Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 63

Homecat in template

According to this movement a brave admin is needed to change the homecat in Template:2257. Thanks in advance :-) Wieralee (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Ruthven (msg) 12:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:松岡明芳

User:松岡明芳 wrote falsehood in the deletion requests in order to deceive the administrators.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Port of Akashi,明石港旧灯台 DSCF1891.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-02-28 Nakamoto Beach,Kuroshima(Taketomi, Okinawa) 沖縄県八重山諸島・黒島,仲本海岸 DSCF4216.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Kishi-House Nishiwaki,Hyogo,Japan 旧来住家住宅（来住梅吉旧邸）DSCF9602.JPG

--G I Chandor (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Earth's Location in the Universe.jpg

My problem with this image is that I need to know the validity of data used to plot the observable universe map, the problem being that this image is that clearly of a structure.created by an intelligence.

so the validity of this data does have some question partly because itis presented as a 2D of a volume. and the likely hood of this posed structure. if the data is valid I would be happy to discuss the objects form. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.151.222.29 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see any administrator action being required here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Santa maya

I've notified Santa maya (talk · contribs) of Commons:Overwriting existing files, but this user keeps replacing File:Castillia.jpg by an unrelated image, thus surreptisiously changing illustrations on all wiki's using the image. The main target seems to be en:Moors. Can I get a few expirienced eyes on this, please. I'm not sure how to handle this. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Castillia.jpg. The upload history at File:Castillia.jpg shows the editor uploading a different image, overwriting the original but leaving the file name, with edit summaries such as "truth and justice". The image they are replacing it with is Jean-Jules-Antoine Lecomte du Nouÿ "Gate of the Harem".[1] This is clear pov vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done per COM:AN/B. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau and Kleuske: I also cleaned history of the file and restricted uploading for two months. --jdx ^Re: 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That will help on the ENWP-side, too. Kleuske (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Trumpillo

I suspect that all of User:Trumpillo's uploads are copyright violations (it's possible that some are PD but unsourced). At least one has a Getty Images watermark. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All their contribution grabbed from Internet. User warned. So  Done.

@Calliopejen1: please note, that you should notify a user about a discussion started here. Ankry (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories of some protected files

Due to some category movements there's a need to change categories in a few places:

1. Category:P icons blue -- simple movement => Category:Wikipedia portal icons, blue
2. Template:PD-Turkey -- [[Category:Law in Turkey|{{PAGENAME}}]] should be changed into [[Category:Law of Turkey|{{PAGENAME}}]]
3. Template:ArtemBatuzak -- [[Category:Photos by Artem Batuzak]] => should be changed into [[Category:Photographs by Artem Batuzak]]

Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done However there seems to be a cache issue in case of Template:ArtemBatuzak and Category:Photos by Artem Batuzak. BTW. COM:AN rather is more appropriate for this kind of requests. --jdx ^Re: 09:47, 24 February 2017 (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.

---

User:Der Buckesfelder

User:Der Buckesfelder had a small revert controversy with me about arrangement of file pages at one file page. However, 10 minutes after his second revert, he interrupted his work on moving files from Logos to Category:Unidentified logos to create this deletion request about one my unrelated photo.

I'm supposed, the photo of an atypical postbox absolutely not deviates from generally accepted Commons scope and the deletion proposal is a clear disruptive act of revenge and a trial to start a flame. I'm able to understand User:Der Buckesfelder's enthusiastic conviction that author's "license" is not an authors "permission" and that a location given per coordinates has no relation with a verbal information about location (after his 3 controversial edits, he started a discussion about it at my discussion page but he not very perceived my explanation). I believe, he is not a single one with such a preference about the arrangement of entries at file pages and my preference at this problem would be supported maybe by minority of users only. However, i'm really not able to believe that this unusual delete proposal was motivated by a frank worry about scope of Wikimedia Commons. I find such disruptive behaviour as quite unacceptable and dangerous for the project. --ŠJů (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I closed this DR. User:Der Buckesfelder, you better not do this again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2017 (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.

---

User:90.191.109.9

There are multiple issues with an IP user related to Estonia. The user is not a beginner to modifying Commons content, is extremely prolific and knows how to edit very well. This IP user's contributions sometimes work, but the user is also prone remove information that is otherwise useful, per his/her edit history here (decategorisation without a lot of explanation, modifying date fields, removal of useful tags). I also suspect, that he or she uses VPNs both in order to hide tracks, avoid discussion, and to avoid repercussions in case there is a dispute where he/she would not prevail.

I have had similar encounters with the same user on Estonian Wikipedia, and it's been impossible to resolve disputes with them. Per similar behavior in Estonian Wikipedia (example), I also suspect, that the same user is in possession of an advanced account, which he or she uses to resolve disputes in their favour. This IP user's actions have discouraged me from editing in Estonian Wikipedia, and his/her conduct might not bode well to me being productive on Commons, especially, if I must explain to this particular user, why the data they removed should be brought back and kept. Mardus /talk 16:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's my former address which I no longer possess, nothing to do with VPN though.

I think you are unfair. I don't avoid discussion. I think that this user talk, contributions to other talks pages under this address, and my current discussion with you here is enough to repel this suspicion and these related suspicions. Anyone can judge themselves, but I also don't think that I discuss in some counter-productive way.

I think that my edits to, say, categories or sometimes date fields are mostly for obvious reasons. If it's less obvious then I have tried to explain in more detail in edit summary. If it's still not enough then I explain/discuss later when asked.

This other user on Estonian Wikipedia talk page is not me and I don't take responsibility for actions of all other anonymous users that you have encountered. Though, in defence of this Estonian Wikipedia user, one also replied to you and you refer to general discussion topic where plenty of other users had an option different than yours, so at least in this specific case it's not just this one anonymous Wikipedia user "trolling" you. I don't approve edit-warring though, on neither sides. 90.191.77.146 13:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I still suspect IP sockpuppetry. -Mardus /talk 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

On grounds that we both, I and the user who edited "Eesti lipp" on Wikipedia, edited a page that you had edited earlier and that we both replied to you on associated talk pages? 90.191.77.146 18:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

On grounds, that editing from these IP addresses at the Estonian Wikipedia then, and here in Commons very recently, might be the same person. -Mardus /talk 01:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Another charge is disruptive editing in addition to IP sockpuppetry. -Mardus /talk 15:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Come on, you accuse me of sockpuppetry on no grounds. It's starting to look like your personal grudge against anonymous editors. Anonymous editing is not forbidden though.

In this last file talk (linked above) I explained why I edited the way I did. If not else, then at least it was a good faith edit. Currently third opinion would be appreciated in this talk.

Ignoring my explanation and then bluntly declaring that all my edits are disruptive, is just an ill-mannered personal attack.

