This is anarchive of past discussions.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Permission to move gallery pages
Latest comment:6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, which user permission does one need to be allowed to move gallery pages? I just wondered because it seems that I (as an admin) do not have that permission. --JuTa15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
And, I don’t know why deletion requests in the moment are barely processed, but perhaps these could be in some way decided, as well? — Speravir– 23:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me 02:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Slight backlog (!)
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment:6 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion
I am currently unable to run batch tasks with VisualFileChange. It returns the following error message: "Error:An error occurred setting up the selection dialog. ##### ReferenceError: 'require' is undefined". I have tried with three different browsers. Is this a known problem?Castillo blanco (talk)10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that tools like VFC may get broken and remain broken indefinitely. There is a deeper discussion to be had about how the Wikimedia Commons community might change that situation. --Fæ (talk)11:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, stuffs can happen and remain that way indefinitely. People might lose interest, burn out, have priorities, or be unable to contribute. As volunteers, there is nothing to hold us here. And given our absolutely gigantic codebase and the few JS coders, there is no way we can keep up with all the deprecations / removals and all the developments within MediaWiki without help from MediaWiki developers, who in this case has alerted the near-future removal of a certain dependency; so be thankful to them. Unless there is an 'endless supply' of those who are willing to contribute to and maintain our ever-growing codebase, this is how it is, unfortunately. Therefore, I encourage all of you, if you have the time and energy, to learn how stuffs work, and fix bugs / implement new features, and even create your own tools. We are happy to answer any technical questions. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The old version is a time bomb which will breaknext week. I'll see if I can get VFC to using completely ResourceLoader, but expect short-time breakages. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
InHelp:VisualFileChange.js the button in step 0 (“Just try it without installing”) seems apparently not to work. Which is wrong: It adds now the string “Perform batch task” to the side bar, test without being logged in or for instance with the private mode – this has been different in the past. Step 0 is outdated in general, isn’t? (No hint to the gadget.)
Oh gosh. Looking at this again, you said opinion not option. I'm sorry. I totally misread that and when I checked myself I also don't have an option under the "more" drop down to move (probably because I'm not an interface admin) which just reinforced my incorrect reading. I'm sorry for writing something you probably, obviously, knew. Again, my apologies. --Majora (talk)21:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei, regarding the version numbering: I do not know either, especially about the need to present them visibly. But the number is embedded in different places, and this would have to be removed from these. (It is also presented on the script form, so the number is used inside of the script or its childs.)
Regardingyour change for script execution on the help page: I use the Perfect Chaos‘ scriptremindErrorMessages and get with this an error, alas I do not get an explanation, why. It seems to be executed, though, and I could select files I have uploaded, but I did not check further. — Speravir– 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Further discussion for all on your user page or on the talk page for the script?
Latest comment:6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I'm raising this here so that those more familiar with Commons policies than me can decide what to do... The North Face have recently been engaged in a covert advertising project on Wikipedia (seethis article), which, on Wikipedia, is not permitted. I know Commons has opted out of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use with regards to paid editing, so undisclosed paid editing is not an issue here, but the use of Commons for advertising purposes may be actionable. The user responsible isUser:Gmortaia (already blocked on en-wiki). Admins here can decide what - if anything - needs doing; I'm just making you aware. Back to en-wiki for me!Yunshui (talk)please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons08:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned that our category pages are being used to list user accounts who are being investigated/blocked atCategory:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign. The text there should be neutral "These images were used in an advertising campaign on Wikipedia" and make no judgement nor should they list users. That belongs on other forums. Also, Wikipedians should be aware the Commons is not censored wrt logos, and contains lots of media donated by publicity departments or agents. The problem was the abuse on Wikipedia, and potential copyvio/sock issues on Commons. --Colin (talk)09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
An image I made will not upload because it is a popular image for the subject
Latest comment:6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An image I made will not upload because it is a popular image for the subject i dont want personal attribution but to give credit to the person who cam up with the most relevant image for the topic. Thanks— Precedingunsigned comment added byTorsionFields (talk • contribs)03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@TorsionFields: If you are not the photographer, you are not allowed to upload it here without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. That's the reason you were not able to upload your file, i.e. the filter works as intended. Regards,Yann (talk)03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It is a drawing I made a diagramWhen you go to Bing and search torsion field the image i designed and drew in photoshop is the number one image so the algo is blocking me.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTorsionFields (talk • contribs)10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@TorsionFields: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggeredSpecial:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a png image as a new user while leaving the summary intact. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. You said it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata, but it may be judged too complex to be underTOO in the country of origin, so you may need to license it on your website or social media or send permission viaOTRS. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, too. If you change the summary or useour Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Cleanup Request for Kept Files
Latest comment:6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I previously fileddeletion request, and later withdrawn it.A regular user then closed the request, but forgot to clear the templates on all the listed files in the deletion request, and addTemplate:Kept in all of the file talk pages. Would any administrator could kindly assist with this? Thank you.廣九直通車 (talk)05:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: If you can give me temporary AWB access, I can do it - I have AWB access on enwiki and know how to use it, and will give up the permissions when done, since I don't have the 200 edits needed for full AWB rights here on commons. I'll only use the rights to add{{kept|2019-05-27|Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ton1-bot}} to the pages. --DannyS712 (talk)06:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
mass porn/copyvio uploads nuked and uploader blocked
Latest comment:6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This morning newXpotty (talk·contribs) has uploaded a batch of some 300 files of amateur porn/erotic images, copied from different websites (many from poringa.net), twitter, etc., obviously copyvios as well as out of scope. After succesfully searching the web for sources/hits for >100 of these files, I've nuked the remaining. I've blocked, for now indef, the account for uploading only copyvios and out-of-scope images. --Túrelio (talk)11:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
bypass upload restriction
Latest comment:6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Is there any option tobypass the 100MB upload restriction for the upload? I'm working on open movies by the blender foundation right now and I woul like to add some more videos. You can upload files up to 4 GB fromwhitelisted pages, but it doesn't seem that there are any type of sharehosters in them. The file has ~165 MB and I would like to keept it that big since it's a 4K video and the original that was published by the Blender Animation Studios. --D-Kuru (talk)13:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@D-Kuru:Special:UploadWizard should also allow uploading of bigger files. Other alternatives are uploading to YouTube and importing withCOM:V2C, but that will result in quality loss. I'm not sure if you can upload to your own website and import without quality loss with V2C. Flickr also allows video, not sure if there would be quality loss there. Uploading to archive.org is also possible. -Alexis Jazzping plz17:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Overdue high-profile copyvio cases
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Several copyvios on which consensus for deletion is expressed, but they are online during some months. The uploader is not interested in the case of self. For personal reasons the request also intertwines withthat scandal.Incnis Mrsi (talk)14:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
A heads up/request to all admins and other image reviewers:We currently have a large backlog of images inCategory:Flickr images needing human review. At the moment I'm writing this, we have 5,238 files needing review. Any help to clear this backlog would be greatly appreciated (especially since I'm about to have limited to no internet access for a couple of weeks). --Elisfkc (talk)11:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I clicked through all the files starting with "Q" (yes, I’mthat lazy!) and they all were correctly licensed in our file pages, comparing with the respective originals in Flickr (one CC-by-sa and the rest CC-zero) — I suppose some kind of glitch occurred, not that the Flickr photographers changed their mind, twice. Couldn’t the bot be asked to run again over these? --Tuválkin✉✇17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I am a Flickr user and Flickr are doing some updates to their site, so some APIs and functions are currently down. I'm guessing this is a result of it, and that the bot can't check the photos currently (causing them all to fail). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk)21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Could pleaseundo all your massive editions. You've consistently removed the license tag from all pictures. Thanks --Discastotalk06:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Discasto: Damn, I forgot a detail, but what you say is not true. The license tag was only removed if it cameafter the Flickr review (which is bad practice)and on the same line. Any other case, it wasn't removed. And if FlickreviewR found the file at Flickr, it would re-add the license. I'll take a look at the files. -Alexis Jazzping plz09:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. So you removed the license tag of many of the files. I'm relieved to find it out. --Discastotalk09:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For some unfathomable reason, my photoFile:Waehlscheibe-kurzwahlnummern.jpg seems to be especially prone to unhelpful edits to the captions by not logged in users, see thehistory. Mostly mobile web edits, strange things like adding the English text wrongly as a French caption and removing the perfectly valid English and German caption, adding (telephone?) numbers as captions and so on. Not one of these IP edits was helpful. I think I should semi-protect that file (only autoconfirmed users), what do you think? I find it a bit strange that this particular file (used in some, but not that many Wikipedia and Wiktionary articles) attracts so many nonsense edits (they don't look like intentional vandalism, though, more like attempts at doing something by users who don't understand the system). Any ideas what might be the reason?Gestumblindi (talk)11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
Hello,
In 2018, the Museum of Arts and History of Geneva gave permission to take photographs in its collection with a tripod, pending conditions on publications. Recently, we were given permission to publish, but due to a misunderstanding, the images were uploaded in full resolution; instead, the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels.
I can delete them as G7, but please be aware that 'the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels' is a restriction that is not compatible with Commons.Jcb (talk)16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: If that requirement actually refers to the quality (so they don't care if someone blows an image up to 2000×2000 or creates a collage) and it's not published anywhere else, it would be possible in practice. And I assume it is about quality, which is often expressed in pixels. Which can be misleading, but anyway. Potential issue here could be that the full resolution has already been online. Anyway,@Rama: I suggest cropping tightly. And maybe crop some closeups. And if the museum ceases to exist at some point in the future (or ownership changes and the new owner is not interested in working with you), upload the full resolution! -Alexis Jazzping plz17:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is one of the best known and largest art museums in Switzerland, it is unlikely that it ceases to exist anytime soon (it exists since 1826) or changes the owner (I believe the owner is the canton of Geneva).--Ymblanter (talk)17:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: yes the requirement was a shorthand way to limit the overall quality of the images — even more than my limited talents, that is.
@Alexis Jazz: In fact the whole matter is all the more absurd that visitors are free to photograph without a tripod or a flash. I have already taken a number of high-resolution photographs of most of the items depicted (see the sub-categories inCategory:Egyptian antiquities in the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire (Geneva)). The tripod gave a few photographs that were significantly better than what I had otherwise, but in most cases the difference is not vastly significant. We are doing lots of tedious work to vandalise images that we do not really need — they were marginally better and they were a symbol of an attempt at a partnership that is acquiring a bitter taste.
@Ymblanter: Or the city? Anyway, entrance is free so we can go there over and over again until we have high-resolution images of all the permanent collections!
