgraded all the time, railway lines are maintained and when they are relaid or reballasted, the new track is usually laid to the upgraded standards. In the UK railway engineering standards (as opposed to operational standards) were metricated in the 1970's and the new standard for the standard rail gauge became the 1435 mm. The lines in the image that I contributed have almost certainly been relaid in the last 40 years and I would appreciate it if the category to which they were allocated reflected the standard to which they were built rather than the standard to which the lines that they replaced were built. Martinvl (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martrakw keeps removing deletion request for no reason

Hello, I'm here to report that Martrakw (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) keeps removing a deletion request at File:Apirat Kongsompong2.jpg for no reason, despite successive warnings. --iudexvivorum (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I hereby withdraw the report, as the user seems to have stopped removing the tag already. --iudexvivorum (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Iudexvivorum: The copyvio tag should have been converted to a DR at the first objection, rather than being put back. I converted it and closed your strikeout for you.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self promoter and his sock-puppets

Hritik rao (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock, see here. He is doing promotion here, same as others. Please have a look on this.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Working on the other socks right now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Tm again

I noticed that when Tm was recategorising images from Category:Uncategorized images of Bangkok which are mainly Panoramio uploads, he categorises them "en-masse", only going for the most obvious category. If this user sees a building on it, it will end up in Category:Buildings in Bangkok. Panoramio uploads contain gps coordinates which make it very easy to actually identify what is represented. The subcategory system of category Bangkok is fairly intricate, allowing for very fine categorization. User Tm doesn't seem to know this nor seem to care because even after warning this user twice to please stop the so-called categorisation that they were doing, they continued. I have just had to ask this user for the third time. I hope that this time, including this complaint, they will finally stop. Files just disappear into semi-ok categories but miss out on (sometimes crucial) others. I do not call this categorising images at all. It is just shifting stuff away without much concern for the files themselves as for instance here. - Takeaway (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have raised categorization related complaints about Tm several times, it may be helpful if you linked to those archived complaints.
Generally, sorting images into "semi-ok categories" is an improvement to being uncategorized. In the example you gave, you moved the file into the "uncategorized" backlog category, where it remained untouched by anyone for nearly 5 months. Tm's categorization looks sensible to me, the photograph is primarily of a rail track with a dog standing on it. I'm not sure what you are expecting here, a ruling that files must be left untouched for a longer time than 5 months before anyone tries basic semi-automated categorization rather than waiting for an "expert" to do it? That sort of thing goes against the grain of the community's norms of no-ownership.
You may find it helpful to consider creating reports of these Panoramio uploads based on keywords, geolocation and whether they have ever been categorized after automated upload, and possibly ordered by the visible category count. This would bypass the issue you have of images 'disappearing' into sub-categories, regardless of who last edited them. Thanks -- (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for the record, i´am not the one that is reverting others people categorization. It is Takeaway that keeps reverting my editions, even when they are correct, several times. Takeawayconstant reversion of other peoples work is the one that is nefarious. If something is partially categorized, them correct them, dont shove down a black hole (uncategorized) where no one will categorize them for eons. He would be more produtive and avoid double work, reversions and the constant "calls of warning" in my talkpage. Tm (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe others raised previous complaints, not me. If I am correct, this might actually be the first time I started a thread here.
Semi-ok categories make files "disappear". I remember other people in the past having the exact same problem with User Tm. I will try to explain why this is a problem, because you, , don't seem to understand the intricacies of categorisation either and why this is a problem, seeing that you are much more specialised in mass uploading media to Commons than categorizing them.
The same edit as mentioned before, placed the file into Category:Rail transport in Bangkok. What would be equally important, or actually more important due to the fact that we have less images of it, it features a slum in Bangkok which User Tm either didn't see or didn't care for. Putting this file into Category:Rail transport in Bangkok will make the file "disappear" into a mass of other images there. It might even take decades this way before someone finally discovers that it is actually also an image of a slum. Tm seems more interested in getting their edit count up, than being interested in getting a file into the right categories. Tm's system works fairly ok when files are completely uncategorized or categorized to a very high level category such as Category:Nature and such. The files Tm moved away weren't truly uncategorized, as they were actually in a subcategory of Category:Bangkok, one which was created so that people who felt inclined to do so, could categorise them into finer categories. User Tm just shifts them away. I don't call this "categorising images". I call this "getting rid of these images".
Thank you for your suggestion that I might find it helpful to consider creating reports of these Panoramio uploads. But it doesn't really appeal to me.
Yes, I revert Tm's edits so they end up back in the "Category:Uncategorized images of Bangkok" because as I explained to them (and I think this was explained to them several times before by others), they make images disappear with their crude categorization, making finer categorisation very difficult, and I remember that you, Fæ, once was very adamant about "fine categorisation". - Takeaway (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I suggest you find a way to apply your superior understanding of categorization to improve Commons. If creating reports to achieve this does not "appeal" to you, you can always request them. Stopping others with inferior understanding from improving categorization is not a good way to proceed.
Though Takeaway alleges that neither Tm nor myself "understand the intricacies of categorisation", there is no Commons policy that would support administrator action even if that allegation were provable. -- (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked them to please stop their actions several times. What was actually decided in previous cases when similar issues arose with User Tm? - 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to research the archive as I suggested, you can not expect others to research your complaint for you. It's a good rule of thumb to do this before raising requests for administrator action against long established Commons contributors, especially those with no history of being blocked for anything similar. -- (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone else might know, other than Fae? - Takeaway (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't frequently visit this board, it took me a while to find. There are three complaints about User Tm's "careless categorization". This one (which seemed a bit derailed) from 13 September 2017, and Tm careless categorization from 10 July 2017, and this one from 31 May 2017 - Takeaway (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tm, is there a possibility for you to stop categorizing files like this until the underlying issues raised by Takeaway is resolved? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wikicology Sorry, but i dont see the point. 1- I never broke Commons rules; 2- I get reverted in almost edit i do in this images or about food by Takeaway, even when the categories are accurate, by taken then away of shelf categories (ex:uncatgorized images of...) and put them in proper categories, be it the deepest categories or some upper categories. For example, if an image shows a single building in Bangkok and i categorize them in Category:Buildings in Bangkok why do i get reverted by Takeaway, that puts them back in Category:Uncategorized images of Bangkok? Who is the one that is derailing other peoples work? Who is making conterproductive edits? If any image is lacking some categories, isnt the pratice to add them or is it to revert categoring editions back to put the images in a shelf category. Who is the one that is making more damage to proper categorization? Tm (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Real-world stuff cropped up. But indeed, User:Tm doesn't break any Commons rules other than perhaps being a bit more belligerent than is advisable. Unfortunately, their way of editing seems to irritate several people such that so far there have been four users (including myself) who have lodged a complaint. So why is it that this user's way of editing irritates different people? All four complaints are about User:Tm's "careless categorizing". They themselves (and apparently Fae too) don't seem to view this as a problem as eventually, things should work out fine. It is this "eventually" that irritates me, and I guess others too. Putting an image into some deep end-of-the-line category does indeed categorise it, and as such, User:Tm is indeed correct. But at the same time, with their "careless categorizing" the image has gone from a temporary category where it awaits (hopefully) "fine categorizing" and has, in a certain way, disappeared into rough categories where they seem correctly categorized. But User:Tm rarely categorises media correctly as they more often choose to move en-masse files into just one easy-to-see-obvious category without taking into account all the other categories into which they could have been placed, or even preferably placed. This way they make, in a certain way, images "disappear" as they are seemingly correctly categorised.
As for the "food fight" that we had a week ago: I had discovered that User:Tm had mass-moved images from Category:Uncategorized images of food to Category:Unidentified food. The big question is: WHY? what did they actually do there other than shove images away from one category awaiting further categorisation into another category that was awaiting categorisation. I use the "unidentified food" category only as a last resort, when I truly can not identify what is shown. User:Tm on the other hand, didn't at all look at any of the individual images in "uncategorized images of food" and just moved them while most if not all of these images were very easy to identify and categorize. So these food edits of theirs actually did not add any value whatsoever, exchanging one unknown for another.
It would be nice if they would actually slow down a bit and be more careful when categorizing things. Yes yes yes User:Tm, you are not doing anything against any rule but your edits sometimes just do not make any sense, or they make images disappear from categories which would have been much better left there for another, more interested user to categorise them. - Takeaway (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if categorization of these Bangkok images by Tm isn't necessarily wrong, I see why it's annoying and counter-productive. (There's some obvious mis-categorization like this too, though.) Images are moved from top level or maintenance categories to some intermediate branch categories. This way images clearly need further attention but are away of sight or harder to find for people who are actually willing to carefully assess categories for individual images (instead of doing mass-moves). So, at least, the best way to process these images should be a matter of discussion. I see that Takeway attempted to discuss at user talk, but Tm, as usually, ignores it or reverts these attempts by adding arrogant edit comments and without addressing the actual concerns in any way. Here in this topic Tm refers to some proper categorization, but this doesn't really make the rest fine, and it shouldn't be necessary to move images back and forth and make a complaint at COM:ANU every time to achieve some partially sufficient outcome for similar cases.