Could someone please close this topic here. 90.191.77.146 16:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

---

I am not an admin, but I will be closing this thread (I don't see anything on our policies and guidelines that admins are the only ones who can close threads on admin noticeboards, but if someone can provide me a consensus, policy, or guideline that I missed saying so, feel free to revert this closure). Mardus, please remember to assume good faith towards users, and that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without strong evidence is grave. I don't see any strong evidence here that the IP user above is engaging in sockpuppetry. The checkusers here would probably agree with this. I also searched for the contributions here on Commons of the IP user you edit warred on Estonian Wikipedia, and didn't saw a single edit, so I think this isn't relevant here on Commons. I also searched through the contributions of the IP user here, and they don't seem to be disruptive. Please solve this dispute without involving the admins here. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:Srittau

This user has taken it upon himself to make all the decisions on the dispute between Atamari and myself. He is not objective. Following his intervention and his instant removal of my rollbacker rights, there has been a long argument with diverging views from other users. Srittau is now ignoring my repeated requests on his talk page to allow me to revert changes to my categories made by Atamari. Can another admin please sort this out. Thank you. (I have already posted this but it was reverted) Charles (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not taken it upon myself to resolve the dispute between you and Atamari. I have warned you both not to edit war and removed your rollbacker rights because of clear abuse. I have no obligation to resolve your conflict and I am not in the best position to do so, since I have no insight in the topic at hand and - as you say - was involved in resolving the user conflict between you two. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Srittau did nothing wrong and he is not obligated to resolve your conflict with other users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Closing this thread for now. Charles, Srittau is not under any obligation to resolve your conflict with User:Atamari. Wikicology (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:Ancientcointraders/Ancientcoincollector

Need second opinion on Ancientcoincollector (talk · contribs) (formerly Ancientcointraders) and their uploads. Images are fine and encyclopedic, but the underlying activity is commercial (selling coins at a personal website). Opinions? Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Very respectfully, my intentions are not commercial or promotional and do not meet the definitions supplied in the wikipedia rules on the subject of promotional or marketing behaviour. I do not run a commercial website. There is also an assumption of good faith towards users unless proven otherwise. Please refer to the my talk page on Wikipedia for more information that I have supplied. I am happy to be contacted personally to supply any further information to verify that my intentions are genuine. Attributing the source so that I have credit for the photographs that I have taken and the research of each coin that I have taken is not commercial and is allowable under my interpretation of Wikipedia common rules. There is also ample precedent in countless images on wikipedia attributing an external source. My website itself is not commercial. It is a hobbyist site which displays my personal collection which I offer for sale only so that I can rotate my collection and learn about other coins. That is a hobby, not a commercial enterprise. That is clearly stated on the front page of the website, together with the about us, and the FAQ page. If it were a commercial enterprise then I would be doing myself an incredible disservice by disclaiming on my website that I am not a professional coin dealer, just a hobbyist. I would be grateful for your consideration of my comments above and again I am happy to supply any further clarification that is required, including evidence that I am a full-time executive of a large organisation in Australia and that collecting, trading, and photographing ancient coins is simply a passionate hobby of mine not a commercial endeavor. I feel terrible if my donated photos (which I personally taken, and painstakingly researched in e.g. British Musuem Catalogue) are not valued or if my contributions on pages genuinely lacking decent examples of ancient coins (or where my photos were objectively better than some terrible examples which preceded them) are seen as untoward. I have offered to change my username if that causes concern (though I disagree it is in breach of the username policy), as well as change the external link to my contributions if it would make my intentions clearer if they linked to e.g. a blog page where I write informative articles about ancient coins, instead of the main page of my website. I am in your hands but ask for fair assessment of my bona fides and to give me the benefit of the doubt. You can monitor my actions and decide later if I prove you wrong. I would be grateful if could be unblocked in the interim. Thanks Ancientcointraders (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ancientcointraders,

Since your files are published on ancientcointraders.com with the mention "Copyright © 2017 Ancient Coin Traders Powered by osCommerce" your need to send a formal written permission via COM:OTRS, or change the license at the source. And you are not blocked on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi Yann, thanks for your input, the name of my website is separate to the name of the copyright holder (me, personally). I have signed each licence agreement using my wikipedia name which is the default option given therefore the licence agreements remain valid. I could use my personal name instead of the Wikipedia username (default option) but that would place me at real risk of burglaries if people believe I hold ancient coins at home. With respect to my website, the copyright at the bottom of the website is default text from installing osCommerce which is a website open-source framework (refer its wikipedia page). It has no practical significance and I have changed it to reflect that the copyright belongs to the domain registrant (me, personally) not to "Ancient Coin Traders" (which is a non-entity - I had to call my website something!). I built my website myself (also as a hobby) - I did not pay someone to put it together for me. Thanks for raising this as I never thought about it this way and it is a valid observation. Hopefully this clears up any licensing issue. To clarify: Licences are signed in the name of my wikipedia commons username, which is linked to me, personally, and my website is now consistent with this. I know I am not blocked here, however I have been blocked on the main Wikipedia site and have requested an appeal. I am hopeful for a positive contribution as it is disenfranchising to be effectively told that you should not be here, when you have honest intentions. Ancientcointraders (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ancientcointraders,

Actually, it doesn't matter how you call your website. But Commons policy requires that images previously published elsewhere have an OTRS permission, if no free license is shown at the source. You could also upload high resolution images with full EXIF data on Commons, to show that you are the photographer. This would also be useful for Wikimedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As copyright has been addressed, there is nothing more to do here. Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy applies. The username 'Ancientcointraders' is not overly promotional, it is more a statement of fact. It would be nicer if the name had been something like "John of Ancientcointraders", but I do not see an obvious or literal breach of Commons:Username policy. Good luck with your appeal on other projects. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: @Fæ: Hi Yan, sorry, I might need some further help understanding this more as I am unfamiliar with OTRS. Would it be easier if I simply show the free licence at the source (my website) - would that remove any confusion? I don't recall seeing anything about OTRS when uploading the files to wikimedia commons unfortunately. It never prompted me for this... I want to make sure I am doing it right however and appreciate you letting me know that I might not be...

Hi Fae, thanks for your note. I have changed my username nonetheless. Regrettably I have been blocked at the main wikipedia and have appealed to the Admin who blocked me to reconsider. This experience is quite distressing for me as I am new to editing on wikipedia and being blocked indefinitely pretty much tells you are not welcome (forever)... it is not a pleasant feeling at all. In my appeal I have offered to change my name (done), and modify any behaviour which has caused the Admin concern. In fact I am agreeable to never making an edit again in the future and sticking to uploading photos I have taken wikipedia commons- I would just like to be unblocked as it has really unsettled me. I too hope for a positive outcome to my appeal. I am a highly respected member of my community (in the real world) so I am nothing short of devastated to not feel welcome here. Ancientcoincollector (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Many people run into these types of problems on the English Wikipedia, including established academics. It can feel very unwelcoming, but it's not personal, there's just been a long running problem with paid editors and conflict of interests. When you are unblocked there, you may find it useful to talk about your experience and what you intended to do as a contributor at en:Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is an informal place for new contributors to ask for advice. Keep in mind that Commons has different policies and even the role of administrators is different, so advice and help pages here is just for this project. --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Info see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ancientcoincollector Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: @Christian Ferrer: Thanks Yann for your kind words. However immediately after posting however someone has now made a deletion request whilst I am genuinely trying to sort out something that was not obvious to me at the point of uploading the files. I think we are beyond me feeling unwelcome. These interactions have caused me great stress. I work full-time. This is a hobby for me. I'm no longer enjoying this aspect of it (sharing my work) so that is Wikipedia's loss if they do not want my high quality photos of high quality coins and if Admin's question my bona fides without giving me the benefit of the doubt. I will take your suggestion of sharing my experience more broadly at an appropriate time as it is one of the criticisms about Wikipedia and why there is not a broader base of editors / contributors. In my short time here, I've been blocked (on wikipedia) without warning, and then my files intended to be deleted. I feel like a criminal and that people want me to leave (in fact if I am blocekd, that is the effect of what will happen...).