Thank you all very much for your support, which makes the experience less unpleasant to me. Cheers!Rama (talk)18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that 1200px² is not a problem with our policy — they're willing to donate exceptionally good images of their collections, but they don't want to publish really large images themselves. It's basically "You can use our equipment if you do it in a certain way". I'm sorry that this didn't work well from a collaboration standpoint.Nyttend (talk)01:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
No, you are quite wrong on that. The CC licence applies to whatever the copyright holder wishes to license: their choice. If they choose to never license the full resolution version, but to freely license a moderately sized one (such as 1200×1200) they're at liberty to do this. They might even (perfectly validly, and commonly done) also release asmall 'comping' image as CC0 or similar, without even requiring attribution. Their CC licence on the 1200 version is entirely valid and we should respect it.Andy Dingley (talk)18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Separate agreements are not contradictory nor to the CC license, nor to the USA copyright law, neither to our policies (in the extend that those separate agreements are not contradictory with the points quoted under "must" and "must not" insideour policy. "the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels" is 1/curently fully compatible with Commons 2/possible if they are the copyright holder 3/possible if they add the separate agreement at the same time of the first publication of the work under the CC license. But here, if I well understood, this seems to be a different thing : a kind of agreement between the photographer(s) and the museum, therefore the request here is the request from the uploader(s), not the request of the museum. And it is of course absolutely normal to access this kind of request, which otherwise would put the uploaders in a bad position at least on the moral plane regarding their agreement with the museum, and also damaging for potential future agreements with the museum.Christian Ferrer(talk)22:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you gave those links, the CC license is quite clear: it does not apply to a specific resolution, indeed, but it does accept separate agreements/restrictions, that's all.Christian Ferrer(talk)18:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
No, you can't chose only the licensing terms that arrange you. The licensing terms are the license(s) + the separate agreements (if ever). The only case where you can ignore the separate agreements is when they have been added after a prior publication under a CC license. It is not marked anywhere in the CC licenses, that the CC licenses prevails over other potential conditions. Usually the more restrictive apply, even when contradictory to the less restrictive, from where the interest to add separate agreements.Christian Ferrer(talk)19:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but then you have no longer a CC license, but a new license that differs from a CC license. If such a new license is to be used, we will first have to discuss it as a community and if we would a approve it, we would need to create a license template for it.Jcb (talk)19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You have created a situation quite at variance to the actuality here. The Geneva Musuem are not contrasting a licence for 1200 resolution to a licence for other resolutions, they are simply refusing torelease content over 1200, not merely to do so under another licence.Andy Dingley (talk)20:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I have not created anything, I just say "CC does not apply to a specific resolution, indeed, but it does accept separate agreements/restrictions", and that is written in the CC website. EOD for me.Christian Ferrer(talk)18:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
CC licences only apply to materialthat is released as such. If they simply don't release higer resolution copies (at all), a CC licence is noletter of marque to go and raid their archives for something more!Andy Dingley (talk)09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
27.4.189.204
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment:6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I just want to make sure that my approach inCommons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup David Tencer.jpg is correct. As far as I'm aware, it is common to nominate images for deletion when there's an inconsistency between the photographer's name in the EXIF data and the uploader's name, and such images have been deleted in the past, right? I do very much understand and take to heartJacek555's criticism there, because myself I really don't like our climate of mistrust (see alsohere), but I think that nomination is what we're expected to do to check such cases, right? Also I presume it's ok to mention the name from the EXIF data which is something, if I remember correctly, was also done in other DRs for similar cases?Gestumblindi (talk)12:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It is also my understanding that in such a situation an OTRS confirmation is needed and that it is up to the uploader to clarify on their user page such correlation or to to do so with OTRS and possibly to set afterwards a related template.— Racconish💬13:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I have seen a situation where an admin here closed such deletion request with the rationale "no valid reason for deletion". It's really terrible here on Commons as it appears there is no standard. Some admins just do what they like here.T CellsTalk18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
In general, yes, that's definitely an appropriate approach. Glancing over the DR, I got the impression that other participants think that the identification is proven in some other way. We don't always demand the same process with everything, so maybe that's appropriate in this precise situation, but in general, please do nominate something for deletion if there is such an inconsistency.Nyttend (talk)03:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Cathedral of Brasília
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At some point in the last decade, this file has been indexed and shared so thoroughly that if you google "arjo.reich" or "arjo reich" it is the top three search results and the rest of the results are of me.
The problem is that I have used that specific username (arjo.reich / arjoreich / arjo_reich) for all of my professional social branding - google, facebook, instagram, linkedin, github, amazon, microsoft, every msg-board, forum, slack channel, etc. for the last twenty years.
It has gotten to the point where it was pointed out to me by a job recruiter after a client decided to google the username from this email address. Please tell me there is some way to remove / change / _something_ the Author & Source of this file so it will slowly lose ranking when people search me. --69.244.196.2213:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. In order to remove the upload comment a new version has to be uploaded (which seems incredibly stupid but whatever). I also had to remove a pixel since it won't let you overwrite with the exact same version. --Majora (talk)20:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Please unblock
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly, could you eventuelly list all relevant related SPs (or link to the page where they are listed). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk)19:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm...if they are continuing to edit via sockpuppets after being blocked for harassment that is indeed a problem. Even if it is only in their userspace as is the current situation for MichelidesPeralta. The data might be stale by now but if possible perhaps,Elcobbola orMagog the Ogre can take a peak and perhaps see how many other accounts we are dealing with? --Majora (talk)20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If they are indeed a sockpuppet they cannot edit at all except to request unblock from their original account on their original talk page which they still have access to. Allowing a sockpuppet to edit at all, even if it is just in user space, defeats the entire purpose of the block. Even more so considering this block was for repeated harassment (which the entire Wikimedia movement is trying, and somewhat failing, to stamp out). I'm not entirely comfortable with blocking simply because of another project's CU results which is why I'm asking for one of ours to take a look. Hopefully the data isn't too old. --Majora (talk)20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
To be honest,Incnis Mrsi, I never really gave the distinction much thought at the time. The Pinneberger Bote account harassed the same person (JD) on the same day while I was dealing with Meister. My gut feeling looking back at it was that it was probably a meatpuppet that supported Meister at dewiki and decided to join in on the harassment of JD here but I don't have anything other than my gut to go on. Their dewiki block does list "meatpuppet" as the reason so certainly possible they were two different people. --Majora (talk)20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I don't think there is a definite list of all sockpuppets, but I tried collecting at least the ones from the various CUs on deWP, enWP and itWP:
There are quite more, blocked only after notice on administrator desk; the German Wikipedia has - unfortunately - no templates or categories like "... is a sock of ...", sometimes it is queite difficult to get knowledge about such block.-jkb- (talk)21:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I uploaded some photos. For some reason, I edited and re-uploaded them as an updated verison for the file. Better not keeping the former one, can I delete the original version? Should not using the Speedydelete temp right?Hf9631 (talk)02:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden:Thanks for your reply. Sorry, may you please explain what SD|G7 is. So I, as the author, can request deletion for the previous version of my uploads?Hf9631 (talk)06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden:Got it. Acutually, I mean the both versions of the photo seems to be saved as one file. Specifically, like my File:June9protestTreefong01.jpg has 2 versions, and I just want to delete the former version rather than the whole file. Is it possible to be done? Anyway thanks for the consciderationHf9631 (talk)06:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can somebody please help? This may afftect the secrity of hundred citizen due to political issue, or I just delete them all.Hf9631 (talk)02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the original revision ofFile:June9protestTreefong01.jpg. If you'd requested deletion of the original image, that would be workable because it's new enough, and obviously the original revision of the file isn't currently in use anywhere, so the G7 requirements are satisfied.Nyttend (talk)03:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry,Hf9631, but I guess I hadn't shown up at Commons in a couple of days: Ijust saw this. I've now deleted the old revisions of all of the files you linked.Nyttend (talk)22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Ohh, thank you so much! No need to apologize as you've helped hundreds of people in Hong Kong. You are awesome. *Problem Solved*Hf9631 (talk)01:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me 11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Request to delete old versions of the following files
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am the uploader of the following files. I decided to re-upload them because they contained some private information in the EXIF. Therefore, I would like to request the old versions of these files to be deleted. If possible, I would also like old versions of the pages' history to be deleted if they previously contained the location template.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Gallery name
Latest comment:6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
大诺史, for future reference, no, administrators cannot move a category page to another namespace or vice versa, because the software won't let us. We'll have to do a copy/paste move instead. Seeen:WP:CWW; it's on Wikipedia, but since the issues involved (licensing and MediaWiki software) are the same there and here, the process is the same.Nyttend (talk)22:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
大诺史, it turns out that the category page is being used properly as a category: aside from the big boxes at top and right, it had no gallery-type content. I've restored the redirect and added the boxes, but otherwise you or someone else will need to decide what content belongs on the gallery.Nyttend (talk)22:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: If you develop content which includes at least two files but is not encyclopedic for a gallery that is a redirect to the same-name category at the time, you can use that content to replace the redirect, and categorize it. I did not get your ping because you did not sign your post. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me11:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism in file history
Latest comment:6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Could an admin please selectively delete the versions ofFile:Flag of Denmark.svg which have been replaced by the Nazi swastika? It is being used for vandalism by a user on the Dutch Wikipedia, but it is affecting all wikis. Thanks.Ivanvector (talk)22:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Could you please name the user who had abused the image on the Dutch Wikipedia. I am somehow confused asUser:Vangelis (who had reverted the file to the Nazi swastika) is an admin and bureaucrat on the Dutch Wikibooks. Most probably that was just a mistake.4nn1l2 (talk)22:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have upload-protected the file, as there have been several bad overwrites and it's unlikely that the file will need changing.Pi.1415926535 (talk)23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It was Vangelis who I was referring to, but perhaps you're right about it being a mistake. I can't see the deleted revisions now so I can't say who the original uploader was nor what their home wiki is, but they had the appearance of a throwaway vandal account. With those revisions hidden that's good enough for me, and my sincere apologies toUser:Vangelis.Ivanvector (talk)00:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, two of the three deleted revisions were throwaway vandal accounts, and the third appears to have been an accident by Vangelis.Pi.1415926535 (talk)00:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I made the mistake of creating a page without adding "Category:" in front.Here it is. Should read "Category:Parish of San Pedro Cholula". Thank you.MX (talk)18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
MX, unfortunately nobody would have been able to move that page for you, for our software doesn't allow categories to be moved to a different namespace or vice versa. In other words, we can't put "Category:" at the start of a name that's missing it, and we can't take it away. If this ever happens again and you want to handle it yourself, you'll need torequest speedy deletion for the page at the wrong place (just add {{SD |1=G1 }} and an administrator will find and delete it) and create the category at the right place. Of course, if you don't want to handle it yourself, or you don't remember what to do, coming here and requesting help is perfectly fine :-)Nyttend (talk)20:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This was pointed out at theEnglish Wikipedia Video Game Project.User:SNAAAAKE!! asked other users to help categorize the images he uploaded. Looking through theFile list however has me concerned that there is a bunch of licensing issues from these images. Most notably, there are images that have watermarks for Wikia on this. Here are some examples.
@SNAAAAKE!!: extremely false.Wikia/Fandom isnot owned by Wikipedia, let's get that straight. It was co-founded by thesame man who co-founded Wikipedia, yes, and uses the same software (MediaWiki) as Wikipedia. That is essentially as far as the relation between the sites goes. They areseparate entities. Wikipedia is a nonprofit, while Wikia/Fandom is a for-profit company. Content owned by Wikia is owned by Wikia. Unless they release content they own the copyright for into the public domain, such content isnot appropriately suited to commons.SecretName101 (talk)04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago36 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Guido den Broeder is banned (for, if my count is correct, a third and final time) from enwiki on my instigation (but because of their own actions, and by community consensus). They are also indef blocked or banned at nlwiki, and at meta. They hardly edit Commons, but out of the blue are concerned about my use of my talk page on Commons, even though it didn't involve them in any way or shape. As I indicated in my revert of his post from my talk page, I find this rather ironic on multiple levels considering the circumstances.Fram (talk)13:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram's talk page use is fine, as the WMF removal of user talk page rights on Wikipedia remains highly controversial.
In the meantime, consider followingmellow, trying to fan flames using this noticeboard is the opposite. If you don't like reading Fram's talk page, remove it from your watchlist; you will find that works most effectively. --Fæ (talk)13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The 'on my instigation' part is probably telling enough. A discussion of Fram's ban is likely to lead to a discussion of users banned on their instigation and soon there will be no end to it. Just take it elsewhere, we have policies against importing issues.Guido den Broeder (talk)13:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The only one "importing issues" here is you, by creating this thread. Go do something productive instead of poking Fram because you are bored. Thanks so much! --Fæ (talk)13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Copyright issues for Guido den Broeder uploads
AsGuido den Broeder (talk·contribs·logs·block log) has raised this odd thread, I could not help but take a brief look at their handful of uploads. The files inCategory:Photographs by Guido den Broeder appear to be blatant copyright violations. Unfortunately this is not an accident as the EXIF data appears to my eyes to have been deliberately hacked to make the files look like own works, with EXIF data cloned and slightly adapted between images. Something that could easily be done with conventional EXIF editing tools.