What I reported earlier about Tm however has numerous examples of clear and relentless wrongdoing and blunt arrogance. So far it has no resolution. For example, here reverts by Tm still make no sense whatsoever, one provides no comment, or here one keeps re-adding (and ignores explanations of course) date/author/license info for something that simply isn't depicted (not even as a small detail), or Tm keeps mis-categorizing images as unidentified politicians while many of these images are not of unidentified people nor politicians (see previous reports for examples). 09:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and potential copyright vios

Hi there, I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia. This awful image keeps popping up at Tumhari Paakhi. I don't know who the first person to upload it was, but User:Xfggolifee was the first that I saw, and now I see User:Sunnharagh has done so as well. At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xfggolifee I see that there were some concerns about Xfggolifee being engaged in sockpuppetry. It is therefore likely that Sunnharagh is a sock of this guy.

The images have all been flagged as the user's own work. This one in particular is clearly a stolen image stretched to absurd proportions and sloppily stamped with an off-center title. I'm not an expert in image copyrights, but I'm skeptical this could freely be considered their own work. I'm also skeptical that Sunnharagh's other uploads, which are also flagged as their own work, are in fact their own work. Appreciate your attention on this. And based on how many times the Tumhari Paakhi image has been forced into the article on the English Wikipedia by IPv6 editors, I suspect that those IPs are the same guy and he's just doing this to be a burden.

I apologize for not being too familiar with procedure on Commons, but a CheckUser might be warranted if this guy has been a persistent pain, in case anyone wants to elevate this on my behalf. :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed that File:Tumhari Paakhi.jpg = File:Tumhari Pakhi-1.jpg, pinging हिंदुस्थान वासी for more info regarding socks. --Achim (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly these images were uploaded by Amzon-net india (talk · contribs). This user is confirmed sock-puppet of very large and recently growing sock-farm. Please see this report.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb, Achim55, Taivo, and हिंदुस्थान वासी: See also 2405:204:C20C:3D94:0:0:147C:20A1.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the IP for a week. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: The best unstretched unwatermarked basis for that photo I could find is here, you could probably make fair use of it (or the fair use image on Hindi Wikipedia) on English Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: "Fair use" or "own work"? The user was claiming it was their own work. And thanks everyone who responded above and who dealt with this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: hi:चित्र:तुम्हारी पाखी.jpg says "non-free logo", so I have to assume it's fair use.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the accounts and tagged them as suspected socks of User:Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. I also deleted all those images. Guanaco (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock- Kundali Bhagya 2017 (talk · contribs) and Kundali Fakih (talk · contribs).--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 13:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Blocked, deleted, and tagged. Guanaco (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Combojee01 (talk · contribs) has been uploading tons of personal images despite warnings and his images being deleted. -Apocheir (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User blocked, images deleted. Guanaco (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of privileges User:Yann

Several days ago, I was notified about the possibility of one of my photos being deleted on my talk page. When I clicked the link, to participate in the discussion, I was surprised to see that the photo had already been deleted and the discussion closed by the user, User:Yann. As it turns out, the reason the photo was listed by the user, who both listed the photo for deletion and subsequently deleted it minutes later, was because it was supposedly of a deceased individual and they were listing all the photos in Category:Paul Boyer for deletion. I did not realize this was the wrong category when I uploaded the photo. The photo in question was of a State Representative from Arizona named Paul Boyer, who is still very much alive. His article can be found here. Rather than moving the photo to the correct category, the image was deleted. And despite my pinging the user Yann on my talk page in response to the deletion, there has been no action taken on the restoration of the image since it was deleted. As it stands, this seems like a very dangerous abuse of privileges. That someone could list a whole host of images for deletion, and then delete them all just a few minutes later without any sort of discussion or review by any other users is astounding to me. This user should be sanctioned in some way, or at the very least receive a warning to cease this behavior in the future. Who knows how many other photos they have deleted that were in a similar situation as this one. I'd appreciate some administrator feedback. Gage (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gage: Yann created the deletion request and then deleted them, so that he could categorize the DR as Category:Undelete in 2023. The fact that your image was caught in this is an honest mistake, in my opinion. I'll undelete it. Guanaco (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I've undeleted the image and placed it back into articles where it had been removed. Guanaco (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was deleted by error. Thanks to Guanaco for restoring it. The rest are obviously not OK by Commons rules. I created the Paul Boyer category, and imported most of the pictures. At the time, his date of death was not known to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Many files uploaded by Kwlam259 have problems such as copyrights, need to be patrol. I am here to suggest removing his autopstrolled rights. -- 16:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Kwlam259's contributions and I would appreciate further information from this anonymous complainer. Most of the images are of typhoons from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and are PD-USGov. The uploads are all older as well. I see there are a large number of old banner boxes on their user page, but with this tiny of a complaint which basically is "go waste your time looking because I'm making an anonymous accusation," I don't see it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject show download failed not suported file41.138.78.52 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The audio/listner fails:Activate sequnce style/marshal and dictatorship of Adolf hitler who conveted to hundusm why he stole a scared tempel in his trip to India:Ranked corporal;Nazi swartz ste a log and brand of the passsed fulfiled41.138.78.52 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you post again at Commons:Help desk in your native language? Guanaco (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mouauia rafii : bis repetita, compte à bloquer indéfiniment


Je vous invite à consulter cette première demande de blocage (@Thibaut120094 and JGHowes: ça continue) et la page de discussion de l'utilisateur incriminé. Cet utilisateur ignore systématiquement les avertissements, puisque ses derniers imports sont, très probablement, de purs copyvios (File:Death of michael jackson 1.jpg, File:Michael jackson death 2.jpg et File:Michael jackson death 3.jpg).

Compte-tenu de la quantité (devenant importante) de copyvios et du blocage précédent (le problème existant à l'identique sur Wikipédia en français), je demande SVP le blocage définitif de User:Mouauia rafii.

Cordialement. --NB80 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to be a request for an indefblock for Mouauia rafii (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log for uploading unfree files after a block for same, consistent with the activity on frwiki and the indefblock for sockpuppetry on enwiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, bloqué indéfiniment. JGHowes talk - 00:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

I want to protect my page that the reason of deletion please my page link is hare file:Riyanka chanda.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvind (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I deleted the file as likely copyright violation. Found using Google search with earlier date and same resolution. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a bit concerned that this username implies some sort of official status. Not sure if that's a problem or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's against the Username policy to take any name which is misleading, and as this name appears to be official, it should be changed. This is a case where asking the user to pick another account name may be done in a friendly way.
Note added at User_talk:CommonsHelp#Username. -- (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not scope

User talk:Master raja is not clear about scope and uploads non-scope medias, and admin intervention is required. --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user uploads all deleted files again. All files are eligible to quick deletion. --AntanO 03:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Files are nominated for deletion. I blocked the karate master Raja for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


User:Carolus has decided unilaterally and for no apparent reason that he don't like "Category:Buckingham Palace detail" and is removing images and attempting to delete the category, Even though it follows the same format as categories nationwide and even internationally. Attempts to communicate on his talkpage are deleted and reversions just lead to an edit war. Oxyman (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a break, i never deleted anything, i had it renamed to the correct named Category:Details of Buckingham Palace. If you would create correct categories, others would not need to clean up for you.--Carolus (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take a break and stop your vandalism. You did delete the category only creating the replacement after edit waring. The naming of the category followed a structure already existing. Not bothered about the rename (but it is pointless and unnecessary) but a redirect is in order. Also you have removed many images from the category with no reason and engaged in edit waring. Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that this is a "detail" of a building? You need to be stopped to categorise in this way, this is not a detail, but the whole tower of the bridge!--Carolus (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: That is only one tower and part of the span, it doesn't qualify as a a photo of the whole bridge. @Oxyman: Both of you, please ping when replying as a courtesy.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: Anyway, i am not cleaning up that category, if people on the island want to see complete towers as details of a building? We on the continent have a different idea of building-details, that is for sure.:D --Carolus (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolus: Pinging yourself doesn't count. Would you prefer a new Category:Tower Bridge towers?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One could easy create Category:West Tower of Tower Bridge and Category:Eastern Tower of Tower Bridge or something like that. What is ping accualy, does not exist on NL Wiki?--Carolus (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolus: @Jeff G.: Not sure about proper use of this "ping" thing so If I got it wrong inform me. As for the edit on this Image of Tower Bridge and others like it, I was just following norms already established by other users. If you want a discussion of what does or does not constitute detail then I suggest starting a discussion about it in Village Pump or somewhere relevant, rather then unilaterally making your own decisions on the matter. I am open to suggestions on what constitutes detail but I suspect it will be hard to determine as in the end it may be just perception. Oxyman (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious copyright issues with modern museum photographs

User:Ms Sarah Welch, an otherwise contributor of good standing, has been uploading numerous modern photographs by museums (such as this, or this, part of a set of modern photographs from the Victoria and Albert Museum here) with a PD license, whereas obviously this should be PD-ART since these are all modern photographs of old PD paintings (obvious here), and are copyrighted by the museum (“The text and images published on 'Search the Collections' are protected by copyright law” and “All images must be credited as follows: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.” [16]) and in the “Download image" button on the individual page of each image [17], they clearly specify that the image is © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and they do have very restrictive conditions such as "Non commercial use only" etc... and they ask you to acknowledge all that before downloading. That should be PD-ART.