UPDATE: I have uploaded the creative commons licence to the footer of my website (covering everything). Therefore I assume there should be no further licence issues and my files can now remain. Happy to make any further changes to 1) my behaviour; 2) the licence on my website: 3) the way I upload photos, if someone could help me understand what I need to do and what they consider I am not doing right. As a newcomer it is not as clear for me as perhaps those of you that have been here a while. Newcomers make mistakes - all I ask is the opportunity to remedy if someone takes issue with the way I have uploaded, or used, a file. Thanks again for your time. Ancientcoincollector (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

- kept DR closed, as the source website now indicates a CC-BY 4.0 license. - Revent^talk 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Revent. I am really grateful for your speedy response to this issue. Ancientcoincollector (talk)

---

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

User uploading personal contact details

Could an administrator here please review the contributions from User:PunisherR64, please? Most consist of uploads from a Judicial directory, which may or may not be subject to copyright, but either way, they give out a considerable list or personal contact details - not entirely sure this is appropriate. Yunshui (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done DRed: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PunisherR64, user blocked for 2 hours. Yann (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass-removing of categories from files with numbers by User:Pkbwcgs

I noticed that a new user User:Pkbwcgs is mass-removing number categories from files which bear a visible number. Can an experienced admin please look into this? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User is not new, just now coming to commons. Was blocked a while ago on en.wp for being disruptive of processes and generally hopelessly unable to contribute constructively. Topic-area was typically British rail. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I caught one such change in my watch list: This photo, where this user removed Category:8 and I added back Category:Number 8 on objects. (The photo shows a kilometric milepost with an "8"; I expect more detailed categorization will be possible soon, as soon as someone creates Category:8 km markers o.s.l.t.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion it is disruptive to mass-removing categories. Several users tried hard to get proper categories for their work. Such actions leave disappointment and frustration behind. Two of my photos had been affected too and I restored the category. However, as not everyone is vigilant for his work, a lot is destroyed now. I would appreciate, if an admin could take appropriate action. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

On his talkpage, the editor has agreed to refrain from this sort of cat editing. Two other editors there complained about it as well. Should this set of edits be mass rolled-back? DMacks (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yahadzija

Can some admin warn User:Yahadzija for uploading copyrighted images from various sources. --Smooth O (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

hallo hallo :(

ich habe hier ein Gedicht für euch vertont für das deutschsprachige wiki-source Projekt kenne mich hier noch nicht aus schiebt ihr das in die richtige Kategorie für mich? und wie kann ich den fehlerhaften — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartmanEinz (talk • contribs) 3:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Not a problem with user activity: no admin action required Ankry (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit-War in category:Birds of Gambia continues!

see also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_62#Edit-War_in_category:_Bird_of_Gambia_continues.21

... today the deleting of Category:Estrilda caerulescens in Gambia, even before a compromise was reached in the discussion Category talk:Birds of Gambia. Should be sanctioned. --Atamari (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems deleted because it is empty. The deleting admin may not aware of whole the mess. Sadly I see no chance for a consensus here. Jee 16:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it a) because it was empty and b) because of the note on it's talk page. Now the cat page is restored and you can go on filling or discussing or whatever you want. Atamari, einverstanden? --Achim (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, die Löschung war ein reinr Verwaltungsakt. Die Leerung wiedersprach aber der Konsensfindung bei Category talk:Birds of Gambia. Leider hat die Gegenpartei kein Interesse an einem Konsens - leider ist auch kein Moderator auffindbar. --Atamari (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Patrick-sg recent uploads are spammish

Leaving note for community about uploads of user that either need to point to the source at the url added and with a license, or the url is more likely to be spam, and the images claimed as their own and maybe need OTRS. I stamped one as {{No permission}}. I have left the user a note, though limited availability at the moment to follow through properly. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

DRed: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Patrick-sg. Yann (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Cirt hasn't edited on any project for 10 months now. He's no longer an administrator here or on any other project. I've updated his user page here to indicate that he's not an admin on any project. I'm closing this discussion, as there isn't any action to be taken concerning an editor who has been retired for almost a year... Daphne Lantier 22:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Since this was closed by a non-admin, I will expand. Cirt's adminship was removed, by self-request, in May of 2016. He has not edited Commons since April of 2016. Complaints about his behavior are quite obviously moot at this point. - Revent^talk 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Cirt

Hello, unfortunately I have to file a complaint about User:Cirt. I've had multiple run-ins with this user who deleted my photos based on his made-up standards they supposedly did not meet. Lets be clear about something, I am not a professional photographer. I rarely even use a camera. Most of my photos come from my phone. My image quality and crops to remove myself or my friends from my photos are not great. I will not dispute any of this.

What bothers me is this user claims the image size, quality, exif info, etc do not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Well I've gone through the guidelines and do not see any that my images broke, yet they've still been deleted. Unacceptable. I noticed he deleted images from User:Cavic as well. That greatly damages the quality and standards of NBA pages that Cavic's images have improved greatly. He has added images that we could not have otherwise and Cirt deletes them without reasonably working to find solution to keep good images on this site.

I will work with anyone who believes I broke an actual Wikipedia rule. I am not that childish that cannot work with someone who I disagree with. However, this user has gone too far and is hurting Commons. I don't know how valuable his photography expertise and porn uploads are to Commons, but it cannot possibly be worth abandoning the integrity and standards established by so many great admins previously. Please, reconsider and review his admin credentials, because this is not okay.