I find this data completely convincing and consequently grounds for an indefinite block. Could a knowledgeable administrator take a careful look at those files, paying attention to the GPS data and unique image numbers in the EXIFs, and provide a second opinion?
Thanks for alerting me. This has been discussed before, with the conclusion that these photographs are obviously made by me. You can find them on my Instagram and my Facebook, for instance, as well as on Wikisage, of an earlier date. You can also ask the peope that are displayed. And of course I have the originals, which are of higher resolution, and the mobile phone that I used to take the pictures. Or if you bother to look at IMdB or the Reigningent website, you will notice that I am executive producer of 'The Russian Bride'. You can also check the movie itself for that matter, it was released March 2019. Cheers,Guido den Broeder (talk)14:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
How do you explain "Unique image IDC12LSII00VM C12LSJI01GM" on more than one upload, when this should be impossible? --Fæ (talk)14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. They all have the same image ID. I have no idea why that would be. Maybe someone who is more into technical matters could explain it to you.Guido den Broeder (talk)14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There may be more, running a database search in parallel to writing this.
Please note that identical and very nearly identical GPS locations on files with different GPS timestamps is bizarre to see when from visibly different locations. These images were taken a few meters apart if the GPS data is correct and the EXIF data has not been edited. --Fæ (talk)14:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on the same image ID appearing for the same mobile phone by other uploaders who appear unconnected apart from date and camera type, I agree this does appear a glitch in the phone software. Possibly limited to phones sold (perhaps adapted) in Russia.
The GPS data, along with the very low resolutions, still make these uploads worth an independent pair of eyes to examine the EXIF data. --Fæ (talk)14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: I am 95% certain Lyrda (who participated in the DRs) is an undetected Roadcreature/Guido den Broeder sock. -Alexis Jazzping plz15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Then create a SPI case. However I believe checkuser privileges will be useless for old cases. --Fæ (talk)15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Correct, checkuser is not possible. Confirming DUCK is harder. Just letting you know in case you want to investigate yourself. Maybe you'd see something obvious that I missed. -Alexis Jazzping plz15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: I will just ask you outright: is Lyrda a sock of yours? If you admit it now, there's a chance you won't find yourself indefblocked. (but this is up to the admins) If you deny it and Lyrda is truly unrelated, no problem. If you deny it but I (or anyone else) manage to fill in the last 5%, you may find your accounts globally locked. -Alexis Jazzping plz16:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, no missing CU match nor anything I say makes a difference, so I've long stopped bothering. On en:wikipedia, dozens of users have been blocked in my name. Arbcom always found that questionable, but has no teeth. Most of them I'd never heard of, some I've met later. But I haven't been around much. What is Lyrda supposed to have done wrong? Have you notified her at all?Guido den Broeder (talk)17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In case some readers are wondering what this has to do with anything, the accusation that I've been using ranges of sockpuppets originates from Fram. As you can see he has more wikifriends (most of mine have left), so he usually wins. Commons used to have more backbone, but things may have changed. In fact, I remember Fram mentioning Lyrda, so I'm sure that Alexis Jazz who I've never encountered before got canvassed to take revenge, since that is Fram's way.Guido den Broeder (talk)17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Fæ, above you posted some serious accusations where you accuse me of 'blatant copyright violations' and 'hacking' without cause. This is unacceptable behaviour. Please withdraw these accusations, choose your friends wiser in the future, and so forth.Guido den Broeder (talk)17:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
They are more assertions, and you'll note I have previously struck some of the original text in relation to requesting a block.
For anyone following the analysis, the Commons database shows 1048 files with the same "unique" image ID in the EXIF data (BTW, the report took nearly 4 hours to run), so presumably a firmware bug for photographs taken with a Samsung's Galaxy S7 edge SM-G935F as the image ID issupposed to get incremented or randomized for every photograph. A useful comparison user isIudexvivorum who was active 2015-2017. Much of the EXIF is similar for these other uploads though not necessarily with GPS data embedded.It may be that the bug was limited to S7's using firmware PDA G930FXXU1BPLB, but (disproved that hypothesis to myself) not all photographs have the firmware stated in the EXIF, possibly this varied by which app was used for photography.
Clearly the images were edited, despite retaining a full set of EXIF data, presumably subject to crops as well as potentially reducing resolution from the original. For these reasons an OTRS request makes sense in the light of the claim that the photographer has retained the original files at full resolution.
I would like independent eyes on the EXIF data in the photographs to check through any other inconsistencies, especially the location data. --Fæ (talk)18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe we are done here. Notify me when this grand investigation of my 4 photographs will take place. There is a backlog of more than a year now, it seems.Guido den Broeder (talk)19:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have briefly examined your blocks on other projects. As you are blocked on 4 different projects you already surpass the minimum for a global block, though I don't see any reason for anyone to kick that off. You should be careful to avoid any socking, including IP editing. Examining past SPI cases I do not see an obvious "smoking gun", but that may only be the fact that I only spent a few minutes looking through the archives and they are messy. The administrators involved were experienced an respected, so I see no reason to second guess their conclusions. I do note that you have not requested an unblock on any of the major projects you have previously contributed to. After such a long time being blocked, you probably should consider a unblock request, even if you were using sockpuppets or meatpuppets in the past, if you are motivated to contribute in good faith.
If you want to contribute to Wikimedia Commons and put past problems behind you, that's fine by me, though I am not the speaking for the community should any issues arise.
Please consider uploading some full size images that don't look odd for being resized, and please consider emailing in toCOM:OTRS with evidence that you are the original photographer for your small number of current uploads, unless you want to overwrite them now with full size versions. BTW, yes the backlog is ridiculously long, but you do get an OTRS reference number immediately, which can help with discussions like this, where you may be unwilling to publish the original photograph at full resolution.
Should others raise questions about the photographs and any oddities in the EXIF data, try to take them in good faith by keeping in mind we see *a lot* of copyright violations, including faked EXIF data and other types of embedded data. --Fæ (talk)19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Questions are fine, unfounded accusations are not. It does get tedious though when the same questions get asked multiple times. I have no history of problems on Commons, but neither am I interested in contributing to any WMF project until users like Fram and your respected admins are dealt with.Guido den Broeder (talk)19:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am happy to apologise for presuming that the matching unique image IDs were evidence of copyvios, I have never noticed this problem before with reused "unique" image IDs. As said it is worth a second pair of eyes taking a technical look, though without an OTRS reference, the same questions based on odd EXIF data might well be asked again in a year's time. --Fæ (talk)19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that Wikipedia Commons is not used for spam or fakenews. Having a Wikipedia article to demonstrate that this is an interesting legal case, or a potential microstate, would set aside those concerns. It's nothing to do with your discomfort, just the scope of this project. --Fæ (talk)11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Unlike projects like Wikisage or something for micronations, Wikipedia does have special status when it comes toCOM:SCOPE — anything being used on any Wikipedia page (except userspace) is automatically in scope as far as "useful for an educational purpose" is concerned. The same is true with all other WMF wikis, but not true with other sites.Nyttend (talk)20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really, because a file that is in fact out of scope is likely to get removed from that Wikipedia page, or the page is deleted altogether.Guido den Broeder (talk)14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I happen to be familiar, along withFullerhouseguy (talk·contribs). This is a persistent troll from enwiki, and almost everything they say is disinformation - joe jobbing. I don't think any of it is particularly relevant to commons (apart from periodically picking commons talk pages as a place to continue their disinformation). RBI, as they say. Drop me a note if you need any more info.zzuuzz (talk)21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What most likely happen is that the original POTD-files got deleted. Later other files got uploaded under the same name, falsely taking their honors. In this case, the POTD-pages should get “No image.svg” link.
Alternatively the originals got renamed. Then we should update the links.
Comment I looked histories of all these files. Your version 1 is correct. What else should be done? Case closed? You can add "No image.svg" if you want, by I do not want, this isn't important for me.Taivo (talk)07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If we do not have these files anymore setting the links to "No image.svg" is the only option. I will take care of it. Case closed. --Jahobr (talk)11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jahobr: 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th file were deleted. However 6th was deleted as duplicate ofFile:Piero Pollaiuolo Portrait of Galeazzo Maria Sforza.jpg. But IMO it wasn't a duplicate – it was slightly cropped and had different colours/white balance. I can undelete it if you wish. The 3rd and 4th POTD were just messed up – look closely at their histories. --jdxRe:04:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
3rdTemplate:Potd/2005-06-13 reinstated previous link with corrected description; The best solution I could think of. The caption was wrong that day. Lets be transparent about that.
4thTemplate:Potd/2005-06-29 reinstated previous link, the newer SVG version is better but it never was on the front page!
6thTemplate:Potd/2006-12-26 Original Potd-File is is deleted, Potd → "No image.svg", I would vote forundelete (under new name? moving the new file first?). I think we can handle another version of this artwork. Should I make an undelete request? --Jahobr (talk)10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello guys. I made the mistake uploadingtwo images with the same name (see the version history). Not sure what to do to keep both of them separate. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks a lot.MX (talk)15:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@MX: You can just reupload the other under a different name. If there is an easy way to rename previous versions of files as new files, then I am not aware of it.GMGtalk15:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
File:Brosla117.jpg
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Gbawden: Thanks for the help! However, it's a pair of templates, theImageNoteEnd has been removed , while theImageNote (and data in between) is left over.David290 (talk)15:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Cοlin vs Colin again
Latest comment:6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Please seeCommons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71#Cοlin vs Colin. There is another user who is using the Greek omikron instead of the Latin 'o' in their username. The previous discussion had some suggestions but nothing was done. The user is editing here and also causing confusionon de-wiki. I applied for a unified login 10 years ago, the other user's account moved to Colin~dewiki then renamed to this illegal name form by DerHexer. That should not have happened, but I suspect they did not notice the Greek letter.
@Keegan (WMF),DerHexer, andSteinsplitter: who were involved before.Commons:Username policy does not allow this hidden way of impersonating a username. I think the other user should be required to change their account name and blocked on Commons until they do. I would appreciate if a German speaking admin could converse with them about this. --Colin (talk)07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I will be on vacations in the next one and a half weeks so that I will very likely not able to follow the discussion here closely. However, I don't think that I can add anything to the previous discussion anyways, and besides that I am fine with any solution from the community. Steinsplitter may enforce his suggested move, accounts might be renamed, my actions might be reverted. Best, —DerHexer(Talk)07:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Softblocked as perCOM:UPOLICY. The user is well aware of the issue as per discussionhere (where he expressed that he want to keep the username) and the notification on his talkpage here on commons. The user has been advsed to change the usernamehere just now, the softblock will be removed once the account has been renamed. --Steinsplitter (talk)11:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Could an admin, maybe once a week, go over the proposals atCommons:Village pump/Proposals and make a statement (if it's already clear) if they've been accepted or rejected? This would help to allow us to move on and start implementing accepted proposals.
At the same time, if appropriate, the proposal could be marked for archiving. May not be appropriate if the discussion is ongoing.