I have tried explaining the issues [18], I was hoping she would acknowledge the problem, and relicense or DR as necessary, and User talk:Jameslwoodward even confirmed that the images should be licensed under PD-ART [19], but she is in denial [20].

On another plan, she also has several issues with modern museum photographs of old 3D objects (such as here or here and several others) that she claims are usable under PD-ART this time, and which I believe can only be deleted since showing obvious 3D objects, and therefore fully violating copyright rules.

Its all seems rather straightforward, and the rules are clear, but we are stuck as she refuses to take action. There are, I believe, about 40 such problematic photographs overall. I would appreciate your intervention on the question. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two you listed as 3D objects probably qualify for PD-Art. The photos are uncreative reproductions of a 2D, public domain work, which just happens to be on a three-dimensional surface. If there were any creativity whatsoever in lighting or composition, I would agree with deletion, but there isn't. As for the others, I agree Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art. Guanaco (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming the view from a volunteer who regularly assesses museum works. Photographs of public domain old/ancient manuscripts are almost always presumed to be public domain, so long as the manuscript itself was created as a flat object. Consequently photographs like the two above, where the object is a bound codex or series of tablets are considered public domain as the intention of the photograph is to faithfully reproduce the two dimensional text and the non-flat parts of the tablet or codex are incidental. It would be different if the photograph was a detailed shot of a binding or edge part, where the intention would then be to photograph non-flat object details. We only run into problems when we look at non-flat objects where the text wraps around the object. These are not normally thought of as "manuscripts" but a creative 3D object with writing on it, and photographs may reproduce the text, but the presumed intention would be to capture the 3D object. For example, a photograph of a 18th C. spherical atlas attempts to reproduce the public domain 2D map on its surface, but is clearly a photograph of the spherical object and we have to separately consider the rights of the photographer. -- (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
पाटलिपुत्र: First of all, as three admins now clarify, there is no copyright problem with my uploads. Please drop the stick, stop casting aspersions and incorrectly alleging "Obvious copyright...". All we have here is a dispute about which license category is right and which is wrong, or how many license category should be included. Jim and I discussed this long ago before I began the upload, and again on November 3. I have been doing what I understood the guidance to be. I used PD-old-70-1923 because that is what our standard upload template offers, it is the best fit, and it does not offer other license categories (probably because the uploaded images are hosted on computers in the USA). Guanaco: I would use something else as default, if you would get our template coding wizards to modify the template. It is the template you get, when you click the Upload file under Participate section on the left.
On license categories... please see this. Jim is clearly saying "So the tag [PD-old-70-1923] as it is looks fine" (for context see my question and Jim's explanation of nuances, which I believe is spot on accurate). I believe PD-old-70-1923 license category should not be removed, because we must clarify the image's copyright status in the USA. FWIW, I have also stated, more than once, that wiki is a collaborative effort. If पाटलिपुत्र or someone strongly believes that the license category should be changed, please change it. I am also okay with you or someone adding more than one license categories, that is both PD-old-70-1923, one for India, another such as PD-whatever for elsewhere. I am based in the US, (sort of) know the US law, and try my best to respect it. I have no clue of Indian law or laws in other jurisdictions. I am here to collaborate and volunteer in the best interest of the wiki project, but I do not want to do something wrong because पाटलिपुत्र stalks and pesters me around with a stick, and misunderstands / misrepresents what multiple admins are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: {{PD-Art}} can take additional parameters. I think the solution here is to use {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}} or {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}. We also have {{PD-art-100-1923}} as a shortcut. I'm looking into improving the UploadWizard licensing options now. Guanaco (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: Strangely, User:Ms Sarah Welch apparently has no intention to change the licensing of the problematic files to PD-ART by herself, and now seems to think it is for others to do the work [21]. Based on the precise and unambiguous wording of you remedy "Ms Sarah Welch should correctly tag the photos of paintings as PD-Art" I believe she is supposed to correct herself the wrong licenses, and, I suppose, the sooner the better..... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, there's no admin intervention needed here. -- (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False OTRS ticket

I've deleted about 60 images which were tagged by the uploader, using the false ticket:2014082710003951. The ticket does not exist, and I'm unable to find references to the files anywhere in the permissions queues. The only conclusion I can make is that this was an act of deception.

There were four users who uploaded such images, using the false ticket:

I think this needs to be thoroughly investigated across wikis, and I would like an explanation regarding Darafsh. @4nn1l2, Jianhui67, Meisam, and Mardetanha: I would appreciate any help you can give in figuring this out. Guanaco (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed these two versions that don't have the tag: 1, 2. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've deleted those too. Guanaco (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried many keywords, both in English and Persian, but to no avail. I also checked info-fa queue manually because some permission tickets are handled and kept there. Again I found nothing.
    I have no doubt that User:Dooste Amin is another sock of User:Gire 3pich2005. This user used to brag about his mischievous behaviour at Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help with this. I've blocked Dooste Amin and tagged the account as a suspected sock. All their uploads are now listed at DR or no source. Guanaco (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the images uploaded by the user. There are some images which with no reason, are mentioned to be PD-Iran (it may be true but I don't see anything in their description page):

The user also transferred some photos from fa.Wikipedia to commons by changing the metadata. For example File:Sangesar Waterfall.jpg is dup of fa:پرونده:Sangesar-abshar2.jpg but metadata is different. Among them, the photos by User:Seyedkhan have questionable copyright status. The mentioned user is known for copyvio in fa.Wikipedia. [22] and admitted that he just downloads the photos from the photographers' facebook/website pages:

@Mardetanha: Please restore the original photo in fa.Wikipedia and check the license, and author for File:Ali nassiri.jpg -- Meisam (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: fawiki has its own "OTRS-member" group?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. What exactly do you mean? --Krd 13:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: If the "OTRS-member" group at fawiki were not administered by an OTRS Admin, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? See also this list.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps a fawiki problem. --Krd 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: Please let us know if the issue has been fully clarified. -- Meisam (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: It hasn't. Guanaco (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: then we should wait for ArchiverBot to archive this discussion and forget it ever happened? -- Meisam (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: Would you be willing to raise this issue with the fawiki community? Guanaco (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guanaco: The files has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons not to fa.Wikipedia. It should be dealt with here. -- Meisam (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Meisam: I've blocked Darafsh indefinitely. He can request unblock if and when he is willing to discuss it. The other accounts are Time2wait.svg Stale so CheckUser on Commons would not yield any results. Guanaco (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darafsh: We need an answer here. Please tell us what's going on. Guanaco (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Would you mind confirming how this works? My understanding as a past OTRS volunteer, is that if a user is not listed at the meta page search for OTRS members, that that account has no access to the OTRS database or the OTRS-wiki. If that is true, then Darafsh has no current access to OTRS, regardless of what may be flagged on their account at Wikimedia projects. Consequently a failure to learn any more here, poses no current risk in terms of potential misuse of OTRS data. Thanks -- (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darafsh is a current OTRS volunteer, which can been seen at meta:OTRS/Users. He has no access to the permission role, so he doesn't have the global OTRS member flag and does not appear in OTRS member group. One could say that this all means he shall not process permissions related tickets. --Krd 14:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to push on this, there may be good reasons not to answer. However it is clear that you did not say whether Darafsh has access to the OTRS database and/or the OTRSwiki. Given the above discussion, there seem to be excellent grounds to ensure that they do not. I guess that taking action is not within the remit of Wikimedia Commons, even though impact is seen here. Thanks -- (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and my previous answer above from 27 October was maybe not serious enough. I will look into details later today to make sure this is not only a major misunderstanding or some language barrier at any side. --Krd 15:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there may be on-going related email discussion in response to the Commons block, see diff. There is no way for me to tell if this will turn out to answer the issues raised here. Thanks -- (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Cet utilisateur, déjà bloqué une première fois pour copyvios, continue dans ses récidives de violations des droits d'auteurs ; cf. sa page de discussion, pleine d'avertissements.
Aussi, je demande SVP un blocage beaucoup plus long que le précédent, voire définitif.