Thank you MavsFan28 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• One of the rules broken is to upload copyright violations; e.g. this file is a cropped version of a file already published with a clear copyright notice here. To upload copyright violations is a serious violation of our policies, and to persist in this way can lead to a block of your account, and also to the deletion to all your uploads by precaution. If you upload a file previously published somewhere, this publication must be free or the copyright holder must send a permission to com:OTRS. If you upload low resolution images with no EXIFS, that's mean you have may not have the original file, therefore we usualy think you have found this image on the web, and that likely the publication here is a copyright violation. And furthermore if you upload low resolution images with no EXIFS, after some of your uploads were obvious File:Sam Cassell Under Armor.jpg copyright violations, that don't help administrators to think you are the copyright holder of your uploads. If your complaint written above is the only thing, there is nothing we have to do against User:Cirt. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I see there is a previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MavsFan28, with a "Kept: Let's assume good faith", not sure that after several obvious copyright violations+ the file above, the same dr will result to a keep if we choose to apply strictly our precautionary principle. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you see how many images he's deleted? You believe they are all copyright violations? Unless there is policy that states there is a resolution or EXIF requirement, they all shouldn't have been deleted, especially without allowing me to show proof (half of them are still on my digital camera). Also, its a disservice when he's ridding Commons of those historically necessary images from other users. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The variability of sizes of images does raise the COM:PRP. If indeed these are still on your camera, how about uploading larger versions with consistent metadata? If you feel images have been deleted in error, please write a calm note at COM:UNDEL. I fail to see any "historically necessary" images removed; we spend our days on copyright violations and out of scopes. Cirt has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, I see a lot of talk page wiping and some provable copyright violation uploading on your part, MavsFan28. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you expect me to be calm when its already decided he's right and I'm wrong? I offered that the first time around and was ignored by him. I've kept my talkpage clear for five years which apparently is an issue, though its okay that he's removed my questions from his page and ignored me, right? I'm talking about his deletions as a whole, not just against me. Look at the other users he's given trouble to for no reason. I bring this up, and the end result will be admins stick together and delete all my images. Great, you're all doing an awesome job. MavsFan28 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain calmly how you can have such a problem with a person whose last edit on the project was dated "20:35, 23 April 2016"  ? It appears we are nearly a year later in 2017. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Cirt accused MavsFan28 of being a sock back in April, but nothing ever came of that. Why bring up this complaint now? clpo13_(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• This project is about trust. Usually we assume good faith. However, if there is a long series of copyvios like in your case, it is quite natural to be more sceptical about uploads in case of small resolutions and/or missing or inconsistent EXIF data. And please respect COM:ARCHIVE, i.e. archive your talk page instead of simply deleting it quickly after deletion notices or warnings were posted: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Please remember that you also removed the advice and the questions by Cirt without answering them. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Sahib28

Sahib28 (talk · contribs) The user goes on to upload the file with no evidence of a free license after warnings and the week's block. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Indef'd. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Shakira54

Shakira54 has uploaded a plethora of copyright violations over several months. They've received notifications/warnings about this in the past. I'm currently looking through their contributions and tagging many as copyvios, but please warn (or possibly block) the editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Shakara0 may be the same editor. Note similar names and almost identical uploads in some cases. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Shakira54 for a month and deleted couple of dozens of Facebook files. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tiven2240 won't remove tag or explain what more is required

User:Tiven2240 has tagged this image File:UnaAbellBrinker1904.tif as unsourced. It is sourced. On my talk page, he insists that he believes otherwise, and suggested I contact an administrator if I want the tag removed. Please help. - Penny Richards (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Penny Richards (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from mee too.. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Clevermercury and COM:OVERWRITE

Hi all, I've tried to explain Clevermercury the rules on overwriting files (see here). In spite of that, s/he seems not to understand and keep on overwriting an existing file. I don't have a strong opinion on the quality of any of the copies but, anyway, the usual way in commons (according to COM:OVERWRITE) is to upload a new image. Can any kind administrator explain it again to Clevermercury? Many thanks into advance --Discasto _talk 16:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That was done, and the file uploaded, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg for further discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes as Jeff has said I took your advice and created a new file - now people want to delete it, what is the solution here ladies and gents? --Clevermercury (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User spamer

Por favor verificar las contribuciones del usuario Delos Boutique (talk · contribs) para ver si hay que borrar todas las imágenes o únicamente en la que sale el logo de la empresa que está haciendo spam y proceder con el usuario como se crea conveniente. Gracias --Jcfidy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment and  Info:
  Español: La cuenta fue bloqueada globalmente. Las fotos de ropa pueden estar dentro del Alcance del proyecto, ya que podrían ser útiles.
  English: The account was blocked globally. The photos of clothing can be considered inside the Project scope, as them may be usable.

--Amitie 10g (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted promotional userpage and other advertising. Also I deleted some small photos without metadata, because own work was not sure. But per Amitie I kept some photos about clothing, because they are usable. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jamesharris149

Judging by their English Wikipedia contributions, I don't think the uploads by this user are any good for here. However, I'm blind and can't see them. Could someone take a look? Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominated them for deletion. Thanks for the notice. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Permission for campaigning

Hi Everyone. I'm Francesc, I'm a member of Amical Wikimedia, and alongside Wikimedia España We're doing a campaign for Wiki Loves Folk. This month are the Falles festival in my town and We're doing a special campaign to celebrate. Rodelar linked me the template for 2016 edition of WLF so I could adapt it to the Falles, but it seems that I need permissions to make our own template. It's only a permissions issue? can I get those permissions or anything else is required? thanks.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Francesc, as far as I know, you need to be an Upload Wizard campaign editor. You can ask for rights here (I don't have the slightest idea about the criteria). Anyway, if you're in hurry, you can talk to Poco a poco, WM-ES member and also a campaign editor. Best regards --Discasto _talk 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have an idea what you need, TaronjaSatsuma, I can have a look into it. Poco² 17:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Folks. Basically, I want to adapt the Campaign:wlfolk to the 2017 partial-contest about Falles. The campaing will star in april, but I wanted to test how it worked with some photos I took this week. --TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

The issue is now discussed in the DR. Yann (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Administrator reinstates apparent copyvio, censors file page history

This is really odd. I don't doubt the good faith of the admin involved, but even in the unlikely event that he's right about the copyright status of the file involved, he had no justification for suppressing my deletion proposal from the file page history.

On February 24, I tagged File:Deadly hands of kung fu 1975.jpg as a copyvio. This is a cover of a 1975 Marvel Comics publication (and Marvel is now a part of the notoriously litigious Disney organization); there is absolutely no reason to believe that the "Wellcome Library" has any rights to this image, or any authority to license it. User:Green Giant deleted the file shortly thereafter.(see log, [10])

Later that day, User:Materialscientist, who originally uploaded the image in 2014, undid the deletion and reinstated the file, without any explanation or (as far as I can see) discussion. When he reinstated the file, he suppressed my deletion proposal from the edit history. (again, see file log)

While I don't see express Commons policy regarding adminstrators acting on disputes they are involved in (unlike the detailed en-wiki standards), I see many discussions indicating that such actions are improper. (see, eg, these discussions: [11]) I don't see anyhting in policy calling for the suppression of incorrect, good faith deletion proposals (even assuming that my deletion proposal was incorrect, and I strongly believe it wasn't).