Done -PD mark cannot be replaced by Cc-zero, unless there is an additional statement. PDM is in fact not a license, so that there is no release into a free license at all.Jcb (talk)14:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Deletion
Latest comment:6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I believe files nominatedhere are copyright violations, possibly taken from the game developer without consent.大诺史 (talk)
Latest comment:6 years ago33 comments12 people in discussion
Please seethis post byMagog the Ogre. There is no way such behaviour could be acceptable by any user, even worse if this is uttered by an administrator. Magog is explicitly inviting Alexis Jazz to start stalking me again and also blindly copying the false accusations posted by Alexis Jazz, apparently even without checking. This behaviour by Magog is an administrator unworthy. If we have to consider our fellow admins as an enemy, we have a huge problem.Jcb (talk)17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Again? Sorry, you have uttered so in many spurious stalking allegations I've lost track. Also, why am I not surprised? FirstGuanaco, now Magog. And what "false accusations" are you talking about anyway? What did I say? -Alexis Jazzping plz17:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Also,again, Jcb couldn't be bothered to notify me of this thread. Because Jcb is Jcb and Jcb doesn't have to. -Alexis Jazzping plz17:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, this thread is evidently directed against the "instruction" by Magog the Ogre, not against you, even though you are mentioned in it.--Túrelio (talk)18:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Jcb is repeating his stalking allegations again and accusing me of making false accusations. Yes, I think this thread doesn'tjust concern Magog the Ogre. -Alexis Jazzping plz19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I have read the linked discussion and "inviting Alexis Jazz to start stalking me again" is an incorrect description of what was said. Stalking is a crime that involves following someone in a way that causes "significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim". Even when people use that word casually (which I don't think we should) it is generally considered to be undesirable behaviour with an effect that makes the victim uncomfortable. If, and indeed if, Alexis follows Magog's instructions, I don't see that as anything more than tidying up after someone. Perhaps it would be more important to discuss the claims made by Magog that you are "directly acting against the community's stated wishes", or why someone should have to tidy up after you? --Colin (talk)18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's break this down:
Jcb is tagging all pages without something in thesource field as no source, even if the source is plainly visible in the description field or elsewhere.
The community has asked Jcb to stop this on multiple occasions, and he has always refused.
Jcb's position is that someone going behind him and adding the correct source isstalking, despite the fact that is exactly what the no source indicates should happen. In other words, he can use the tools to mass tag the images, but anyone who even attempts to fix his changesby hand is violating policy.
Jcb has threatened users who have called him out and tried to remedy the issue.
Jcb refused the entirely reasonable suggestion I provided that AJ be allowed to fix the sources.
As such, I told Jcb that if he continued to try to get files deleted which areclearly allowed under Commons policy, I would block his account. I wasn't even referring to the mass tagging. I was referring only to the attempts to stop users from adding legitimate sources. (!)
Jcb's response to this plea, as with all the other pleas from Commons users, rather than introspection, was to attack the person making the plea.
In summary, I am drawing a line in the sand.Jcb, under my watch youwill not continue to disrupt our project by trying to get entirely legal content deleted, and bullying and attacking anyone who tries to clean up after your sloppy actions.
Now you tell me, who is the community going to side with, the administrator who tries to get legitimate content deleted in mass, or the administrator who who is willing to stick his neck out and put his credentials at risk in order to stop the disruption?
1: False. I think there are hardly files in theno source since categories tagged by me. Instead, I have fixed the source fields of 10.000s (probably over 50.000) of files over the past years, e.g.this batch of 80 files yesterday. Only a small part of the files I process fromCategory:Images without source are nominated for deletion, most of them via regular DR.
2: False. A few years ago the community has asked to useno source since tags only for recent uploads and to use a regular DR instead for old uploads. I have since complied.
3: False. Never have I stated that any user would not be allowed to fix errors detected by me. But this should of course happen from the daily problem categories rather than from my contributions. Alexis Jazz is very eager to follow my every move and to target my edits as much as possible. It's not without a reason that they were requested recently to remove my talkpage from their watchlist. If you are honestly unaware of how Alexis Jazz has been targetting me over and over again over the past year, you are probably the only active admin at this project who has missed this.
4: Vague claim, impossible to comment on without more information.
5: You should have been well aware that sending this specific user after me has nothing to do with 'reasonable'.
6: Please add diffs to"attempts to stop users from adding legitimate sources", I am unaware of such attempts.
7: I think there is more than enough reason to critisize your threatenings and false accusations.
You are creating a hostile environment, this is an admin unworthy. Please refrain from any next step in this abusive behaviour.Jcb (talk)20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre, IMO your current approach is unnecessarily aggressive towards Jcb. Per theinitiating OgreBot 2-thread we obviously have a general and ongoing problem with „lazily transferred files“. As from the 3 examples presented in the OgreBot 2-thread, the uploader-notification coming with Jcb‘s no-source-tagging evidently brought the uploader to complete the source-entry; so, it did work. On the other hand it’s also clear that this wouldn’t work in cases of careless or long-gone uploaders.
To solve this problem, wouldn’t it be more purposeful to develop a feasibleSOP either to avoid getting large numbers of transferred files with incomplete data set or, at least, to have the garbled/incomplete source/license data set corrected, without putting additional burden on the admins already doing maintenance and recent-upload patrol? Of course, if we finally can agree about such a SOP, I would also expect Jcb complying with it. ‒Túrelio (talk)21:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: "the uploader-notification coming with Jcb‘s no-source-tagging evidently brought the uploader to complete the source-entry; so, it did work."
No it didn't.[3] was just partially undoing OgreBot 2.[4] also just partially undid OgreBot 2.File:Lyell 1840.jpg wasn't fixed by the uploader, and really, should files with {{transferred from|en.wikipedia}} be deleted but files with {{unknown|source}} kept? InWut there were ultimately280+ files involved. I don't thinkSecretName101 would have fixed all of them. And the files SecretName101 did fix were only partially fixed, author and date were not consistently fixed. This also can't be expected, fixing is often a lot of time-consuming labour but no-source tagging all files with an empty "source" field can be done by an untiring bot. -Alexis Jazzping plz22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: with all due respect, I don't think you've read the thread properly. I didn't warn Jcb for mass tagging; I warned him fordisallowing and threatening users who try to clean up after his mass tagging. Please go back and read what I wrote before commenting anymore.Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: I have the same feeling than Túrelio. I have not read the details of the underlaying issue, but whatever it is, please consider that you may be or have been not mellow with you statements here. Personal accusations are unlikely going to settle this conflict. --Krd05:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Magog the Ogre has a valid point. There has been several cases of files tagged with "no source" by Jcb while the source is present in the description. Now the tone may not be friendly, what do we do when Jcb continues such tagging? Regards,Yann (talk)06:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the issue it in a mellow way without personal attacks. (Hope that was not a trick question.) --Krd06:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krd: I was quite cordial with Jcb for some time. Jcb made it clear he would not be reasonable, so I made a threat, and I do not regret it, nor do I rescind it. I once again challenge you to read the threads on this issue, including the entire thread in question. I can tell that no one here is actually doing so because you're all still arguing about whether Jcb should be warned for tagging images, which I have several times said is not the reason I warned him.Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
As I proposed in my 2nd paragraph, "develop" (and consent over) a small SOP for this kind of files, which is then binding for all of us. --Túrelio (talk)06:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings all. I think the best thing we could do when we find things with a source but tagged no source (and JCB is not the only one who does that), is to just fix it and move on. Obviously, it's summer again, and folks have to have the annual drama due to the heat and humidity - or whatever. Check out the recent history on my talk page for more of the summer fun. So please folks, remember it's a process not a series of judgements. Whoever is "the most active admin" gets this kind of stuff tossed at them - and then we lose them. We don't need less people doing the work. We need civility, patience and good will for all. AndJcb, love you and cherish you, but please check for sources before tagging "no source" whenever possible? Stay super cool, ktxbai!Ellin Beltz (talk)17:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Full agreement with Ellin Beltz. We are all human, all make mistakes, even admins can make mistakes. On the other side, when we do make mistakes, should be able to not shoot the messenger, but accept the warning, apologize, and try not to do it again. We're all on the same side here, I don't think anyone here is out to destroy the Commons. As Ellin writes, we have a limited number of active users, and we need to appreciate and cherish them. This includes Jcb and Magog and Alexis. --GRuban (talk)17:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If it was an occasional incorrect tag, no problem, but the problem is that Jcb is working like he robot: He just tags tons of files with{{No source}} without properly checking. This sets a destruction time of 7 days of all these files. The category gets so flooded with all sorts of files, it's impossible to find the incorrectly tagged files in the big mess. The same user (Jcb) mass deletes his own nominations 7 days later. We lost a couple of files that shouldn't be deleted and we loose some more users.
The{{No source}},{{No permission}} &{{No permission}} were always intended to only be used on recent uploads (semi-speedy deletion). Maybe we can set a simple rule: You're only allowed to use these semi-speedy deletion templates on files with a first upload no longer than one year ago. Everything else should go to the regular deletion process. So for today anything uploaded before 18 June 2018 is off limits when it comes to semi-speedy deletion templates. Is that a good compromise to prevent us from having the same discussion over and over again?Multichill (talk)19:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: - I am not mass-tagging files with these tags, that's the fantasy of Alexis Jazz. There are hardly files (if any) in the 'no source since' categories tagged by me. In general, I only use this tag for very recent uploads, from a few days ago, rather than from a year ago. The older uploads of which Ogrebot is blanking the source files, if I handle them most of the times I fix the source-field. Only if the copyright situation cannot be determined, I nominate them for regular DR. A one year rule is fine with me, I don't think I have used these tags for anything older than a year of the past two years. You did not try to verify your claims on how you think that I am working, did you? Otherwise you would not have written what you wrote,Jcb (talk)20:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This would do nothing about the practice where OgreBot 2 blanks fields, Jcb tags the file for deletion in what would appear to be an automated process and the uploader resolves this (IF the uploader resolves it) by reverting OgreBot 2. Going around in circles like that is nothing but a waste of everyone's time. And if the uploader doesn't respond the files get deleted, which is destructive. -Alexis Jazzping plz20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment The behavior is definitely detrimental to the project if it results in the deletion of files which are not improper for inclusion on this site.SecretName101 (talk)21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
TodayMagog the Ogretagged as 'no source since' a sloppy import of an obvious PD (1873) file, the exact thing this user wanted to block me for. I have no clue what they are thinking, but given this edit and the fact that they still did not apologize (or even take back) their outrageous threat, is quite alarming. I hope Magog is not on their way to derail the way INC did.Jcb (talk)14:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Jcb, it's often you (or whenever I see it it's often you), so if I were to clean things up it would make sense to target edits by you (and any other user who gets caught doing this frequently) and further filter by some criteria. There are no volunteers to do this and I'm not allowed to filter out your edits. Looking atall the semi-speedy tagged files makes no sense when presumably most are tagged correctly. You are correct however that in the case ofFile:Helen magill.jpg it's actually Magog. Which is.. very odd. -Alexis Jazzping plz22:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
May I suggest again that this discussion should be continued objectively, at best totally avoiding the word "you"? --Krd06:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't get much more objective than that. That was no attack in any way. I said it's "often you (or whenever I see it it's often you)" and that's the truth. When I see it, it's often Jcb. I can't say why that is. I usually spot it because I have various user talk pages on my watchlist. Maybe the user talk pages on my watchlist intersect with what Jcb tags a lot, I don't know. When Jcb tags something correctly which was uploaded by a new user, I probably wouldn't see it because random new users are not on my watchlist. When a Chinese admin tags a file from a Chinese user, I likely won't see it either because I tend not to watchlist Chinese users. I can only say what I see. -Alexis Jazzping plz02:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Till now Magog has not even tried to support their false accusations with diffs. This is a very weird proposal given the facts. You should be talking to Magog about how this can be deescalated, not with me.Jcb (talk)16:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
T&S concern
Latest comment:6 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
“Despite the decision to keep the images on Commons, we at the Foundation believe the images actually violate Commons policy and do not constitute free-culture content because of the limitations of German law that the homeowners can impose on people who reuse the images. (...) We want you all to be aware that we researched the issue and we do think as noted above that there are limitations on the reuse of these images that likely make them fail to meet the requirements for free works hosted according to Commons policy.”