Cordialement. --NB80 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I blocked Sw0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) for 2 hours for disruptive edits. I don't believe this is a new user. Opinions? I also speedy closed most of the DRs opened with a valid reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, there is a clear evidence to suggest that this user is a sock, I think they should have been warned for inappropriate nomination of files for deletion rather than blocking them. If I may ask Yann, are you blocking this user because you think they are sock or you are blocking them because you think they have inappropriately nominated files for deletion? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user created several hundreds DRs in less than a day, and most of them are not appropriate. I made this clear here. I blocked the account for 2 hours only, just to stop them creating more DRs. It worked. But I also think that this account is a sock. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a sort of revenge DR spree. I had just started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sw0, which covered toys and a couple borderline costumes. Guanaco (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the rules?

Greetings, I have received notice from user Christian Ferrer that some of my edits, replacing the uploader's name with the Creator template of the author of the original work such as here, were reverted on account that "The field "author" in the template "Information" is intended to the name (or username) of the photographer, it is in almost cases required by the licenses terms. You have the possibility to use {{Art Photo}} for the relevant cases." According to said user, "You can not do such thing" [sic]. I find this rather dumbfounding as it blatantly contradicts the language in the Template:Information explicitly stating, "Original author of the file; where appropriate, use {{Creator:Name Surname}}. If the work is derived from or depicts works by someone other than the author, the author of the original work should also be mentioned. For example, for a photograph of a sculpture, make a mention of both the sculptor and the photographer. This field should not be used to specify the name of the person who is the scanner, finder, or uploader of the image; these things do not make them the author." Considering the egregious nature of Christian Ferrer's claims, I'd rather seek resolution by bringing the matter before you and let you decide on those flippant arguments. Likewise, the same user has decided to nominate for delation a file I has imported from wikipedia after it had been reviewed by User:Sfan00 and confirmed as suitable for Commons on grounds that "the photo has a copyright". Such an assertion appears to fly in the face of facts as well. Where is that copyright asserted ?! Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. William C. Minor (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a copyright violation because the author of the photo is User:DePlusJean and this photo is published under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, you can not remove his name. You are free to add {{Creator}} in the field description / or if you use {{Art Photo}} that allow to add infos both for the depicted artwork creator and for the photographer / or if the author of the photo has also a {{Creator}} corresponding to his name / or if the photo is not copyrightable (2D photo). Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the art photo template to File:France Gard Aigoual - Le Vigan - IMG 5051.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like that it is fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to all,
I allow myself to answer William C. Minor as much as the initiative to come to complain on the page of the administrators for a user problem, indeed:

  • When we make mistakes, which can happen to all, we apologize simply to the stakeholders and the people concerned, without this being subject to some possible interpretations. I do not have to be removed from my contributions as a result of your interpretation of the contents of the labels, whether they are contestable or not. Thus, the mention sculptor and photographer does not indicate that I must disappear.
  • When complaining about interpretations of the explanatory content concerning the models, please discuss them on the corresponding pages, they are made for that. And we strongly invite you to share your contributions so that there are no forms of ambiguity on the subject. The present space does not deal with these topics.
  • When one comes to add a resentment rancor in the same topic that you have titled "Rewrite the rules?" is to write an evil spirit of which you are the only author and whose community does not have to support your actions.

To speak of stupid action when one erases the names of authors of photographs and of casual arguments following these actions to then ask a resolution of problematics to your failures returns to an elementary gageure. I allow myself to salute Christian Ferrer and Guanaco for their wisdom of initiatives.
So me, a contributor, simple ordinary like yourself, asks you and does not authorize you to remove my username from my contributions in the same way that it would not happen to me to do this action for others. The other topics discussed belong only to their respective sections for which we would be happy to refer you to them. The administrators do not have to support your remonstrances of appreciations on your defects of actions.

Yours truly, —— DePlusJean (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

Hi. Can someone warn this user of no need for being judgemental and no personal attacks. --Gnosis (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the user. At moment, no other action is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there was no "personal attack". I have informed the admin of their mistake. All edits here are open to criticism, including Gnosis's and including mine, but no need to start waving a block stick around. Gnosis's last two "oppose" votes at FPC have been, shall we say, suboptimal. Users who donate their photos here and users who nominate photos at FPC deserve better than that. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: It may be very well justified to call out votes that appear unfair or unrespectful. But comments starting with “you are” and followed by terms like “trolling” or “confused” are perceived as personal as they appear to not merely reflect on the vote but on the voter. This could be done better and there is still opportunity to rephrase that comment. @Taivo: why did you feel it necessary to phrase the warning as threat along with this inappropriate image? @Gnosis: Please reconsider COM:FPC#Votes. Much is won if votes are respectful and well-written assessments that go beyond mere “No wow” or simple votes without any rationale. FPC should be used to give valuable feedback that encourages to upload more great images to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFBorchert, thanks. I accept I didn't word it in a friendly manner so User:Gnosis I apologise for that. I've removed my response from the nomination. The word "confused" meant simply that they may have voted on the wrong nomination, not that they were generally a confused person. To be clear, a "personal attack" that warrants a block is a very specific thing: attacking someone for who they are -- their race, gender, profession, affiliation, home-wiki, religion, sexuality, etc. It is always unacceptable, and either forms part of an ad hominem argument (which is a worthless argument not justifiable) or simply being mean for the sake of it. Criticising actions and behaviours, and sometimes motivations, just falls into the general mix of how we interact. It happens all the time on this page, and forms some of the reasons given by admins for blocking users. Some of us do it better than others, that's for sure, but making threats of blocks is frankly no way to engage with others to encourage better approaches, manners, wording, etc, etc. That's simply a misuse of adminship. I note in the contribs of several admins, a tendency to block and threaten to block, for minor behavioural issues that are best dealt, imo, in more constructive ways. Perhaps sometimes admins block so many copyright violators, which is an easy call, they then get a bit casual with the stick. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thanks for this edit. I close this now. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AFBorchert.Thank you for your thoughtful and productive comment. From now on, I will do better with my written assessments and thanks for looking into this. Also @Colin your apology accepted. I think this had a good listen for all of us. --Gnosis (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Hi, I don't know of any previous interaction with this person on my tenure here but I think this person needs to not call people a "troll". I am in the middle of cleaning up the my own uploads and I didn't appreciate him mass removing categories, (I had put them in a category in order for me to track them. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artix Kreiger, Mackpie looks a very suspicious account. Admin please investigate. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: , how so? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an INC sock to me. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BilAl KhokhAr socks

It appears BilAl KhokhAr has been spam socking. See Bilal Khokhar (designer) and related contribs, particularly uploading File:BilAl KhokhAr.jpg again. Chrissymad (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo. Yann (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He created third account. I blocked master and sock indefinitely, tagged them and created category:Sockpuppets of BilAl KhokhAr, also nominated their userpages in for speedy deletion (now deleted too). Taivo (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


User has been warned in the past about uploading copyrighted and/or harassing content and has continued with this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning given. A block at this point would be pointless unless it's indefinite, because this user edits so rarely. Guanaco (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Yes check.svg Resolved

Photos probably are still in copyright. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warned - If they carry on then blocking is the next step, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yann and bad faith closure of DRs again

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000246.jpg and abusive closure of multiple other DRs. Not a single valid reason for speedy closure in those DRs. Abusive closures. Jcb (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not an admin, you would be blocked since long for disruptive edits. :(
These are indeed nonsense requests by an incompetent admin. Jcb seems to never learn from his mistake, i.e. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-11#Agence_Rol. Yann (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May be we still need to block Jcb for disruptive editing (and one more demonstration they are not qualified to be administrator). The closure is fine, the request here has no merit.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That DR close was clearly done in bad faith and the stalking of JCB needs to stop, Jcb asked on the DR "please provide some evidence that this would be an anonymous work?" so as such the DR should've remained open until the question was answered - If Jcb agreed then it should've been closed, Yann didn't come across this DR by complete accident and all of this amounts to stalking and it needs to stop.Davey2010Talk 19:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The source where the photos come from lists the author as anonymous. Dutch is Jcb's mothertongue, and it was really difficult not to notice. The source is reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if that's the case then someone else should've closed it, if Yann was going through the DRs and noticed it then he should've left it. –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the DR is bizarre as all that needs to be done is to look at the archive catalogue which states the photographer is anonymous. No ifs or buts. Yann's closure is perfectly correct. DRs on early PD files must be discouraged. -- (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Yann should have reported Jcb instead off speedy closing the DR's but certainly the DR's are more disruptive then the speedy closings. Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already given evidence for all 15 files involved at 16:57 hr. on Jcb's talk page, stating all photos as clear cases of {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-1923}} (photographs made in 1920, all photos indicated as being made by an anonymous photographer -per Municipal Archives Amsterdam in a well described archive). Half an hour later, at 17:36 hr., Jcb asked again to "provide some evidence" in one of these cases. So it's a surprise for me to see Jcb accusing Yann of bad behaviour. Vysotsky (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's quite clear that evidence of publication over 70 years ago is required in order to show that given law clause applys. Even if the threshold for publication is low, there has to be a work of publication or an act of publication that can be referred to. Otherwise there is no evidence. Whitout this evidence in the first place there's no point to argue whether work might be anonymous or what words "anonymous" and "unknown" mean. Also, evidence is needed to show that a law clause applys for given case not about whether there is a law clause. So reason given in DR itself seems valid.