I therefore ask for an independent review of my deletion proposal, the restoration of the complete history of the file page involved, and whatever other corrective action is appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: could you please explain why you restored the image yourself without going through COM:UDEL despite being the original uploader of that file? And why the deletion request was revision deleted when the file was restored? --AFBorchert (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I thought this deletion was a technical mistake - the file is properly sourced and licensed, it comes from a major image database, perhaps the most reliable one I have ever worked with. I was surprised it was speedied without even waiting for a comment from myself (kind of saying "I know better"). I did not mean to "revision delete the deletion request", this came as a technical glitch during the undeletion. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from performing actions with elevated permissions on anything you are "involved" with. If the image was deleted as a mistake, have you contacted the deleting admin (@Green Giant: )? As for the technical glitch, can you clarity (eg. what you did exactly) so it could be reported to Phabricator and be fixed? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How does a highly subjective judgement, "there is absolutely no reason to believe that the "Wellcome Library" has any rights to this image" get implemented as part of MediaWiki? This was deleted because one editor prioritised a comic book publisher over a major library, of the basis of no more than that en:WP 6th pillar, "US comics are sacred". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy, "there is absolutely no reason to believe that the "Wellcome Library" has any rights to this image" was a comment made prior to Materialscientist's response, thus there is no way The Big Bad Wolfowitz would have known if it was a Mediawiki related issue. I don't believe Materialscientist acted in bad faith but I am not too comfortable with the fact that Green Giant was not notified after the file was restored. Wikicology (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the image because on the source page there is a CC-BY-4.0 license but no reasoning given by them as to why the library is able to license the image. My assumption is that the publisher and/or artist hold copyright unless there is evidence to the contrary.. That said, I am not concerned that the file was restored or that I wasn't notified because I treat all users as acting in good faith unless demonstrated otherwise. The image is now in a DR and that should be the focus for any further discussion. Green Giant (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is troublesome when an admin doesn't respect community processes like going to com:UNDEL. Materialscientist isn't the only admin who does this. Perhaps it is time for a policy that forbids admins to undelete files without going through com:UNDEL unless there is OTRS-permission, it is public domain day, he is the deleting admin or an entire set off images has been undeleted but some were left out because they were part of another DR. Materialscientist's defence surprises me since even though he acted in good faith he must know that we delete 1000's off files a day and that we aren't going to wait for uploaders to comment on a speedy deletion and he didn't inform Green Giant. I believe Green Giant deserves an apology. Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. My apologies to Green Giant and everyone for unnecessary fuss. Anyway, the image should have gone through a standard DR rather than CSD. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• But it's not a MediaWiki issue, cannot be fixed by coding and cannot be fixed by a bug report to Phabricator.

The issue here was instigated by a human judgement (rightly or wrongly: it's a very subjective point about relative trust on image libraries), not a software issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - I believe Materialscientist would be more careful in the future. Now that the file as been taken to DR, can an admin or an experienced editor in good standing close this thread for now? With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Copyright violation

This user: Endahfa, uploaded many television logo (maybe copyrighted) on CC-BY-SA license. Hidayatsrf (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Third block for copyvios, undef. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has been warned many times to stop providing false information for uploads,[12][13][14] but chooses to ignore the warnings without even responding to them, and continues to provide false sourcing.[15][16] I ask that this user be blocked or otherwise dealt with by an impartial party. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)

You know Magog, if you'd dropped me a line and said "please be a bit more careful when auto-moving files from WP, so that the obvious human readable metadata ends up in the right place for the robots to find it too" then you'd have had a point and I'd have listened to it.

But you didn't do that did you? You went for "I HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH THIS GUY IN 2014 AND NOW I WANT HIM BLOCKED!!!".

Just how did you get the "Ogre" name? How's it working out for you? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I would kindly request that you remain civil and be more carefull with cross wiki uploads. Otherwise we might have to ban you from doing cross wiki uploads and I don't think you want that. Natuur12 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: How many times do I have to leave you a note? I was quite polite at first. I became impolite after you consistently just ignored me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User uploads upscaled web images

Hi, the user BrunoMed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploaded several small web images upscaled to ridiculous sizes. His latest upload has ~380 MB, upscaled by 60×, from a 1000 px wide web image. Some images were uploaded smaller but got enlarged afterwards by him (his comments are always "resized", "improved quality"). These file uploads should be reverted and the user warned about his miguided practices. – Lucas^T 15:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Files already deleted as copyvios, user warned. Yann (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Accused of Ballot Stuffing, Zero Evidence

Hello, please read the post at the bottom of here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clevermercury#.7B.7Bw.7CSockpuppet_.28Internet.29.23Ballot_stuffing.7CSockpuppet.7D.7D

Need some administrator help I seem to be targeted by a number of individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Clevermercury (talk • contribs)

 Done Already being handled by User:Jameslwoodward. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Davidng913 and some IPs

I'm not quite sure what to make of the behavior of four editors:

• Davidng913 (talk · contribs)
• 107.0.69.23 (talk · contribs)
• 98.109.128.241 (talk · contribs) (inactive)
• 2600:1001:B026:254:9199:86D3:6A96:8924 (talk · contribs) (inactive)

Davidng913 has uploaded a number of files, all of which have been deleted as copyright violations. It's not clear whether the user was aware that they were or not. After I admonished them for that, they asked me for a block in an odd manner. Since then, they have claimed they are retired but keep coming back to make changes to their retirement banner.

The IPs (which geolocate together) have interacted heavily with Davidng913. Most of this has been negative - aggressively nominating files for deletion, leaving personal results, and one edit which I believe may have revealed personal information.

I can't quite tell what's going on. Some of the behavior seems to indicate that the IPs are harassing Davidng913; some makes it look a lot more like the IPs are actually just him playing some kind of weird game. I would appreciate others' thoughts on what (if anything) should be done here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

My uploaded Commons images are only visible in their categories when I am logged in

I have recently uploaded six images to Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphin%27s_Delight.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ExtravagaNZa.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fernlandia.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_White.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Crux_of_the_Matter.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_Cross.png

Each of these images has been tagged with the Commons Category 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand'.

When I am logged in and I visit the Commons page for 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_flags_of_New_Zealand, my images appear, but when I visit the page after I have logged out, my images do not appear, unless I once again log in.

Can you resolve this issue for me, or explain how I may resolve it myself?

Kind regards,

NZ_Flag_Maven — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Flag Maven (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just tried viewing them logged out and the same's happened with me aswell (and I'm no where near New Zealand!), I assume it's a bug with something ? –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The images do show up for me when I'm logged out. I have also removed the overcategorization (Proposed national flags... is a subcategory of Proposed flags.., so only put the more specific category on the image). I suspect that the cat removal triggered a cache expiry on the server side. --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Category: Transport in

I have a problem with Tm as this editor persisted on there own cause to move category such as Category:Streets in Albufeira, Category:Bridges in Silves, plus many other similar categories in Portugal in to a Categorys:Transport in that particular place. The editor has tried to engage me in edit wars over this issue to which I have not continued with. My argument is that a street, bridge, roundabout or even a marina is a structure. all be it, built to facilitate transport, but they are built for wider function such as dwelling places, shops, business, ect. I have tried to engage Tm in disscussion but he has no interest in engaging in a discussion and persist in reverts instead. I would like to get some clarification if category's of Streets, Bridges, roundabouts, marinas ect should only be put into Transport or into there location category'sor even a structure category. Please Help Kolforn (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment See Category:Bridges is a subcategory of Category:Transport infrastructure and Category:Streets is a subcategory of Category:City transport and a subcategory of Category:Roads by type. So i dont know what is so complicated of understanding. Also to information of the administrators, it was you that started the revertion war in Category:Bridges in Silves, as can be seen in the history page. Tm (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You first moved the category:Bridges in Silves from Category:Silves to Category:Transport in Silves. You then decided to create Category:structures in Silves after I had asked you to agree that it was a Structure rather than a form of Transport. If you had been clear that this was your intention there would be no need for this bad feeling. Kolforn (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you had not reverted the move! My intentions are clear as can be seen by Category:Bridges_in_Guimarães, created by me ( and last edited by me in 2009) and you would see that from were i copied this structure to Category:Bridges in Silves, not because of your revertions. Tm (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems strange that on the 21 March you removed Category:Bridges in Silves and placed it into Category:Silves. Then you removed the category from the Silves Category and placed it into Category:Transport in Silves. You also added Category:Bridges in Faro (district) and then left Category:Bridges in Silves in the two mentioned Categorys. On the 23 March I moved the category back into Category:Silves, A Category you had once placed it in on the 21st. I find it hard to Understand why you did not create Category:Structures in Silves on the 21 March. It seems to me that you only decided to structure the category tree as per your effort in 2009 after I reverted your edit. You seem to want to cause conflict and your sarcastic comments are not constructive or needed. I see you have had problems before from your Block Log and it seems you are intent on argument rather than co-operation and agreement. I reiterate, I do not wish to become embroiled with some sort of edit war with you. It would be better if you communicated your intentions when I first moved the category, none of this ill-feeling would have been necessary. Kolforn (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jcb