Please discuss and investigate the case (pingingJcb). Please ping me when the final decision was made and I will reply to the ticket. Thanks in advance!Bencemac (talk)19:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Apart from freedom of panorama, domestic authority is also a point to observe in German law when it comes to photographing buildings. The images in this category were obviously taken on the estate itself, i.e. not from a publicly accessible location where FoP would have been the only caveat. According tothis page, Haus Eyl does offer public entrance though, but there is no information on photography during such events.This website of a German lawyer explains, however, that commercial reuse may be prohobited by home owners if photos were taken on their property. So I fear we may need a proof of permission for these images.De728631 (talk)20:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing to stop a WMF employee from creating a new DR, if they wish to establish a precedent. In the absence of this, it makes sense for a volunteer to create a DR, so there is one place to record the issues.
My understanding from past deletions of photographs taken in Germany is that we should always consider whether the photographer was standing on private or public land, such as a public footpath or pavement. In a DR, depending on exactly the context, I would default to De728631's reasoning. --Fæ (talk)20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Google Maps. No street view car has ever been near the place. It's probably barely visible from the public road. The actual location of the photographer doesn't really matter when somethingcan be seen from the public road. Which is rather questionable here. But does this affectcopyright or are we talking about{{Personality rights}} for objects? Seems like the latter. And we keep images without a model release. -Alexis Jazzping plz20:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is indeedCOM:NCR. Copyright or Freedom of Panorama is not an issue here, the house is old enough to be out of copyright. This is not the first ticket we receive on this, apparently they will keep creating tickets until they get the answer they hope. WMF-legal wrote to me as well and they told me that there were no legal reasons for them to delete the files. I see no valid reason for deletion either.Jcb (talk)21:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
As a note (not that I disagree): it makes total sense that the WMF sees no legal reason for deletion. They don't bother with German law, only US law, which is where the servers are. -Alexis Jazzping plz23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Posting this here in the hope that more people see it. Can anyone else move files right now? I'm getting a permission error whenever I try to do so. I'm guessing it might have something to do with them trying to fixphab:T224303 but I wanted to make sure someone else is experiencing it as well before I go reporting it. --Majora (talk)20:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Trying to rename a file and getting a link toGoogle Images orTinEye makes it even more wonderous. :-) . Moving Categories though, does not seem a problem for me. Someone is playing around I guess. :-)Lotje (talk)06:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Few pages needs to be cleaned up after maintenance
Latest comment:6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry for writing in English.
Hello, afterrecent maintenace that was done on your wiki, a few of pages that were previously inaccessible are accessible again. Some of those pages couldn't be fixed, because their name was taken by another page. For that reason, I've moved those pages to start withT173070. I'd like ask you to review those pages, move them to correct title or delete them, if they are no longer needed. You can find the list of pages that needs maintenance in theoutput of the maintenance script. If you need any help with this, please feel free tocontact me. Best regards, --Martin Urbanec (talk)21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G. andYann: Hello, Special:PrefixIndex is namespace-sensitive, soSpecial:PrefixIndex/T225738 shows only pages in the main namespace starting with T225738. There are still pages starting with T225738 in the following namespaces:
I have not been able to rename image files since yesterday even though I havefile mover authority. The button for the Move option no longer appears at the top of the page. –Maliepa (talk)19:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mirisa56 is uploading numerous photos and claims they are his/her own. However, most of them are without META data to prove it and in his/her discussion page, one can see that numerous of his/her uploads have been deleted for copyvio or after proposition. In all cases, this user does not respond to any of those deletions and continues to upload undocumented photos.
It would be good that an administrator warn this user that he/she must stop uploading undocumented photos or maybe Mirisa56 needs a temporary blockage. But all his/her uploads are to be examined for licence conformity.
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello.The name and page of this user about a TV actor and the photos he uploaded are stolen from a television series.Please delete all the pages he created.Thanksديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk)10:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Although many of the Smithson socks have been blocked. Their uploads and edits have remained.No file, description, category, or page uploaded, edited or created by these socks can be trusted. On English Wikipedia, where I mainly work, all edits by banned or blocked users evading their block are usually reverted/deleted. But I imagine this is not the policy on Commons. What do people here recommend? It would take an enormous amount of work to nominate each of them for deletion and correct all the spurious information they've added. Below are typical of the dozens and dozens of examples of the problem from just three of these socks:Italianpassion89,Artpassionitaly (both globally locked), andFarget451 (clearly a sock but not yet tagged).
They have uploaded numerous paintings byGiannino Castiglioni who died in 1971 and are therefore not out of copyright. In most cases stating the source as "Pubblic [sic] Archive" and giving spurious publication dates of 1922. Other generic source documentation uses "Castiglioni Archives" and "Lierna archive" For all but one, there is no evidence they have ever been published, let alone before 1923.File:Giannino Castiglioni, La Bandiera, Lierna Lago di Como.png was actually published pre-1923. But note the "documentation". Once again claims a publication date of "5 January 1922" and the source as "Pubblic Archive". It was actually published as a postcard in 1918 and is fairly widely available on the internet. See[5]. Note also the spurious title and description. This does not depictLierna (an obsessive target of Alec Smithson and his socks). It depicts the Italian flag being planted on a mountain inTrentino
File:Sculpture dedicated to Antonio Bernocchi by Giannino Castiglioni realized in Lierna, Lake Como, 1925.jpg. No evidence of permission for this image of a sculpture and certainly not published before 1923. It was erected following the death of Bernocchi in 1925—clearly visible on the base. No evidence it was actually created in Lierna. Castiglioni did not open a studio in Lierna until 1927. The "source" is the generic "Bernocchi Archive"
I strongly endorse everythingVoceditenore says above, most particularly thatno file, description, category, or page uploaded, edited or created by these socks can be trusted. Long and bitter experience on en.wp, and tens and tens of hours of clean-up work, have convinced me that while there may be tiny crumbs of truth or even value in his contributions, they are so mixed in with vast mounds of garbage that there is little hope of extracting them, and little point in trying to. If you have a nuke button here, this would be a good place to use it.Justlettersandnumbers (talk)12:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If editors with firsthand experience agree that combing through individual files would be more trouble than it is worth, nuking is the appropriate response. There are better things for us to do with our time here.—Compassionate727(T·C)17:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I nominated the deletion request forFile:KurtBeckJohannesRau.jpg. The reason was that this photo was a collage and it didn't look like the uploader's own work. Having closed this request, P199-san said "I don't see the clear evidence of a collage." So I decided to seek the views of a third party. We welcome comments on this image.--Y.haruo (talk)20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to the description of this file page, this photo was taken in February. However, the clothing of the person shown is not February. Germany's February is midwinter. There is no credibility of the uploader's description for this image. --Y.haruo (talk)07:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable research and comment. I do not know the details of this service well, but is it a site that judges collage? The white part ofFile:KurtBeckJohannesRau-temp.jpg contains Johannes Rau and another person. Behind Rau is a man who has chestnut straight hair. We can see four people sitting in the Kurt Beck's column. However, there are five people in the Rau's column. (Rau, chestnut straight hair man, shorthaired permanent hair man, Dark long-haired woman/man, blond woman) If the chairs are equally spaced, there should be four people. Where does the person behind Rau sit? and why can't we see the hairstyle of woman behind and to the left of Beck? I feel there is something wrong with this photograph.--Y.haruo (talk)20:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The fotoforensics people have developed a notable application that can detect image manipulations. Amongst others it is used by some German police departments. The web service provides a reduced version of that. It can be fooled, but it's very hard to do so. --Achim (talk)07:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
In addition: Uploader Immanuel Giel is long-term contributor (since 2005) in good standing, who has always constructively replied to comments or problem-notifications with his images. So, it's highly improbable that he would claim something untrue. --Túrelio (talk)08:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thank you for explaining in detail. However, it is the reduced version and I think it is not so accurate. It does not seem like dispel all my doubts about. And he was uploadingthe file which extracted the image in 2005. Technically, he can do this.--Y.haruo (talk)10:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Thank you for your comment. He may be surely so now. However, this image was uploaded in 2005 when he was a new user. New users often don't understand Commons policy, and there are many users who become good users after that. I wonder if the new user did understand the Commons policy at that time. I think this image has been kept because he uploaded, but what if this was uploaded by a new user? I think maybe it was deleted.--Y.haruo (talk)10:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
As I found something a bit more strange, I add it. The image quality of Rau's neck and face is different. The face seems to have better image quality. You enlarge the image, and please confirm all. And the neck of Beck is too much for the shirt-collar. Please compare with these images (File:Beck2001.jpg,File:Kurt Beck - Deutschlandfest Bonn 2011-3237.jpg) for reference. My skepticism turned into conviction. This file needs to be deleted.--Y.haruo (talk)01:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, as a OTRS-member I got permissions of an artist for his works and would undelete them as Admin. He sent many mails and they concern many files. I know the mass deletion tool, but is there a tool to undelete several files at once? Thanks in advance, --Emha (talk)09:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
UserMusicologoVzla has uploaded copyvios. There might be attention needed in case there are other images that violate copyright and since the uploader has been warned previously about copyright violations. --Jamez42 (talk)12:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
UserJamez42, has requested more information about some of my images. In this case I will be making it known in each of the discussions of them. It is not necessary to come here to notify you. --MusicologoVzla (talk)22:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Request for CfD closure (Category:YouTube celebrities)
Latest comment:6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, would someone mind closingCommons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:YouTube celebrities for me? I think it's pretty clear that the original proposal is fully supported (4 support votes, 0 oppose votes, no alternatives proposed, and 19 days have passed), but I don't have the ability to request the renames with CommonsDelinker. Not to mention, it feels a bit improper to close my own CfD, especially since this one involves renaming a lot of decently large categories. Thanks,IagoQnsi (talk)20:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, there - hope you lot are doing well. A user by the name of @Patrick Rogel has nominated the following image(s) above for deletion. He first said that it had a "Missing EXIF at Flickr" and then I pointed out that it had. He agreed with me and retracted the initial reason. He then pointed out that the image(s) had conflicting copyright licenses: "Some Rights reserved" (located where the license is usually found on an image) vs All Rights Reserved (in the description). The FlickreviewR 2 bot confirmed it was under "Some Rights reserved" license. In the EXIF it reads "(C) Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotogaphy.at", while in the description it states: "Photo courtesy of Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotography.at/". My guess is that the copyright symbol is just placed there to show Marianne Weiss took the images. The account would not have published the images under the "Some rights reserved" when the initial photographer had placed it under the "All Rights Reserved" license. Please look into this. It would greatly be appreciated.Lefcentreright (talk)20:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Was wondering if a Commons admin would mind taking a look at this file and see if it's the same one which was deleted perCommons:Deletion requests/File:Mariale.jpg; the file name is the same, but the file might be different. The file was uploaded about a month and a half after the DR was closed; so, the uploader might have just re-uploaded it with even thinking about the reasons why the other one was deleted. This "version" does seem to have EXIF data so maybe it's OK, but a Google Image search does show the file (or at least a crop of the file) being used on other websites (some might be mirror sites), and also being used in what appear to be some commercial advertisements. If this file's licensing is OK, thenFile:MarialeC.jpg is probably also OK; its file description just needs to be cleaned up a bit.
I'm posting here because the admin who deleted the file (Srittau) hasn't edited much recently and mind not respond to a query on their user talk page. I also don't know what the Commons equivalent is toen:WP:G4. --Marchjuly (talk)00:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago5 comments3 people in 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.
Because the original uploader has requested deletion, in good faith, in a prompt and timely manner. I note that REVDEL says that the list of reasons for deletion which it contains "is in no way exhaustive", and even then that that list includes "As the result of a deletion request where only one version of a file requires deletion".Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits10:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Ah, I missed that bit of the REVDEL page, mea culpa. Unfortunately I'm not an admin (clearly), so I'm of no help to you; you might try asking onIRC. Cheers,IagoQnsi (talk)16:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Laportehistorian
Latest comment:6 years ago9 comments6 people in 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.