As for "no valid reason for deletion", I'm becoming more and more conviced that this should be declared an invalid closure reason. I've encoutered this before that after having descibed copyright issues in considerable extent, having referred to Commons policies, law clauses and/or source materials, and once even after having discussed and being agreed about the case at village pump, in order to make the case as clear as possible, only reply at DR I get is "no valid reason for deletion". For such cases this closure reason simply reads as "don't care". Among others unfortunately Jcb oneself has used this closure reason for a similar case. Processing DRs this way makes the process pointless. 11:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs are not in quantum flux. They were either published and are public domain or were unpublished and are public domain. Now, login rather than socking. -- (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they are in public domain for different reason than what's currently stated on file pages and if this other reason is beyond reasonable doubt, then this should be corrected along with DR closures and along with providing necessary evidence.
Now, stop biting me for not being logged in. Equally, if I wanted to be rude and if I wanted to make accusations based on zero evidence, I could say that you are someone's sock. 12:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright situation itself

I have called de Stadsarchief, +31 20 2511511 and asked them about the meaning of Onbekend/Anoniem for File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000246.jpg and the rest of that collection. (All files beginning with 010179. They have told me that they do not have publication information. They have received this collection as separate pictures and nobody knows whether they have been published at all before they came to the Stadsarchief. So, like I expected, the word 'Anoniem' on their website does not mean that there was an anonymous publication. They simply don't know. They received a box of pictures and simply scanned them and placed them on their website. That means that we cannot use them until 120 years after creation, in line with the discussion and vote that leaded to the creation of {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jcb (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should have done this before creating a DR and before creating a dispute yet again with Yann.
Secondly, as has been explained many times, this is Russell's teapot. The photographer remains unknown and the burden of proof is on the would be deleter to show the photographer is knowable. -- (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your canvassing of this thread with people who previously ignored the Russell's Teapot fallacy is not very helpful. Your dispute with Yann is not how to have a real discussion on copyright. -- (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb asked me to comment here. There is a clear difference between "unknown" and "anonymous", which is reflected in the laws of the various countries. The UK law speaks specifically of "unknown author" and defines that as one that is unknown after a reasonable search. The rest of the EU uses "anonymous" which means "unknown because the author intended to or was required to remain unknown to the general public". An unpublished photograph cannot qualify for "anonymous". A case such as this, a box of photos with no credits on them, might qualify for "unknown" under UK law, but cannot qualify for "anonymous". Lack of knowledge does not make an image "anonymous". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, could you provide a link to the proposal and consensus that sets 120 years as an enforceable policy as appears to be the claim by Jcb, as opposed to examining each case and the specific definitions of words like "anonymous" and "unknown" for each country or language? I recall a case where in the definitions in the (non-English) copyright act for at least one country, possibly Portugal, that government had specifically defined these words to be implemented as the same thing; unfortunately I think this was an UNDEL, where the archive system is not easy to dig these things out.
BTW, consider reopening the DR if this discussion is going to focus on the case, rather than be generic. Any new outcome should happen there, not here. Thanks -- (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think the link asked by is [23]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. This is not a policy. As stated at the close of the discussion, "... this discussion should be taken as indicative of a preference for a 120 year period amongst those editors who favour the idea of a cut-off. The next stage, now, should be to open a wide-ranging discussion and RFC of a more detailed policy..." The suggested RFC has yet to happen where issues such as variations in different countries (including even countries within the EU) and where photographs are released as NCK by institutions where is there is virtually no doubt that they will remain with no known photographer, or where it is certain due to their history that it is logically impossible to ever identify the photographer, can be presented and worked out.
There is no reason for administrators to be making definitive statements about deletions where copyright law, or Commons policies are nothing near definitive.
As Jim has a passionate interest, and happens to be a Bureaucrat, perhaps they might want to take this forward as a pre-Christmas project? -- (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the “anonymous” photographer in question: that person is most likely Gustaaf Oosterhuis (1858-1938). He is mentioned in the description of this archive, and made several photographs at the same ship (SS Johan de Witt) on the same day (27 July 1920) -and was identified as the photographer. Compare this photograph (SS Johan de Witt, 27 July 1920, by Gustaaf Oosterhuis) to this one (SS Johan de Witt, 27 July 1920, “anonymous” photographer & nominated for deletion) –and several more. The photographic experts should decide if Gustaaf Oosterhuis really is the photographer, but until then: anonymous photographer, photo pre 1923: public domain. Vysotsky (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Jcb and Jim actually read the Dutch auteurswet. Article 38, section 1 states: Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad. So no, the norm isn't "the author whishes to remain anonymous". Natuur12 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English translation from Wikisource: Dutch copyright law, par. 38.1: The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public. Vysotsky (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To make that work, you need to tell when it was published ("openbaarmaking") for none of the involved pictures such information is provided. Jcb (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Openbaarmaking has a pretty low threshold. It's unlikely that this threshold hasn't been met. And works like the once listed that aren't "published" become PD after 70 years. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This appears to be more of content issue than conduct issue. I suggest this thread be closed and Jcb or whosoever is interested start a thread at COM:Village pump/Copyright for wider input. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close this please. There is no administrative action being requested, apart perhaps from banning Jcb from raising yet another thread about what a terrible person Yann is - refer to notice board archives. Any copyright discussion should be done without the context of a pointy argument, making this hostile wikilawyering not consensus building. -- (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But there are still a dozen or so photographs nominated for deletion by Jcb. Vysotsky (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been enough said here to close as keep. The argument that these are not PD is increasingly hypothetical and has rapidly shifted about 3 times. Nobody can believe that anyone is going to magically provide evidence either giving details of a copyright holder, or that it will be realistic to find a copyright claimant. If that ever changes, then someone other than Jcb can reopen them. -- (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am closing the remaining DRs. Next step should be a case against Jcb, unless he really changes his way. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are hyou always trying to bent criticism about your own disruptive behaviour into a hate campaign against the subject of that same disruptive behaviour? In previous cases, several users have requested that you refrain from speedy keep closing of DRs started by me. But unfortunately from time to time your rage against me starts again out of the blue and you do those things again. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jcb, the issue is with you, not me. As the discussion here shows, these files are perfectly OK. I am quite fed up with you not being able to recognize that your make mistakes, and to learn from them. As the proverb says Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum, so you are digging your hole. Yann (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense, you are following me and doing these things on purpose, apparently to annoy me or to show that you are superior to any admin. If you disagree with a DR, you can comment on it. Speedy closure without even telling why is disruptive, because you are effectively stating that you are in a position to tell whether someone can start a DR or not. It can hardly be ignored that you do this on purpose. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion says hardly anything relevant about the copyright status of given images. There's some fuss about an earlier agreement on using PD-old-assumed, which wouldn't apply here under the very same agreement. Then there's some discussion about whether author really is anonymous, which would be relevant only if the other condition about publication was fulfilled as well, and so that it was possible to check from this publication whether it was anonymous. There's some speculation about author's identity, which is only a speculation. Natuur says something about unpublished works becoming PD 70 years after listing somewhere. Even if listing at source database or at Commons would be lawful publication in this case then this would became relevant years ahead. Then there's this claim: nobody can believe /.../ that it will be realistic to find a copyright claimant, which is a suggestion to ignore the COM:PCP. Really, what part of the above discussion you refer to if you say that "files are perfectly OK"?
Current claim on file page is that file is in public domain due to law clause that applys to works published more than 70 years ago. Plain and simple, currently there's no evidence on publication, low threshold publication nor any publication that was more than 70 years ago. 17:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.


This user has been banned in either for multiaccounting or uploading copyrighted content. He uploaded cropped images from Google Street View (Serravallechienti.jpg, ChiesaPollenza.jpg, LoroPiceno.jpg, Via Romamc.jpg, Piazzaappignano.jpg, PiazzaLibertàCentro.jpg) or edited Commons' photos without respecting their licenses (Panoramamaceratatorreechiesa.jpg, PanoramaMaceraty2010italy.jpg). Some of those files lacks description.--Mrtb (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated their images for deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Indefinite block is too harsh as a first block. I changed it to one week. I deleted the files. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you made well. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial copyright infringer

I have recently come across the work of JimmyJoe87 (talk · contribs). Many of the uploads are from the National Portrait Gallery, and list "unknown" as the author, even when the NPG website clearly gives the photographer name. The problem is that once the photographer is added, it is obvious that the images are not PD. I've nominated File:Dribergtom.jpg and File:JohnKeynes.jpg for deletion, but there seem to be several more with similar problems. I don't do much on Commons, so I'll leave this for others to sort out. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks indeed like a serious problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I probably missed some, but I reviewed most of the photos uploaded by that editor that I could identify as originating with the NPG, and either updated their descriptions or nominated them for deletion, as appropriate. Thanks for the heads up. —RP88 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a last warning, and deleted the 2 files listed above, as obvious copyvios. Yann (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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.