Több tucat képet töltöttem fel a Template:OTRS pending használatával az engedély ügyintézéséig. Ezzel a módszerrel eddig semmi probléma nem volt. A mai napon Jcb kétszer törölte a File:A lélek mélyén.jpg-t, és meg is fenyegetett, hogy töltsek fel jogsértő képet. Szeretném megtudni, hogy mi a mostani esetben az a tényező, ami nem felel meg az eddigieknek? Ha ilyen nincs, akkor viszont azt, hogy Jcb alkalmas-e adminisztrátornak, ha hasonló eseteket nem hasonló eljárással eszközöl? Indoklást nem kapok csak fenyegetőzést. Ez nem megfelelő eljárás. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Jcb. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This user uploaded a file he grabbed from the web (inclusing source link to a non free site). I deleted it as a copyvio. Then the user uploaded this copyvio again, after which I deleted the file again and warned the user at his talk page. Not sure if Hungarikusz Firkász thinks that we are going to assist him with his practice (it's not the first time I come accross this problematic uploader) if he justs starts complaining about the admins who delete his copyvio uploads. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Jcb hazudozik, illetve kifelejti azt a fontos információt, hogy a képet Template:OTRS pending sablonnal láttam el, mivel folyamatban van az engedélyezése. Így nem jogsértő a kép. Úgy látszik, Jcb értelmezési képességeivel valami probléma lehet. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The OTRS pending tag of course is not meant to be abused to keep obvious copyvios online. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nem éltem vissza vele, ugyanis az engedély folyamatban van. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A Template:OTRS pending szövegéből: Please copy the URL of this file in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it.  Question: Hogyan adjam meg a feltöltés linkjét az engedélyezőnek, ha nem tölthetem fel a képet, csak miután engedélyezte? Nem érzékeled itt a 22-es csapdáját? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Több száz engedélyezett képet töltöttem már fel. Sértő ez az eljárás, amit Jcb csinál. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hungarikusz Firkász, I have a simple question: Is there an existing OTRS ticket related to this file? You are an OTRS member and you should be able to look it up even if you are operating in the role of a "customer" in this case. If yes, please provide the ticket number. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello AFBorchert! Jelenleg még nincs beküldve az engedély az OTRS-be. Az engedélyezőnél van az engedélyezőszöveg, ami tartalmazza a fájl (halott) hivatkozását. Több éve vagyok OTRS-kezelő. Visszaéléssel gyanúsítani nem csak szomorú, de etikátlan is. Az Template:OTRS pending sablon szövegének megfelelően jártam el. Ha nincs feltöltve a kép, akkor nincs hivatkozás sem, ha nincs hivatkozás, akkor az engedélyezőnek sem tudom elküldeni, ha nem tudom elküldeni, akkor ő sem tudja megadni a hivatkozást. Az engedélyezőtől már több engedélyt is kaptam. Bármikor beérkezhet ez az engedély is. És ahogy már mondtam, többtucat olyan képet töltöttem fel, ahol az engedélykérés folyamatban sablont használtam. Sosem volt baj belőle. Eddig. Ha nem lennék OTRS-kezelő akkor nem is tudnám megadni az OTRS számát, hiszen azt csak az OTRS-kezelők látják a ticket kihelyezéséig, illetve ameddig válaszolnak az engedélyezőnek és/vagy a feltöltőnek. Sosem éltem vissza az engedélykérés sablonnal. Sőt, maximálisan üldözöm a jogsértő képek feltöltéseit. A napokban is több jogsértő képet jeleztem közvetlenül vagy közvetve. Nem ellentmondásos, hogy jogsértő képet töltök fel, miközben töröltetem a jogsértő képeket (a napokban éppen Jcb törölt egy általam copyvio-ra jelölt képet)? Nem a copyvio kijátszására használom az engedélyezés folyamatban sablont, hanem arra, ami a funkciója: jelzem vele, hogy az engedélyezés folyamatban van. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hungarikusz Firkász, the {{OTRS pending}} template is to be used when an email to OTRS has already been sent. If the ticket number is already known, it can be replaced by {{OTRS received}}. As you have access to all permission tickets, you should be able to do this even if you will not process that ticket. Anyway, I am struggling to understand your long statement. Unfortunately I do not understand Hungarian and Google translate does not deliver a coherent result. @Grin: , could you please help here? --AFBorchert (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear AFBorchert! Úgy látszik, értelmezési különbségek vannak köztünk. Az, hogy még nincs beküldve az engedély az nem egyenlő azzal, hogy visszaélek az OTRS folyamatban sablonnal. Remélem, azért ezt még így is megérted! De nem kell foglalkoznod ezzel a problémával. A képet feltöltöttem a magyar Wikipédiára, és innentől kezdve minden képet oda fogok feltölteni. Én ezzel nem lettem szegényebb. Csak plusz munkát ad azoknak, akik onnan akarják majd áttölteni. Én még egy ilyen rágalmazást nem akarok kapni egy Jcb-től. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

+ Question: Lehetnék-e adminisztrátor (akárcsak a magyar Wikipédián) és OTRS-kezelő ha jogsértéseket követnék el vagy ha olyan manővereket engednék meg magamnak, hogy az engedélyezősablonnal akarnám kijátszani a jogsértést? Ezen elgondolkozhatnátok. Főleg Jcb. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hungarikusz Firkász had previously successfully asked for permissions from the same band: Category:Vágtázó Halottkémek - He is associated with them and he writes articles about them in the Hungarian Wikipedia... (+ what he sad, he is an OTRS member, see: Template:OTRS/Users, he knows the system. The licensor wanted to give the license to the uploaded image link... that's a misunderstanding) Fauvirt) talk) 01:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was asked to comment: the procedure Hungarikusz Firkász follows seems to be 1. speak with the author that s/he will give a free licence, 2. upload the file (maybe from the web) using {{OTRS pending}}, 3. now that the file URL on Commons is known, send to the author the standard authorization to be sent to OTRS that includes this URL (this can be done only after the file has been uploaded), 4. if the author answers with the OTRS number then {{OTRS received}} can be used, 5. wait for an OTRS member to use {{OTRS}}. Now Hungarikusz Firkász says that from now on he will rather upload on huwiki and not here where he is insulted by Jcb calling him a "problematic uploader" though he is an admin and an OTRS member who often asks for files with wrong licences to be deleted (he says Jcb recently deleted such a file, maybe Jcb remembered wrongly that Hungarikusz Firkász is associated with problematic licences?)