As I've received immediate ACK from T&S that they will look into it, we might leave it for the next 12 or 24 hours to allow T&S to evaluate the case. --Túrelio (talk)10:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
We should not be hosting material like that, even for T&S to review. I'm sure they have someone with admin rights who can view undeleted files if need be. It should be deletedimmediately.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits10:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
What's obvious is that you are not operating a Wiki, you are operating with a penchent toward bigotry and suppression of speech under the guise of a wiki. Nothing in my uploads is profane. It's the subject matter you disagree with @Túrelio. In the United States this a protected speech and protected art. But, wherever you come from they evidently allow you to freely supress ideas and subject matter that you disagree with. That's not a noble cause. It's a cowards cause.Laportehistorian (talk)14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cross-wiki abuse and LTA Allthingsgo[6](zh.wiki and en wiki have been blocked a new sock of Allthingsgo (User:得一忘二) indefinitely (zh.wiki,[7][8],en.wiki,[9][10])(There have not this user account in here),there have some evidence (See above) can prove Allthingsgo use the sock to do the vandalism of sock.--#11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@MCC214:, I've now temporarily undeleted the above listed pages. After you have extracted the required data, convert to speedy re-deletion. --Túrelio (talk)07:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have merged the 2 talk page archives ([13] +[14]). I have modified the URL disturbing the spam filter. The explanations of this modification are directly in the talk page archive: they can be found by searching the word "aclick". --NicoScribe (talk)16:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletion
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment:6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
I thought that I needed to provide a low-resolution file with my high resolution image, but discovered after uploading both that Commons automatically generates the low-resolution images.
Presumably related: on my user talk page,User:Edf55 asserts, "He [Matt Campbell] declined that Larry Philpot destroyed my work."@Edf55: in what sense did Larry Philpot "destroy [your] work"? -Jmabel !talk15:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I see now, Matt Campbell is undoing the forced attribution we agreed on for Larry Philpot's work by reverting Edf's uploads. I don't think he should be allowed to continue that. I also think Edf's uploads should be restored to provide some measure of protection to our users, the WMF, and our reusers by forcing the attribution. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Edf55: Next time, provide a link to the discussion as I do not read every thread on every noticeboard. You should also use meaningful edit/upload summaries. Do not expect people understand meaningless summaries such as "No tienes derecho". Furthermore, I still oppose the big and conspicuous bar that you add to the pictures. Even if we should force credit on images per community consensus, we can use a small, inconspicuous, and less-detailed bar.4nn1l2 (talk)18:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: There is consensus for a big bar. I think the attribution should be readable when displayed in medium size (like 400px), which it appears to be currently. (really small thumbnails usually link to a bigger version anyway) If you want another style, photoshop your own and launch a new vote. When I saw the overwrites, I thought this was done with. Guess it wasn't done with. -Alexis Jazzping plz18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Done I blocked this account indef. Editwarring over this contentious issue only. Obviously not a new user, and not here to contribute positively to Commons.Yann (talk)18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Logo istituzionale errato
Latest comment:6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some users from Taiwan seem to be unclear about "COM:OVERWRITE."
Latest comment:6 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion
Some users from Taiwan seem to be unclear about "COM:OVERWRITE." Because they think the new version is better even though the old version was absolutely fine. I tried to stop them but did not succeed. Up to now, we still can see that some users from Taiwan choose to overwrite for the old version. I need someone to help me as I do not know what to do at this point.--Kai3952 (talk)12:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I did a few spot checks. I dont like such overwriting because it's creating lots ofjunk, but they are not against Commons rules. Minor improvement is a valid reason. They could avoid doing this by making up their mind before uploading though.--Roy17 (talk)16:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: What you mean is that user can overwrite the original version with a totally different photo? Based on my spot check, he is overwritten the original version with a totally different photo. For example, this photo(File:機場捷運長庚醫院站月台.jpg): The original version taken at07:30, 1 March 2017 was overwritten by a different photo by the same author taken at15:14, 20 January 2018. Should we allow him to do this?--Kai3952 (talk)22:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "not against Commons rules"? I hope that someone can check them one by one in his 222 photos.--Kai3952 (talk)22:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Why? I saw you said "....they are not against Commons rules. Minor improvement is a valid reason" and I still am trying to figure out what you mean. Could you be more precise?--Kai3952 (talk)05:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I told you, readCOM:OVERWRITE. Have you done that? Have you read3.1 Minor improvements? Stop asking questions that are answered by what you quote, which you should have read.--Roy17 (talk)11:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Unfortunately, this is where the problem lies. I am not sure which photos are "minor improvement" and which are not. Aside from asking here, I really don't know what to do.--Kai3952 (talk)18:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
When I randomly check their photos, I can see thatUser:寺人孟子 overwrite the original version with a totally different photo, and also I can see thatUser:Fcuk1203 overwrite other user's photo. If you don't believe what I said, then I suggest you to lookhere andhere. However, I don't understand whyRoy17 says it is "minor improvement." Because he clarified that he doesn't mean user can overwrite the original version with a totally different photo. Is this really my problem?--Kai3952 (talk)20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit odd. I like the idea to re-take an almost identical, but improved picture and upload it here again. Still, a separate upload would be better.Jura1 (talk)23:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, minor improvement is acceptable. Do not include those false positives if you are looking for interested users for help!--Roy17 (talk)11:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Minor improvements can be small changes to contrast, brightness and sharpness of a photograph, i.e. improvements of the existing file. However, overwriting an image with a new photo that was taken from a different angle or that shows an entirely different object is not ok.De728631 (talk)19:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: I am sorry to say,File:台鐵山佳車站舊站房(左)與跨站式新站房(右).jpg is a tricky photo. The new version was not digitally adjusted, but actually a re-shoot at roughly the same spot and angle. The other one is minor improvement.
@De728631: That's why I submitted the report here, but I don't understand why you say "I think that is your problem". What do you mean that I don't have the right to report them for inappropriate use ofCOM:OVERWRITE?--Kai3952 (talk)03:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Your problem is that you don't understand what constitutes a bad overwriting and what is acceptable. It has explained to you above multiple times in this thread, so I don't know how to help you any more other than to advise you to stay away from images with multiple uploads.De728631 (talk)03:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
This user 82.139.13.162 keeps on spamming me on the talk page, saying that Wikipedia will meet its end and calling admins on simplewiki "vandals". They have been doing this since yesterday.Nigos (t@lk •contributions •Uploads)00:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That gibberish on Nigos' talk page is accusing a Wikipedian of being a sex offender. I say revdel that shit. -Alexis Jazzping plz00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment:6 years ago61 comments29 people in discussion
It appears thatNightshooter, a user inactive for 5 years[15] who has uploaded 21 images[16] has launched ~50 legal actions[17] some or all of which relate to alleged licence violations in the use of his Commons images. In Philpot v. WOS, Inc., 2019 WL 1767208 (W.D. Tex. April 22, 2019), the judge has said “the principal way that Philpot appears to make money from his photography is settlement agreements in copyright lawsuits.”[18]
This gives rise to the concern that what we have here is an individual not here to build the commons, but to use Commons as a platform through which he can engage in serial copyright litigation threats aimed at receiving remuneration for the use of his images.
Most recently he sued MetaBrainz over alleged copyright issues relating to musicbrainz.org use of his images - a suit which has been dismissed with prejudice.[19].
Whereas, assuming good faith, we know that 50 of his cases have gone to court, we do not know how many settlement agreements have been entered into before matters got to court.
The scale of actions here indicate a use of Commons completely antithetical to its objectives; it's essentially aPrenda Law type model. Commons should have no part in it.
Although Wikimedia Foundation may well be looking at this issue, per[22], it seems to me that a reasonable course of action, and a request I herewith make, would be to indef block Nightshooter and delete all 21 images. Anything less than this would appear to be Commons giving tacit support to and making itself complicit with a wholly repugnant business model.Commons:Deletion policy does not provide an obvious hook for such a deletion, though I note that both of "Self-promotion or vandalism/attack" can be construed in this situation. --Tagishsimon (talk)23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose deletion - we need to protect the people who reuse the content. Hosting the images does make possible that more people will use them and be subject to litigation,but the record of the file on Commons may be important documentation that uses were indeed legitimate. We could decategorize them and go out of our way to find other images to illustrate the articles they're used in, but we should keep the files.Tentatively support block - I don't mind the idea of Commons photographers taking action when people don't respect the terms of our free licenses. The problem is the [apparently] frivolous and [apparently] systematic litigation that runs contrary to the spirit of the project. I say tentatively because it'spossible (though quite improbable) that there's more to the story. —Rhododendritestalk | 00:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
How will blocking affect in any way a user whose method of causing problems doesn't involve doing anything on Commons now?AnonMoos (talk)03:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete (or blank) for 50 years and block - We can't subject more people to this copyright troll. It's damaging to both Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons. The photos themselves are fine, so maybe we can undelete them in 50 years. If records are needed for the lawsuits, I'm sure WMF Legal can help with that.Kaldari (talk)03:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
As such cases require a thorough investigation of the claims of both sides, it's rather unfortunate that now we have discussions at 2 different places on Commons, here and atthe VP. --Túrelio (talk)07:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Support block in the spirit ofw:WP:NLT. While we have no legal obligation to do anything regarding the files, I think we have a moral obligation to protect reusers from these high-risk images given what we know the uploader is capable of. The easiest way to prevent future reuse is to simply delete them, but as Rhododendrites noted doing so may hurt the cases of present reusers undergoing current litigation. Perhaps some kind of notice on those images indicating that the uploader is sue-happy and warning reusers to tread lightly could work. --King of ♠07:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
That warning would need to be machine-readable, otherwise people getting the images through Wikidata (like MusicBrainz was) wouldn't ever see it. Structured Commons might help with this? --Reosarevok (talk)08:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE/MusicBrainz)
Probably the best thing to do would be to delete the imagefiles themselves, but keep the image descriptionpages in place, with their relevant documentation. Blocking will haveNO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on anything, unless Nightshooter changes his current modus operandi in a big way...AnonMoos (talk)09:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not just an exercise in futility. What are the odds that anyone still remembers this in a year? At that time he would be free to resume his uploads, providing more content that he can later sue people for. Blocking people is a weighing of costs and benefits: the benefit of preventing someone from causing harm to the project vs. the cost of not having them be able to contribute, and this is one of the clearest cases I've seen. Just because he isn't actively uploading anything doesn't mean he wouldn't start doing it again in the future. --King of ♠13:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
No effect on current files, but why would we permit someone who misuses Commons to do so again in the future? This is the definition of preventative. —Rhododendritestalk | 14:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
At a minimum, we should keep the description pages in order not to let down those who use them for attribution. — putnik10:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Support deletion and block per clear and obvious abuse, misuse and hurting of both Wikimedia Commons (Term of Use, Scope, NLT, self-promotion, and so on) and Creative Commons. Especially, as we are talking about 21 low-res images with better alternatives. Cheers,VIGNERON (talk)12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Per Marco Verch case (PA censored) (PA censored) I suggest we overwrite the 21 images to include forced attribution. This will also protect anyone who hotlinks the image. In addition we can add attribution to the EXIF.Fæ, which fields should be used for that? As a side note, doesn't creativecommons.org have any shorter domain? -Alexis Jazzping plz13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Copyright; Exif.Image.Copyright, an ASCII string. The advice seems to be to stick to a maximum of 256 characters, enough for a conventional attribution. Adding XMP would give greater options, like a 2000 char description, but may be less compatible with different photo viewers or editors.