One of the admins please check the file uploaded by M.rafiei56 and compare them with the previously removed images from the same user. The relevant discussion is here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mozhdeh_Lavasani.jpg. Many thanks -- Meisam (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both files are different from deleted versions.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ymblanter! -- Meisam (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.

No admin action is required here. Yann, do not close deletion requests that have not been open for seven days per Commons:Deletion requests. There are no "speedy closes" (except for disruptive DRs.) and please, ensure to provide adequate explanation for your decision in the future. Jcb, there are better ways to resolve disputes. This noticeboard should be the last resort for dispute resolution. Do not rush here for every little disagreement with Yann and ensure to work constructively with others towards the goals of this project. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology: These are disruptive DRs, that's why I closed them, and I will continue to do so. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this closure is not amended or reverted by an uninvolved admin, this is the outcome of this AN/U topic on your behaviour. The "Yann, do not close deletion requests that have not been open for seven days" part of the closure cannot just be ignored. Jcb (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your bullshit, would you? Yann (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unable to upload student project

Hi.. Im a student with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey and I am trying to upload a finished animation project I did for school, but it wont let me upload. User: Thelmadatter says it is because I just created the acccount. Would it be possible to change the settings on this account so I can upload the project? You can confirm who I am with her. Thank you. BSchalch (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BSchalch: Based on her sterling reputation on eswiki, I think not.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BSchalch, what response did you receive when you tried to upload the file? Wikicology (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BSchalch: you should now be able to upload the file because I added you to the confirmed user group. (Time duration: 1 week.) @Jeff G.: please refrain from making such statements. Thelmadatter is a respected user here and we don't know the details regarding the es-wiki block. Your comment is unhelpfull if you don't provide context relevant to the request made here. Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jcb (2)

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.

Whatever one may think of Jcb and his actions elsewhere, this is a case of him reversing a block on a productive, established user. The block was neither supported by clear policy nor by consensus. The purpose of this board is to discuss and determine administrative actions, and there is nothing more on that topic to be said or done. MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js is a good place to discuss possible improvements to that tool. It may also be prudent for us to find a clear definition of "bot" activity, as opposed to tool-assisted mass-edits which have been done by Aschroet, A.Savin, me, and countless others. That policy discussion belongs at Commons talk:Bots. Guanaco (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process unblock without any prior attempt to discuss the issue [24]. The argumentation "No consensus at AN/U that action should be taken" is obviously null and void, as not a single sysop except Jcb themselves evaluated the problem with Aschroet so far. Usual disrespectful behaviour by Jcb who believes to be above all rules. I hereby request administrative evaluation. Thanks --A.Savin 18:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Support re-blocking - A.Savin did complain on their tp about a week ago and then YM blocked them today however their tp access wasn't revoked so the next course of action would've been to get Aschroet to promise to pack it in and that if they carried on they'd be reblocked instantly ...... Unblocking should never of happened. –Davey2010Talk 18:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck - I'm gone from being a prolific uploader to now wasting most of my life on this board criticizing others - It's not me and it's not who I am so such as such I'm withdrawing the comment, Jcb thank you for all of the work you have and do still do here. –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh be nice. "I do not object any other admin in good standing to take action (lift the block or do smth else)" was clear, along with the later "I am perfectly fine with this". The unblock was not "out of process", feel free to quote the policy that was broken. Aschroet can follow up with discussion at the bots noticeboard, and reimposing a lifted block would be pointless punishment and wheel warring. -- (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aschroet is obviously not willing to participate in any discussion about their permanent VFC abuse. And your comments against me in any issue raised by me are bordering harassment. --A.Savin 18:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I have no grief with you, it's a weird accusation. My comments on this case are based on my experience with bots and tool usage, not anyone's personality or motivation. Believe it or not, I tend to forget who said what pretty quickly. -- (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rude message A.Savin posted at their talk page, I can't blame Aschroet for their snarky response. Please communicate with them in a mellow way. Also I don't see why they would need a bot status for running VFC. If you disagree with the speed of VFC, you can seek community consensus to get the tool reprogrammed. Jcb (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to discuss with you the VFC modalities (I would discuss it with Aschroet, but they are unwilling to show up here). And this changes nothing on the fact that the unblock was out of process. As you are meanwhile pretty much a daily guest on ANU, due to your authoritarian style and ignorance, it's not surprising, and a desysop vote is overdue. --A.Savin 19:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a consensus to block the user in the first place? Wikicology (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This thread raises too many questions. Why is Jcb the subject of two different thread? Oh..He is disruptive? If the first thread focus on the fact that Jcb is disruptive, why are we having another thread on the same behavior? How do you want Jcb to respond? How do you want the community to participate? Which of the thread should we consider a priority? Like any other user, I do not object to reviewing Jcb's action but doing that in an hostile manner is unfair to the person behind the Jcb account. This is what this thread seems to me. I suggest this thread be closed to enable us focus on the previous thread and since that was about disruption, this could be mention there if necessary. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous thread is not by me. --A.Savin 20:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But related to the use of admin tool. Correct? The previous thread is about a "block" considered as disruptive by the OP. And this on "unblock" consider as disruptive by you. Both thread on disruption by the same user. So what will happen to this thread if the user is indefed in the previous report? They should also be sanctioned, maybe banning them from the project because the report that led to the indef block was not by you? I am sorry but "The previous thread is not by me." is not a logical argument. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see any relation of the previous thread to the current, except that both are about Jcb; but that's rather pointless as you're not a sysop (obviously you are preparing your RfA, but you may guess how I'll vote then... just for the record) and I wish an administrative evaluation of Jcb's action. --A.Savin 20:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need anyone to remind you that administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor? And the fact that you fail to see that the previous and this thread relate to the use of admin tool by the user is another reason why the merit of this thread is questionable. Wikicology (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicology: you are not helping. O wow, the issue is becoming complex. Let's suggest a closing and soapbox some common knowledge. Natuur12 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks very much I don't need to be reminded, let alone by you. The point is: a) this is the Administrators' noticeboard, b) I requested an administrative evaluation, c) about an administrative action by Jcb. My right to do so, like it or not. --A.Savin 21:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see on this thread where anyone claimed that this is not an administrative noticeboard, neither do I see where it was mentioned that you have no right to post here. This noticeboard is for dispute resolution and you were involved in the dispute that led to the block/unblocking of that user. So, your own role in that dispute will also be review as there is no immunity for reporters. Again, there is no reason for multiple thread about a user's problem on the same noticeboard especially when the threads are on the same or similar topic, "disruption" and "use of admin tool". The merit of this thread is questionable Wikicology (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cicero R.V.

Cicero R.V. (talk · contribs) Serial uploader of copyvios, persisting after block. -- Tuválkin 12:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • ✓ Done blocked one month, I noticed your copyvio tag as their talk page is in my watchlist. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ive tried severally to convert and upload a video to wiki commons but not working. I need help uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidinma0025 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidinma0025: I'll reply on your talk page. This board is for disputes with other users. Guanaco (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


User:Webroot66314 wiped out the Help Desk and replaced it with spam:[25].--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Blocked indef, email disabled. Guanaco (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked


I am currently on eduroam, and the IP is blocked. I cannot log in. Please suggest a solution.


Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakshilkar (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. So you want to be an IP block exempt? But you have no edits in Commons at all, neither living nor deleted (excluding this request). New users are not made IP block exempts. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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 discussed below and in the Jcb (2) thread, there is no clear consensus or policy prohibiting bulk edits with VFC. There is now a proposed improvement at MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js#Minor edits. If we need to restrict such use of automated tools, Commons talk:Bots is a good place to discuss proposals. Guanaco (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy misuse of VFC tool by Aschroet. This user recently did edits like this one on several thousands of my photos within a few minutes. They used VFC, did all the edits without bot flag, without even marking them as minor edits (!). The result for me is the absolute overflood of my watchlist so that I cannot monitoring any recent edits other than by Aschroet (because only a maximum of 1,000 edits can be monitored, but there were much more edits within a few minutes). The "corrections" themselves are actually pure timewasting, as the error in sourcecode didn't affect the appearance of file descriptions, categories etc. in any way. If ever, such edits would have been OK with bot flag. But Aschroet apparently prefers mass editcount pushing for their main account. This is clear misuse of VFC tool and vandalism. My attempt to contact them resulted in a this response which can be resumed as the following: "Yes I broke rules, but it's for the sake of quality of metadata and I will be doing it in future too". Therefore I kindly request administrative sanctions against Aschroet, as this behaviour is clearly disrespectful and spamming one's watchlist just to collect edits but without bot flag is destructive. Thanks --A.Savin 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Commons policy that requires an account with a bot flag to do large numbers of edits with VFC (or any other tool). In fact this is something I frequently do, with hardly ever having complaints about my actions. If Aschroet offers to do future mass changes with a bot flag, that is as a courtesy. If policy could be improved, please consider creating a proposal with the pros and cons of constraining tool usage.
BTW, if the changes occurred over a few minutes, it is straight-forward to examine that small period using a filter on your watchlist. It's a standard feature these days. -- (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The error as corrected was caused with the use of VFC, without a botflag by guess who?!? I propose that A.Savin apologizes to Aschroet for starting this thread and that this thread is closed for being a nonsense accusation. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Protest. Yes the erroneous duplicate was caused by me, it was an VFC accident during cleanup after INC vandalism, but it affected only my photos and no problems with anyone's watchlist or otherwise occured. But this time's mass edits were done not by me but by Aschroet who even had all possibilities to use a bot for that. Why didn't they use their bot please? Why do I have to pay for this useless editcount pushing the way that I cannot monitoring my watchlist of the recent 12 hours or so? And you are anyways biased in any conflict concerning myself, so your comment here is in no way helpful. Leave me alone please. --A.Savin 18:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you may have to think that I would be biased, is that you indeed have been quite uncivil to me several times in the past. But don't worry, I am perfectly able to reflect on a specific situation without being influenced by unrelated bad behaviour from the past. Jcb (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncivil", of course, what the heart thinks the tongue speaks --A.Savin 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aschroet's response to A. Savin when their action was questioned was rude and uncivil but I'm not sure the users action amount to "spamming one's watchlist just to collect edits". A. Savin, I am sorry you felt disrespected but this may not be the user's intention. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The VFC abuse is continuing. --A.Savin 21:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them and asked to get the bot flag. Whereas I am happy to answer for my actions, my availability today will be limited, and I do not object any other admin in good standing to take action (lift the block or do smth else) if there is consensus the action is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked them. The proper way to do such things is leaving a request at their user talk page without showing your admin power with the block button. Only if the problem cannot be resolved by normal talk, a block may be considered. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I guess everybody knows how I will vote on Jcb next desysop request (and the sooner it gets open the better), but I will not wheel-war and proceed with this case anymore. Let the disruption continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the unblock. Filtering user edits may easily been done using this gadget. --Leyo 11:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested to Aschroet that they talk through what they are doing at Commons:Bots/Work requests. At that place they can get practical advice from experienced bot writers and tool users on what is normally accepted, whether VFC is the best way of doing it, and whether bot flags are needed. If they follow any advice given, I doubt there will be any reason to complain. So long as there is dialogue there is no benefit in blocking accounts, nor any need to threaten to do so. Thanks -- (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine with this, but apparently they were not interested in discussing the issue after the previous incident (more than a week ago). Let us hope that now, when they know they can be blocked, they will follow your advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example edit provided by A.Savin is just hilarious. This fix was only necessary because A.Savin cannot use VFC properly, i.e. he introduced the error himself. --Leyo 11:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: Have you read what I wrote above how did it come to the edit? Besides, I've been using VFC for years and normally all works fine, so your claim that I cannot use VFC is a lie. I can use it very well, and above all, I use it only for really necessary corrections, not just for editcounteritis. --A.Savin 12:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't read the whole thread. --Leyo 12:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting inflammatory comments without even having read the related discussion. That's all one has to know about the sysop Leyo. --A.Savin 12:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented your first comment, former de.WP sysop A.Savin who never uses an aggressive tone. --Leyo 12:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may use your “very good” VFC skills to fix your own errors: incategory:Pages_using_duplicate_arguments_in_template_calls A.Savin. --Leyo 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I do with my own files and which tools I use is certainly none of your business. --A.Savin 18:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls should get emptied. In some of the affected files incorrect information may be shown due to the errors (duplicate call with different parameter values). I am happy to do the fixes, but as I understood from the above, you would rather do it yourself. It's your choice. --Leyo 18:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About A.Savin's what I do with my own files [] is certainly none of your business statement: I think you should read Commons:Ownership_of_pages_and_files#Control_of_Wikimedia_content. I find it quite ironic that Aschroet's edits to fix errors made by A.Savin, which were filling Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls got him blocked instead of thanked.--Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edits themselves were neither vandalism nor improvement, and the fact that my watchlist was overload by far so that I couldn't gaplessly monitoring it, is clear damage. So, in total, the action did me a damage. Given that, what, in your opinion, I should have thanked them for? --A.Savin 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment: For me the most irritating thing in this case is that a single user blaming another one on this page together with a single administrator can so easily achieve the blocking of an account. In my mind, such a quick blocking is allowed in a situation of obvious vandalism or imminent danger. In all other cases, i am expecting a discussion between some admins, the blamed user and the blaming user about how to solve this situation. This did not happen at all. For me, this unilateralism undermines the acceptance of the project. --Arnd (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had time of your life before the block to state something in this discussion, but you didn't. Why do you use the main account not the bot? Why not marking as minor edits? Why even doing these mass edits despite the fact that they are in the end no improvement? Questions, but no answers. No reply on the actual causa. Nothing to say, eh? --A.Savin 17:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly did not mention the "causa" itself but the way it is handled. I want to see a clear process where at the end can be the blocking of the user. Even if the blamed user does not answer i expect that not only the blaming user and a single admin can create facts. Actually, this is more an admin topic and i wonder if this isn't defined yet. --Arnd (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are not required to discuss and gain consensus before blocking a user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this isn't the case here since A.Savin did start a discussion in the first place. Because admins are encouraged to discuss if they are in doubt or it's likely that given admin action will be questioned. Above discussion shows there's no consensus for block. You ignored this and this is where it went wrong.
To me the original issue seems to be mainly a communication issue as Aschroet could have processed one's edits slightly diffrently in order to avoid conflict, but then again one didn't do anything wrong either. I'd like if both A.Savin and Aschroet were simply more understanding. Apparently Aschroet wasn't as sorry as A.Savin would have liked one to be, but in user talk Aschroet at least tried to address what the issue was for A.Savin. In turn A.Savin could have acknowledged that edits made, though disturbing due to flooding one's watch list, weren't really "destructive" and were made with a good reason as uncorrected sytanx really is confusing and that's why it's marked as an error by software. Couldn't we just agree that Aschroet marks similar edits as minor edits in future if possible and if not possible for some rare occasion then A.Savin seeks for tools like the gadget mentioned above by Leyo in order to sort one's watch list? 11:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether VFC has the option to mark edits as 'minor', I couldn't find it. It would indeed be great if such an option would be added. Jcb (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js#Minor edits
Another option would be the have the option of hiding VFC edits in the watchlist, similar to minor edits, patrolled edits etc. --Leyo 11:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin seems to know as one's VFC edits, like this, prior to Aschroet's edits are marked as minor edits. 11:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Preferences Mark all edits minor by default. --A.Savin 14:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, too. However, it's a bit annoying to activate and deactivate this functionality for every VFC task. --Leyo 01:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 (1)

Yesterday, Jcb unilaterally blocked my alternate account without any warning. Then, he inappropriately deleted, out of process, a large number of my uploads with the nonsense rationale "Careless file transfer -".