In my opinion, the correct procedure should be clearly spelled out, and as a frwiki (and sometimes huwiki) contributor I would like Hungarikusz Firkász to keep uploading here so that files can be used on all wikis. Oliv0 (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As the file in question was already published, it is not necessary to upload it beforehand for referral. Instead the URL pointing to the already existing copy can be used. {{OTRS pending}} is to be used (see its text) when an email has already been sent to OTRS. Files that require consent must be not uploaded before the consent is given. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in this case of a file already published. But if the procedure for upload and OTRS and the use of {{OTRS pending}} depends on the file having been published or not, it should be made clear in the text and in the documentation of the model exactly how should a file not already published be identified in the standard authorization to be sent to OTRS, where note 4 presently says "For images, we prefer that you upload them to Wikimedia Commons, place the template {{OTRS pending}} somewhere in the file's description, and provide the URLs of the uploaded images in your e-mail." There seems to be some confusion here that needs to be addressed, else admins will keep getting complains about this. Oliv0 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is perhaps a misunderstanding. The URL to the file is to be referenced in the message sent to the OTRS team. But independent from this, you will need to have consent before you upload copyrighted content by others to Wikimedia Commons. If you have consent and upload it to Commons, then tag it with {{OTRS pending}} and send some minutes later an email to OTRS with the consent. But to upload content to Commons and to ask then for consent by the copyright holder is not acceptable. In this particular case I was puzzled as the file was uploaded and tagged with no apparent ticket that is associated with it. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"If you have consent": consent can hardly be obtained at the time of the upload or a few minutes later if it has to reference the URL of the upload. Note 4 of the standard authorization that says "You must provide exact URL link(s) to the content or attach the content to the e-mail" should tell clearly about the acceptable ways to identify an unpublished file, because if the only way is "attach the content to the e-mail", email size restrictions are a problem. Oliv0 (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again: You must distinguish between the emails to the copyright holder and to the support team. When contacting the copyright holder, you can refer to the image by using an URL to a publication elsewhere or by simply attaching it to the email. Only after obtaining the consent, you are free to upload it to Commons. Then you can provide a link to the uploaded image in the subsequent email to the support team. Email size restrictions can be bypassed by attaching a low-resolution version. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been summoned as well, and I gladly help but as far as I see it's not the language barrier which causes the problems. Nevertheless, I share my personal opinion on the matters since I had to read it through anyway. While it's true that the template contains "An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent", its documentation also provides detailed description of the process: "Once 30 days have passed since the date given, the template automatically applies {{No permission since}}", and most importantly the process in Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder is pretty clear:

1. you talk to the owner;
2. you upload, tag otrs pending;
3. you request owner to send the permission;
4. within 30 days email arrives and image accepted, or email don't arrive and image gets deleted.

Also an important point that Hungarikusz Firkász is not a "new" or "inexperienced" editor, he's a member of the OTRS team and in this regard it is excessively impolite to suspect and suggest bad intentions, and I find outright deleting uploads without discussion quite unacceptable behaviour in such cases in general, since it generates stress in established volunteers. I usually cannot accept the reasoning that "I do not have the resource to communicate" or "it's too much of a hassle": keeping volunteers and preventing stress is more important in the long run that timely deleting even proven copyvio imagery. To summarize my opinion: it would have been better if Jcb would have approached the uploader instead of deleting and accusing him of bad intentions; the images should be undeleted, tagged and kept for the 30 days as the teplate doc suggests; in the future it would be better if Hungarikusz Firkász could get the permission instead of post-upload but it seems not to be required by the process, so that should be clarified. Also I believe the process is good as it is now: discuss - upload - send permission email - accept: majority of the cases work this way since eternity. --grin ✎ 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi grin, thanks for commenting. I agree with you that this could have been handled differently. But I try to understand the current state of affairs regarding this image. I am still wondering here: Does Hungarikusz Firkász already have consent by the copyright holder for a release under a free license? Has this been forwarded to the support team? I hope that my questions are not misunderstood as a statement of mistrust. But I simply wondered where the associated ticket is. And the procedure outlined at Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder makes it clear that you need consent first before images are uploaded. Not the other way around. An OTRS member should know that. And if this is done differently, it should be done correctly in the future independently from the question whether Jcb's handling of this was best practice or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: As far as I know HF talks to the copyright owner first, then uploads with the OTRS pending, while asks the owner to send a form email to permissions@. (I haven't checked the specific case; @Hungarikusz Firkász: elküldték már az OTRS engedélykérést?) I am pretty sure he doesn't upload anything which was not agreed in informal conversation as "allowed" before it, legal form pending. I even happened to me that the owner agreed in the license (sent me an email agreement) but delayed to send it to permissions@; sometimes even happens that the other party realised that they are not legally allowed and I had to remove the image after some waiting. If there is no upload its really hard to handle the permission email in OTRS since there's nowhere to record the permission, that's why it wouldn't (and really shouldn't) work the other way around. --grin ✎ 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hungarikusz Firkász: any comment before this gets archived and forgotten? (akár magyarul / even in Hungarian) I agree with grin that the process to be followed (and probably followed here since as Fauvirt said above, the uploader personally knows the band and got permission for several of their albums) is "1. you talk to the owner; 2. you upload, tag otrs pending", and this needs to be made clear on all relevant pages (Template:OTRS pending, Commons:Email templates, Commons:OTRS, etc.) so that it could not be misunderstood again by uploaders or by admins. Oliv0 (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty usual situation: Jcb deletes a file uploaded by a respected experienced user, treats them as shit, and the user says "Fuck you Commons". Well done, continue like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

While I understand the anger I disagree with phrasing it like that. Yes, it's repeatedly happening, still if you say it this way it hurts Jcb's feelings while the purpose is not to make him feel bad but to kindly ask him to handle it differently in the future. Be nice to people until there's no other way, and they may listen to you better; the more angry you are the less positive effect you have on the your problem. --grin ✎ 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no other way already since long time ago. I personally almost stopped contributing to commons several month ago after a similar incident. They have been already desysopped by the community, and the sooner they get desysopped again the better.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with AFBorchert here. The wording at Commons:OTRS and the email template was confusing; I tried to improve it. Note that we had tried to improve it several times; still needs a lot of work to make it more easier to understand. Jee 13:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Reguyla's talk page access

Would an admin please consider whether Reguyla's talk page privileges should be removed once again in view of the further attacks he has been making there over the past few hours? I removed his previous restriction solely in order to allow him to post an appeal against his indeff block, and subject to conditions. Several recent postings including this and this are in clear violation, and his attacks on me are getting somewhat repetitive. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: I've removed talk and email. I've protected his user and talk pages, and I've semi-protected this page and COM:ANB for 1 week due to the threats of IP socking. Any of these actions can be undone without asking me if another admin or admins don't think this is the proper answer for the moment. I'm just trying to do what's best for Commons and Reguyla, and I'm completely uninvolved. I'm trying to slow this whole thing down so a more permanent solution can be found. I also hope that this can allow Reguyla to step back and stop with the threats and IP socking, which are going to get him banned or even locked, and which are no good for anyone here on Commons including him. Daphne Lantier 06:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Granted that you are unaware of the history, but a month (at least) would have been more like it, in his case.... and probably not long enough. The problem is not 'good faith', it's (IMO) an inability to drop the fucking stick and get on with it.