For existing uploads from apparent vexatious litigants or similar, it makes sense for possible reusers to see a massive big red warning template on the images, one that is visible even using the mobile platform representation of media. Dire warnings, beyond a humble copyright attribution, would also make sense in the EXIF data and possible the Commons file name. --Fæ (talk)13:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned it above, but: for people automatically using pictures from Wikidata like we were, having anything that is only displayed on the page itself won't help. It should be machine-readable in useful ways :) Other than that, that sounds useful. --Reosarevok (talk)14:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE/MusicBrainz)
@Alexis Jazz: Given that this is copyright trolling we're dealing with, I think it would be wise to ensure that the photo credit that we insert into the photos isexactly as requested. SoFile:Luda1.jpg, for example, should read "Photo credit: Larry Philpot, www.soundstagephotography.com" instead of "Photo credit: Larry Philpotof www.soundstagephotography.com". This will probably result in slightly different attribution on different photos. I know it's nit-picky, but people being nit-picky is the whole reason we're having this conversation.—Compassionate727(T·C)20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: Idid copy-paste it.. But I was initially going to use another file for the example, before changing to LudaCris because that file was unused. I'll be careful to copy-paste from each individual file. -Alexis Jazzping plz21:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose block btw,if he ever uploads more images, it's best if he does so withthis account so we can deal with it. Meh he already has socks. -Alexis Jazzping plz13:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Alexis Jazz you must delete the personal attacks above. We can disagree with other users and disprove of their behaviour without making personal attacks. Such language has no place on this project and will only support further calls for your account to be blocked for persistent incivility. --Colin (talk)14:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Block. I find the argument that this block would not be preventative unconvincing, perKing of Hearts's rationale. I should also note that I support nuking his files if we don't overwrite them and force attribution.—Compassionate727(T·C)13:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Vote: overwriting the images with forced attribution
Some commenters above suggested "deleting the images but keeping the file page". I don't think that's going to happen, there are some technical issues with that. Who supports overwriting with forced attribution like the Ludacris example above? -Alexis Jazzping plz12:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. I was repelled by the idea at first, but the more I thought about it yesterday, the more fond of it I became. As I see it, this has several advantages over deleting the files outright. First, we get the keep the images. This may or may not be useful, because the forced attribution will be ugly and thus significantly diminish the photos' values, but they're at least more useful than if they don't exist at all. Second, it will make incorrect attributions literally impossible, preventing the copyright trolling. The reduction in value will also work toward this end, although it's clear from the court documents that they were never worth anything anyway. Third, we retain the documentation pages, so we won't screw over anyone who was relying on linking to them for attribution, something that we should avoid doing if we want people to feel like they can safely use our files. (Meanwhile, we can't retain the files as they are or he'll be able to continue trolling, which will also make people feel unsafe using them.) Fourth, we publicly shame the troll. This probably won't be of much value in itself, as I doubt trolls care about shame. However, this incident does seem to be generating minor media coverage, and I imagine that this response, being the smart-ass, constructive response it is, will be favorably received. Ultimately, I think we gain considerably more from handling the files this way than others.—Compassionate727(T·C)13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Support to protect reusers. It will make them ugly and unusable on Wikimedia projects unfortunately, but if we were prepared to delete them then we don't really need to use these images anyways. --King of ♠14:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure there is a meaningful functional difference in deleting the photos and altering them so as so make them unusable. But I would note that these are currently used171 times across projects, and if we are going to render them unusable, then we should clean up the mess and not leave it for others to discover and try to decipher.GMGtalk14:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: some users are likely linking to the file pages for attribution. Creative Commons allows that, but if we delete the images (the file page will not likely be kept up if the images are deleted, and it would be unclear what the license applies to anyway), we will open up those re-users to litigation because their attribution is depending on a link to the file page here. As for the images that are in use (most of them, I used Ludacris for the example image because it's not used onwiki), I plan to take care of that. I'm just thinking of the best way to do that. One way could be to have CommonsDelinker remove the image from all articles with a note in the edit summary that says "Photo removed from article because a credit bar was added. You may revert this edit or add a more suitable image to the article." -Alexis Jazzping plz15:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the attribution bit. I'm not sure it's meaningfully different than someone having to send in an email to get at some deleted information here, given that he is requiring verbatim in-text attribution by name and website on each use. Doesn't hurt my feelings either way so long as we have a plan to tidy everything up.GMGtalk15:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: imagine a re-user receives a letter for a big settlement from Larry. The re-user thinks "hey, I linked the source didn't I?", they go and check.. and find we deleted the image. They may realize that merely linking for attribution was not the best idea in hindsight, but I don't imagine they'll request any information. It's more likely they will settle, because effectively theydid fail to attribute, even if it wasn't their fault.. And a judge may or may not agree. -Alexis Jazzping plz16:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, we're getting a little bit out in the weeds into hypotheticals, but anyone who did provide a link would find a page explaining that the file was deleted, by whom, and (ideally) why. I would presume anyone threatened with litigation would make a good faith effort to obtain the original licensing, and we would make a good faith effort to help them do so. At the same time, the individual perusing litigation would presumably need to obtain evidence of the original conditions for attribution to demonstrate in court that they were not properly complied with.GMGtalk17:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - weak support for the forced attribution for now. I really don't like it, but it's probably the safest option. Of course we should minimize the usage of these files in Wikipedia articles, this attribution would be very ugly in our articles.Jcb (talk)21:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I agree, I already replacedFile:Daughtry 2013.jpg everywhere. I'll make some CommonsDelinker commands to replace the rest with alternatives. In the case of Daughtry I also uploaded some more media because there wasn't much of a good alternative, this may also be needed for some others. -Alexis Jazzping plz22:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
StrongSupport for the reasons already stated byCompassionate727, especially that it'll be a brilliantly done "Take that" (he says he wants attribution? sure, let's give it to him!)CatCat (talk)09:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I will work on this in the next few days. In the meantime, if anyone wants to help (yes please!): find replacements and replace the photos on the wikis that use them. Be aware that captions sometimes also need to be adjusted. -Alexis Jazzping plz11:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I still think deletion would be a better option. And given the history of this person, not sure that he won't sue the one who will make the modification to his file. Cheers,VIGNERON (talk)18:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: His license does not forbid derivatives, so he would absolutely have no grounds for doing so. A judge would dismiss his case outright and likely penalize him substantially if he tried.—Compassionate727(T·C)17:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Support andindef - Not liking this at all however I would rather make images unusable and protect people than to delete them and essentially get people into lawsuits and what not, Larry is scum pure and simple. –Davey2010Talk22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Support This is a truly unusual idea, and it would be grossly inappropriate in most circumstances (it's a significant COM:WATERMARK violation and overall makes them less useful), but we're dealing with someone who's grossly abusing the system to the point that he's dangerous, and we need to protect our reusers.Nyttend (talk)00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please clarify what text you'd add. I wouldn't supportFile:Luda1.jpg: it would be enough to have one line, "Photo by Larry Philpot, CC-BY-SA 3.0". (There was already a ruling on the acronym being enough to identify the license.) I'm adamantly opposed to writing that "Larry Philpot sued users of his work for minor attribution errors", because 1) it's potentially seen as defamatory, 2) it's arguably false as most of his lawsuits were for blatant violations of the attribution requirements, such as a complete lack of links or mentions of his name.Nemo19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Furthermore, by forcing this statement in, we are, in effect, "wrestling with a pig", which, as anyone familiar with the analogy will tell you, just results in everyone getting dirty, but the pig enjoying it. --Begoon20:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon andNemo bis: I think you're too late to the party.. Also, what I gather from[23] is that WOSdid attribute "Nightshooter", which is the first thing that's listed in the author field ofFile:Kenny Chesney 2013.jpg and they linked to that page. When WOS received a cease-and-desist forFile:Lukas Nelson.jpg they changed the attribution from “Wikimedia Commons” to “Nightshooter”. This was also presumably linking to the file page. The document is a bit vague about the linking, the articles in question now seem to be using images from Getty and nothing was archived, but in the case they appear to assume the attribution text did in fact link. MusicBrainzlinked to the file page, but didn't mention the author or license themselves. This would either be "reasonable attribution" as per the license or at worst a fairly minor attribution error as the author and license information are still clear. Certainly not worth going to court for. -Alexis Jazzping plz18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I had thought this would be dealt with like Marco Verch, but since his photos may end up kept, and witnessing some events recently, I came up with this idea: in addition to the forced attribution,shrink photos to <100K pixels and revdel the hi-res versions. Because I noticed some users from other wikis were edit-warring over the photos, either reverting the forced attribution, or insisting on using these photos when alternatives are available, I think shrinking the photos will help discourage usage.
On top of this, make all his photos noindexed so Google wont link to them.
When his photos are replaced and phased out in say 10-20 years' time, delete all of them, just like Marco Verch's.--Roy17 (talk)20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Almost all his photos areprotected from overwriting now. If a wiki prefers any of these photos over the available alternatives, even with the attribution bar, they are still free to use them. Marco Verch had IIRC 10000 photos, which is more than 27. -Alexis Jazzping plz18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there any better way to solve a dispute than I to stay away from images that look violates the policy?!
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please take a look atthe discussion on 29 January 2018. This dispute was caused by "I speak to him in English", but asEric Deng himself confirmed. At the time he accused me of "刻意用英文回應，究竟有何居心", translating into English means "deliberately speak in English and you may have an axe to grind". After that, he makes me think and reflect on what I am doing wrong. But so far, I still don't know what to do with a contentious topic that has not reached consensus yet. Because we are in Wikimedia.Commons, this is pretty difficult to avoid in a world where everyone uses English. There are several reasons:
First, I feel that I am not obliged to check which user is from the Chinese Wikipedia.
Second, he speaks Mandarin Chinese to me, but it doesn't mean all users who speak Mandarin Chinese doesn't understand English.
Three, he didn't tell me that he needs to communicate in Mandarin Chinese, except for he asked me what is the reason for submitting his photo toCOM:DR(seethis message).
I'm hoping to avoid happening again, but I don't know what to do. Is there any better way to solve a dispute than I to stay away from images that look violates the policy?!--Kai3952 (talk)20:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Nothing to do here. You did nothing wrong. Usually users have babel box in userpage to show, which languages they can speak. Eric Deng had no babel box, so you could choose language yourself and English is fine. Eric complained. Speak Chinese with him in the future and don't get mad.Taivo (talk)15:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Admin required to move this file
Latest comment:6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This was because it was renamed from the current name to the "Stainton Dale" name but then the CP was renamed so it needed moving back.Crouch, Swale (talk)07:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Accounts seems like owned by the same person
Latest comment:6 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion
I have found that a person or some people from Hong Kong uploaded some files named alike but under different accounts.
Most of them appeared only for 1 day or a few days, but not at the same time. They just uploaded files, but the biggest problem is that they tag files with many over-categorized categories, and it takes other users' time to check them. I fear that if some of their files were copyright violation, it's very hard to let these accounts know.--そらみみ (talk)12:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
These look like someone using a bot account to generate accounts. This could be someone testing a bot script, or there could be something nefarious going on. I am concerned at the EXIF data on 'HK TSO', 'HK SYP', 'HK CWB', which a conventional EXIF reader is failing to interpret. It appears that files are being hidden within the metadata in a non-standard way, though this might also more innocently be a post-processing app mucking up the EXIF.
@Green Giant:, I am unsure who best to ping, but what's your guess, do these account names or file strangeness seem to fit a known past pattern? Note that their home accounts identified via SUL appear to vary. --Fæ (talk)13:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Couple more (not linking deliberately) Toa Gami Saumz, GkamYuenm.
However this may be something to do with the design ofCommons:Mobile app rather than nefarious goings on. I have not used it, but maybe it encourages users to easily register a new account, so easy that they don't bother to remember the password for their last account and go along with the auto-generated user account name?
My thoughts along these lines are encouraged by the uploads from@Misaochan: which look very similar in behaviour pattern, but the account belongs to the android app developer. --Fæ (talk)14:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
HiFæ, the Commons app signup button only links to the Commons mobile website's registration page, which we have no jurisdiction over. We don't handle signups internally, they have to go through the same steps they would if they signed up via browser. For my own uploads, I do apologize for uploading related photos from 2 accounts (I understand that this is not ideal, albeit allowed). The reason is that when we (developers) test uploads from the app, if some problem occurs with an upload, we often need to try also with a different account to see if the issue was related to the account/authentication or not. For the person from Hong Kong whom we are talking about here, the uploads all seem to be done via Upload Wizard, and I am not familiar with any of their usernames, so I am fairly certain that they have no affiliation with the app. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. :( If you need further clarification please do let me know.Misaochan (talk)18:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Misaochan, thanks for the feedback.