While it's no secret that I have previously been critical of Jcb's administrative behavior and poor attitude, he has retaliated by stalking my edits, exaggerating/fabricating problems, and abusing the administrator tools to harass me. I'm tired of this abuse. I'd like to see either an apology from Jcb, or sanctions imposed against him by the community. If neither of these two aforementioned solutions happens, then I'd also like to propose a 2-way interaction ban between myself and Jcb, broadly constructed. Thanks, FASTILY 19:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly explaned at your user talk page why I blocked you. You have been flooding our maintenance categories for a long time, thus frustrating largely the maintenance on those categories. You have been requested multiple times to stop this behaviour, e.g. by @Discasto: , @Natuur12: and myself. Your behaviour has been reported several times by several different users. See e.g. here. After this discussion in April, in which it was obvious that we would no longer accept your transfers without proper aftercare, I warned you one last time in May. After that warning, you abandoned your FastilyClone account, only to create your new FSock account shortly afterwards. Then you seemed to understand that you could only do file transfers if not leaving us with a mess.... for about six months. Yesterday I noticed that you had done a new transfer batch, of which 17 files landed in Category:Images without source. It has been made sufficently clear to you that you cannot do this. Do proper aftercare or don't transfer in the first place. Now you have been warned so many times by several users, enough is enough. That's why I applied a 1 day block, the start of a series of increasing blocks if needed. The choice is up to you. You know what we are expecting from you. Jcb (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You waited a mere hour before deleting and blocking. A simple look though my contributions and you will see that I do actively clean up transfers. Not that it matters to you anyways. I'm well aware that you have a grudge against me, but your willingness to lie about it and abuse the administrative tools in order to drag this out very concerning. FASTILY 20:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could stop accusing me from things like acting on a 'grudge'. The links as provided speak for itself. Several users have concluded in several occasions that you are largely disturbing the project by your way of doing file transfers. E.g. from about November 2016 till April 2017, I have spent several ours a week on handling the Images without source problem category. It was about 45.500 a year ago and still about 45.500 in April, of which you were almost the single cause, because you kept doing your transfer batches and you kept refusing to do proper aftercare. Only when it became very clear to you six months ago that you would be blocked for sure if you would continue to create a mess, it became silent.... until yesterday. Jcb (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and continue repeating your nonsense like a broken record player. Nobody cares. My problem is with your lousy behavior: stalking of my edits and clear abuse of admin tools. Please apologize and we can leave this behind us. -FASTILY 20:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only here as I've been pinged (not able to see deleted files and its history). My only comment is that reviewing your contributions, @Fastily: , given your track with FastilyClone, is not stalking at all but a clear case of "collegial or administrative purposes" as it's far from clear that your uploads with your alternate account are free of issues. I'm not an admin anymore and therefore cannot review the deleted images, but your claim of being "stalked" by Jcb is pointless and would deserve an apology from your side. If deletions have been carried out out of process is up to the community to assess. The block of an alternate account (for a day) is definitely pointles. My €0.02. --Discasto talk 16:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-RfA is the only option now - we can't keep having endless discussions about Jcb, it's time to see if the community retains its trust in him, or if they want to remove his sysop permission. Nick (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be pushing for De-RfA for every report against this user. I'll comment in detail later. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter where this thread will end up — please leave at least no. 1 and 6 deleted, as this is really extremely low quality and uploading it on Commons doesn't do Commons any favor; a shame that an ex-sysop doesn't recognize it. --A.Savin 12:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, despite Jcb's name appearing twice on this page, I'm struggling to see clearly the resolution of either case. In the first, the Yann/Jcb deletion, it seems to appear to be an "it's complicated" deletion where a full DR was needed. But it is hard to follow the discussion. Jcb's complaint about the DR being speedy closed may be justified on that ground. But Yann maintains the DRs were "disruptive". I'm not clear what that means. Yann is clearly very annoyed with Jcb ("Stop your bullshit, would you") and this level of aggression would seem to me to suggest they are not really an impartial judge of "disruptive". I'm also puzzled why Wikicology closed the above discussion, as he's not an admin nor is he the person who opened the discussion. Can we have someone who is free of grudges explain to the community what is disruptive about those DRs and why it is justified to "speedy close them" vs just blocking a user who is "disruptive"? And today, if it is true that Fastily is continually contributing to the "images without a source" category, then that's a real problem for an experienced user to be giving to the community. Surely we need some comment about "who is in the wrong" here before you can ask the community to judge. At present, looking at this angry page, the community response may well be "a pox on all your houses". Nothing here looks good for anyone. I'm afraid, Nick, that asking for a De-RFA now, will just end up with lots of admins being unpleasant towards each other, as that always brings out the pitchforks and torches. Is there no prospect for mediation instead? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said it's fairly clear that Jcb's handling of both situations is distinctly sub-optimal and that the underlying technicalities of both incidents would be better resolved by not having Jcb making disruptive nominations, closures and blocks. Nick (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, An experienced admin who repeatedly creates DRs without a valid ground, as shown above, IS disruptive. This is also not the first instance. It is also problematic that Jcb never recognizes his mistakes, or try to fix them. An ordinary user doing this would be blocked since long. So there is clearly a problem with Jcb.
I won't comment about the issue between Fastily and Jcb because 1. I didn't look at the details, and I don't have the time now to do so., 2. some people would say I am not impartial. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, On the issue of you "speedy closing" Jcb's nominations, you haven't given any reason why the nomination is "disruptive" nor is your claim "without a valid ground" valid for closure either -- there's very clearly a difference of opinion among multiple people above as to how to interpret that copyright status of those images. Jcb gave a reason in the DR and when you closed it you did not give a reason why it was wrong. Writing merely "no valid reason for deletion" is, imo, disruptive and obviously going to cause conflict. Several people cited complicated law, in various languages, so my response to that seems to be why on earth isn't this documented somewhere on Commons and agreed on so we can all move along? There seem to be general issues of how to treat such works if anonymous, if unknown author, if published or possibly not published, etc, etc. Futher, as you are both admins, what you guys are doing is essentially wheel warring. One person nominates to delete. The other aborts the process and makes his own executive decision to keep. That just isn't acceptable no matter what the deletion arguments are. You don't win the argument by force, which is what your speedy closures with rude closing reason is. If you are going to get Jcb to stop making "disruptive DRs" then for goodness sake could you pick a more straightforward example that the above, as it really isn't clear from where I'm standing?
Colin: You have to see the background. Vysotsky complained on Jcb's talk page, rightfully, that the DRs were not valid. The image source is in Dutch, so there can't be any excuse about language. If Jcb would pay attention, he would see that these images come from a reliable organisation, and that the claim of public domain is strong. You would know that if you read the discussion above. I don't know why Jcb creates such DRs, and TBH, it doesn't matter the motive if he refuses to accept the mistakes. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, lots of people complain about DRs, and lots of people are ignorant about copyright. We all have things to learn and some things are just very complicated and some things are just unknown so the community has to agree some compromise. The dicussion on Jcb's talk page suggests the copyright situtation was/is complicated. I see no clear resolution above on the matter, to be honest. Further, I don't see any recognition from you that using your admin muscle to settle this dispute with hostile "no valid reason for deletion" closures is an acceptable way to resolve disagreements about copyright. You didn't put any valid reason to keep in your DR closure -- you just implied JCB was talking out of his ass. You may feel that way, but it doesn't make your closure right. The lot of you admins need to document and agree on this stuff, rather than bickering over it and bullying each other. -- Colin (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jcb opened the DRs (and not just one, but many of them) saying there is no authorship information and there is no proof the author is anonymous. At the time of nomination, all these photos had a link to the source stating the author is anonymous. The source is reliable. Thus, the nomination contained an incorrect (false) motivation, meaning it is disruptive. It would be an entirely different story if Jcb would first call the Amsterdam city archive, asked about the copyright status (as they have done), and only then opened a DR. It would have been an even better practice if they opened a topic on the VP:Copyright violations first. But they have not done it, preferring a crusade. They just do not care. This is why they have previously been desysopped multiple times,, and this is why they are going to be desysopped again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple times? No, only once. Over 6 years ago. The reason I did not call the archive before starting DRs, is because I already know how these archives work. The phone call only confirmed what I already knew from many conversations which such archives in the Netherlands. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid what Jcb is saying here seems reasonable. And by "reasonable" I do not mean he is 100% correct but that he made a valid DR which should then be subject to community discussion. The fact that the DR was contested means that the DR must remain open for at least 7 days (correct me if I'm wrong on this) so it appears Yann's closure is totally without policy support and just looks like bullying. Ymblanter's rant above looks like more bullying. It really doesn't look like any of you have a decent or honest thing to say about each other. And nobody seems to be defending Fastily, yet it is this topic here that seemed to have spurned Nick to request a de-admin. Perhaps you all need a holiday. -- Colin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am already on holiday, my activity is about a factor of ten lower than it used to be. My judgement is that my volunteer time is best spent at other Wikimedia projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of Fastily, I cannot see any reason why the alt-account should not be indefinitely blocked until Fastily can agree to fix the sourcing/attributes of images before they transfer the files to Commons. Clearly they are not doing a good enough job of fixing the images afterwards, thus creating work for others on Commons, and increasing the risk that images that are in-use on Wikipedia will be deleted. Fastily has been warned by several users and told a block would arise unless he changes his method. So this case seems straightforward. Perhaps someone, other than Fastily/Jcb, can explain what I'm not understanding? Why would this Fastily case result in Nick threatening Jcb with de-admin? Maybe there is much discussion in an off-commons cesspit somewhere? -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the four files I've checked, all are tagged with PD tags, but are lacking sources and authors information. On each files, links (sources? I guess) are provided in the description fields, however none of links provided are working and it is very hard to check if the file is indeed in PD or not.

One example, File:Miami federal reserve bank of atlanta miami Branch.gif have in the description field two links'MIAMI'
Direct link

But the result is "page not found", and normally the file should not survive to a normal DR (IMO). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks on their own, are never a good reason to delete files. Look a bit harder and you can find -- (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Speedy deletions out of process are abuses of power, and violations of the trust we placed during an RFA. How long must such abuses continue before something is done about them?   — Jeff G. ツ 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]