Without any obvious pattern of deliberate vandalism, spamming or mass copyvios, this thread can be safely closed.
The longer issue of apparently people, especially those in HK, uploading mobile photos using a different new account each day is one worth considering. If this is a problem that we will continue to see for variations of the Commons mobile app, it would be a good design improvement for the apps to encourage users to retain and reuse the same account between sessions. What the users are doing is not strictly against policy, but it makes communication or working collegiately with the wider community in the longer term virtually impossible. --Fæ (talk)21:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@そらみみ,Fæ, andMisaochan: IMHO it is not a problem of Commons mobile app design because this is just one guy from Hong Kong who always uses throwaway accounts. You would find him easily in Uploads by new users. Patterns are filenames of a mix of English and Chinese, overcategorisation and multiple similar-angle shots of the same thing. He's been around for quite a few years (five maybe?).
Thanks for your information. For the category names,I think that's not a severe problem, because although not in a widely used style, those names are not grammatically wrong or offensive, just like his/her own style. But you can't talk with him/her about this is the problem in my opinion.--そらみみ (talk)05:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Having his own style is not OK. They should conform toCOM:CAT. Many of those categories are redundant too, e.g.Signs of XX Metro Station,Plants and trees on XX road, or the overly specific cats ofX Month Y Year in Z place, whereZ place is as specific as a restaurant or shop.
There's no way to inform him unless someone identifies his patterns, tries to find him and tells him in real life.
He's not vandalising or violating copyright either, so he should not be blocked. I recat his stuff that I happen to see and find useful from time to time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯--Roy17 (talk)11:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. I have found he/she created many categories. But anyway, let him/her use a permanent account is important in my opinion. Maybe he/she is just want to be inUser:OgreBot/Uploads by new users, but behaviors like those are not good in my opinion.--そらみみ (talk)14:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
HiFæ, please feel free to ping me in a future thread if you find a mobile app user doing this so we can try and figure out the cause. This particular user does not use the mobile app to upload at all - all the uploads that you linked have the comment "User created page with UploadWizard", whereas any images uploaded with the mobile app would have the comment "Uploaded using Commons Mobile App". There is no difference in retention or reusing accounts between sessions for the app (compared to the Upload Wizard), as users would remain logged in to their account every session by default unless they log out or uninstall the app. The 'problem' that causes my own upload pattern is not related to app design and is one that should not affect users at all - only developers or people volunteering in a QA capacity would ever need to test uploads between various accounts, and there are only a handful of us (I can give you our usernames if you like).Misaochan (talk)17:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Another way to inform him, is to catch him before he vanishes. Look at the logs ofUser:Guo Wai Leung for example. He registered at 12:44, uploaded first photo at 13:08 and last one at 13:26, and last edited at 13:29. So there's a window period of 15-30 min. Maybe we could prepare a template message in Chinese and English. Watch new files from time to time and try to catch him in the window period and subst: the message on his talk page.--Roy17 (talk)11:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@そらみみ: I just happened to find an old account:Gee Ning 2011 (talk·contribs). I am pretty sure it's him. All three patterns I mentioned were present even eight years ago. He's been contributing way longer than you and me. XD --Roy17 (talk)22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I might've found his first account:WIBEAN~commonswiki (talk·contribs),zh:WIBEAN anden:WIBEAN~enwiki. You could tell from his excessive interwiki linking in the file descriptions, which is another habit of his, that it's him. His zhwp userpage is also typical of him, using the English comma for Chinese texts. He edited wikipedias from 19 Feb to 24 Feb 2006. His zhwp edits in namespaces talk and wikipedia seem to suggest that he became disillusioned with the Chinese wikipedia pretty soon. He was using a RICOH Caplio R2 from then until around 2009.
BlakeGD312 (talk·contribs) was probably his second account. He was uploading a batch of photos of Blake Garden and registered on 12 March, so that was the name. He was already using accounts and editing in the same manner as he is today.
Thanks for your information. I have checked those accounts, then found that on the first Chinese account talk pagezh:User talk:WIBEAN#不要婆婆媽媽, someone else told him/her that “using multiple accounts is OK, some veterans use more than 20 accounts”. So this maybe a problem on Chinese wiki also.—そらみみ (talk)03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
re might be too late. He's used a new oneHAOSN tIMAI (talk·contribs). IMHO, let him be. There's no way we force someone use a single account. He's also contributing but not doing harm to Commons.--Roy17 (talk)17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reported the same issue in September 2018 (seeCommons:Village pump/Archive/2018/09#Tolerence on the wrong naming of categories?). I believe the accounts I reported Have the similar at editing characteristic compared those accounts reported in this case and they are owned by the same person. Although the community didn’t justify this as the “vandalism” last time, I believe what those accounts have done created a lot of annoying problems for other Wikimedia Commons users (since 2012 at least) and that’s absolutely not beneficial for Commons. I think those accounts should be blocked for uploading excessive, low-quality and unnecessary files with tremendous numbers of useless categories, plus using ridiculously a lot of puppets (I believe so).MNXANL (talk)14:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
He/she will definitely put Categories (month)_in_Hong_Kong (for files about Hong Kong) and (month)_in_China (Files about mainland China, mostly Shenzhen) for whatever files he/she uploaded via whatever accounts. That’s how we (そらみみ, N509FZ etc) find those accounts when we clean up files within those categories. For any administrators who wants to track those accounts, browsing and monitoring those two categories might be a good start.MNXANL (talk)15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a big problem to use throwaway accounts. He's not using two accounts at the same time. It's useless to block throwaway ones, since he doesnt even revive them.
I would say his overcats would just be cleaned up by whoever happens to find his photos useful and are happy to recat them. Nothing much we can do, unless you want to engineer an abuse filter to block him. But I think allowing his overcat photos, some of which might also be OOS or low quality, is still better than rejecting a long-time dedicated contributor.--Roy17 (talk)20:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think giving tolerance for users who intentionally (I believe so) violates thecategorization rules of Commons for years is fair, it messes up the environment of Commons and creates lots of extra work for other users. N509FZ used to give reminds or warnings on talk pages of a few of this person's former accounts and it apparently did not stop him/her, I think it is appropriate to introduce mandatory actions to stop it. FYI, a new accountDanou Cheia Loaim with similar contribution characteristics appeared on July 5 2019.MNXANL (talk)16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Changing accounts and leaving overcrowded categories behind is often regarded irresponsible. When handling overcrowded categories, editors have to be experienced enough, but their time would also be wasted. Fromthis edit, ifCategory:Shenzhen is kept in this file, diffusion can be more difficult though. Keeping the most relevant categories for one file provides easier accessibility to other relevant files. Maybe someone could use bots to remove redundant categories from files, but new overcrowded categories may appear with new accounts.--N509FZTalk前置，有座！Front engine with seats!17:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that we have no way to talk with him/her. I think at least he/she should receive an attention message immediately. Also, ignoring another people is not a polite behavior in my opinion.--そらみみ (talk)07:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just noticed the discussion. As a long time contributor of Commons, I never find this person problematic since I first noticed his behavior in 2007. This person has uploaded more photos than you and me, most are OK, encyclopedic, and with appropriate file description and category. The uploads caused neither inconvenience nor extra work to me. Sometimes this user corrected me when there was something wrong to my uploads. As long as this person don't breach the policy, I'm very happy with all of his long term contribution. Especially I'm appreciated that he contributed anonymously by using throwaway accounts. --Baycrest (Talk)15:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Although this person seems like alright, I think there are many other people using throwaway accounts as vandalism (e.g.Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/いせちか国際空港), so it should not be appreciated. Also, It's hard to judge now as we still don't knowall of those throwaway accounts by the same person likeCajt Raiedlooe.--そらみみ (talk)00:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll repeat my view one last time. The only bad thing he does is over-categorisation. Occasionally he violates FoP or uploads trivial stuff, but that's within reasonable limits. Blocking is useless because they are throwaway accounts. No action needed for now.--Roy17 (talk)17:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Done I expressed my opinion agreeing with you and Jeff by deleting and closing the nomination.Ellin Beltz (talk)00:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me 02:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Thank you for reporting. --Majora (talk)19:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Separate agreements are not contradictory nor to the CC license, nor to the USA copyright law, neither to our policies (in the extend that those separate agreements are not contradictory with the points quoted under "must" and "must not" insideour policy. "the museum requires a maximum resolution of 1200×1200 pixels" is 1/curently fully compatible with Commons 2/possible if they are the copyright holder 3/possible if they add the separate agreement at the same time of the first publication of the work under the CC license. But here, if I well understood, this seems to be a different thing : a kind of agreement between the photographer(s) and the museum, therefore the request here is the request from the uploader(s), not the request of the museum. And it is of course absolutely normal to access this kind of request, which otherwise would put the uploaders in a bad position at least on the moral plane regarding their agreement with the museum, and also damaging for potential future agreements with the museum.Christian Ferrer(talk)22:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated to other accounts. MichelidesPeralta's de.wiki block was 17. Mai 2018 so data, if a CU was even done, would be
Stale (Meister und Margarita is, of course, stale here as well). However, that two unrelated accounts would both know about and edit bizarre (andinappropriate) subpages in user space--User:MichelidesPeralta/Next Stolperstein shooting andUser talk:MichelidesPeralta/future--seems a duck relationship. Quack.Эlcobbola talk15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose@大诺史: We still needCategory:Tantalum andCategory:Thorium, as well asCategory:Oxygen,Category:Curium, etc. —Jeff G. ツ pleaseping ortalk to me16:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Info: DR closed as kept byP199. --Achim (talk)15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
.After all,editing ofTim commons(Talk)will be correct.𒁂TIM𒀱COMMONS𒀱On ja.wp𒁂08:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Support deletion and block per clear and obvious abuse, misuse and hurting of both Wikimedia Commons (Term of Use, Scope, NLT, self-promotion, and so on) and Creative Commons. Especially, as we are talking about 21 low-res images with better alternatives. Cheers,VIGNERON (talk)12:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Nothing to do here. You did nothing wrong. Usually users have babel box in userpage to show, which languages they can speak. Eric Deng had no babel box, so you could choose language yourself and English is fine. Eric complained. Speak Chinese with him in the future and don't get mad.Taivo (talk)15:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dCommons%3aDeletion_requests%2fFile%3aFlag_of_Paraduin.png%26amp%3bdiff%3d354545264%26amp%3boldid%3d354544583){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aHaroldoath.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3d352472515%26amp%3boldid%3d352409167){kind=link}
![[4]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aMitropolitis_proikonisou_iosif.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3d352715591%26amp%3boldid%3d352689441){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
_by_Dr._Michael_A_Christianson_01.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%25E8%2588%2587%25E8%25B7%25A8%25E7%25AB%2599%25E5%25BC%258F%25E6%2596%25B0%25E7%25AB%2599%25E6%2588%25BF(%25E5%258F%25B3).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%25E8%2588%2587%25E8%25A1%25A1%25E9%2599%25BD%25E8%25B7%25AF(%25E5%258E%259F%25E6%25A6%25AE%25E7%2594%25BA%25E9%2580%259A)%25E5%258F%25A3%25E7%259A%2584%25E9%2587%2591%25E7%259F%25B3%25E5%25A0%2582%25E5%259F%258E%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%25BA%2597(%25E5%258E%259F%25E8%25A5%25BF%25E5%25B0%25BE%25E5%2595%2586%25E5%25BA%2597).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%25E7%25B4%2585%25E6%25A8%2593.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