Good call, though, for a 'newbie'. :) - Revent^talk 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Sam Hoyos and copyright violations

Sam Hoyos (talk · contribs) is also a sock of Ferura123 (talk · contribs) who has same image focus and has a final warning about copyright violations. Currently uploading images of Dove Cameron with either false claims of ownership or unverifiable license terms. Recent image is getting propagated widely on different language pages. Some additional info at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ferura123. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked both accounts indefinitely. Daphne Lantier 03:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Samith Sotelo (talk · contribs) also looks to be a sock. Uploaded image File:Fimar Sam Hoyos.png, with the printed name Sam Hoyos on it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sockpuppet blocked and upload deleted. Daphne Lantier 02:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

AKBYS

AKBYS is very keen to remove the template and promoting edit war. See the history of File:Yogi Adityanath.jpg --~AntanO4task (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: As an involved user, the file page has two tags, and the {{No permission}} is redundant to the DR: The deletion requests can wait longer if the admins decided there is chance to find concensus. Several users believe this file is own work, and strong proof of copyvio should be provided. The request of OTRS permission is right, but the DR a s he right place, an no other tag should be added. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)A

Is there any policy that say not to add two tags? User Amitie 10g is failed to answer my question, but drag the discussion somewhere. Please have a look at DR discussion. Can you give strong prove of "own work"? --~AntanO4task (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Here, the image shows flower, hand and shoulder, but the DR nominated image or so called "own work" image cropped such areas and changed the background too. Therefore, how it could be own work and how these 2 users can claim as own work. Meanwhile EXIF failed to give camera details. --~AntanO4task (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I request admin to instruct users AKBYS and Amitie 10g that not to intervene in unethical way when a user understand Commons' policy and do the routine tasks. Thanks. --~AntanO4task (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Now, the user Amitie 10g requested for Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Yogi_Adityanath.jpg. Does the user want to recover a file that not rely on Commons policy? --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Admins seem on leave? --~AntanO4task (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any failures by AKBYS or Amitie 10g. When a full deletion discussion has been started it means that the issue shall be discussed by a broader audience which may well take up to several weeks in complicated cases. However, you added a "missing permission" template" one minute after filing the deletion request which even enforced the deletion procedure and was therefore out of process. So it was correct to remove the "missing permission" template. I could even quote Jcb who deleted this file but commented on a similar case earlier: "Next time please convert to DR instead of adding a DR and leaving the 'no permission' tag in place." [17] I. e. don't add both templates – you can either file a deletion request including a discussion or you can wait for the uploader to sort the issue by tagging the file with "missing permission/source/etc."

The undeletion request filed by Amitie 10g was also correct imo because it seems to have been done for procedural reasons and not out of bad faith. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Belarbi kada

This does not involve a dispute with another editor, so maybe this is the wrong place to post this. If it is, then my apologies in advance. Anyway, I was wondering if an admin would take a look at the contributions of User:Belarbi kada. I'm not sure what Commons' policy on this type of thing is, but on English Wikipedia this would start to be considered en:WP:NOTHERE and possibly lead to a block. For some reason, I had the page on my watchlist and saw the latest edit the account made. FWIW, I'm not advocating censorship; it just doesn't seem as if this editor has any interest in contributing constructively. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done User blocked indefinitely and vandalism/inappropriate edits deleted. Daphne Lantier 23:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:GabyGeorgescu

User's only edits have been to upload found-online copyvio images of a particular singer, only to have them deleted. Their most recent upload, File:Faydee on Media Music Awards 2016.jpg, sounds like it's the exact same copyvio image that they uploaded and had deleted in December. --McGeddon (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've given them a final warning, and will keep them on my watchlist. Daphne Lantier 18:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yahadzija

I think this User:Yahadzija should be banned, because he is constantly uploading copyrighted photos, and clearly he don't understand concept of copyright. He is already warned. Now he is re-uploading previously deleted photos. --Smooth O (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not truthǃ Yahadzija (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RavenBoy13 previously blocked resumed

RavenBoy13 (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading copyright violating images after last block expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done The next block should be indefinite. Yann (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Naturalezo

User talk:Naturalezo is adding a lot of copyright photos and claiming they are his or her own. Nearly all of the soccer photos were taken from other websites. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted all but one of the user's uploads and given him a final warning. Daphne Lantier 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hammadsaeed

Hammadsaeed has an extensive history of uploading copyrighted images, even after multiple warnings. The latest copyvio dates from 4 April 2017, while copyvio warnings and notifications have been given since February (see User talk:Hammadsaeed). --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

No admin action necessary at this point. Please discuss file issues in the DRs. Yann (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Sockpuppets of Dear Zindagi

Chennaiexpresss (talk · contribs) could be an another sockpuppets of Dear Zindagi. The user is keen to upload copyvios images that related to an Indian actor, en:Suriya. --AntanO 04:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Daphne Lantier 05:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ive lose my old login

Hi,

I was wondering to know what happened with my old login which is "Paulo Jaime Souza Pires". Ive created a wiki page for "Camille Miller" and then i have my logon deleted. Whats going on? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJTAO (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your old username is user:PJSOUZAP, which has no edits in Commons. Commons has no page Camille Miller, this exists only in pt.wiki. There's only one photo about Camille Miller, this is uploaded by you and I will nominate it for deletion, because this is not your own work. Taivo (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

4RR categorization removal on Category:Linear motors by Jochen Burghardt

There are two characteristics to linear motors: they are motors and they generate a linear force or motion, rather than rotary. This is expressed through their categorization in both Electric motors and Linear movement.

Jochen Burghardt disagrees, and has now 4RR removed the categorization as "linear". Evidently because, "A linear motor doesn't restrict motion to a straight line." I don't know why he should think that, he has given no evidence to support such a claim. Taking en:WP as a source_(sic), we have linear motor: "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length. " and en:linear motion: "Linear motion (also called rectilinear motion[1]) is a motion along a straight line".

Maybe this is another language issue? But he seems insistent on removing the category, not even replacing it. That then leaves linear motors as an undistinguished subset of electric motors, and presumably ripe for merging. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not principally against replacing the category, if an appropriate one is found. As I understand Category:Linear motion, it is a notion from theoretical physics to describe motion along a straight line. In contrast, it is well possible for a vehicle propelled by a linear motor to move e.g. in a circle (if its radius is sufficiently large, I presume). Therefore, I think Category:Linear motion shouldn't be a supercategory of Category:Linear motors. Probably, it is a good idead to ask a physicist and/or an engineer about that; I'm neither of both. - (By the way: I wonder what "4RR" is intended to mean?) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say, with my physicist’s hat on, that a linear motor is a specific type of motor that has as its defining feature the production of a linear force (as opposed to a normal motor which produces a torque or rotational force). Of course, the fact that the motor produces a linear output force does not mean that the motor itself necessarily moves in a straight line. The motor may be attached to curved rails, in which case it will travel in a curved path. Or the motor may be held stationary, with its output force being used to transport some other object across it. So I agree that Category:Linear motion shouldn't be a supercategory of Category:Linear motors. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So then how are linear motors distinct from their only supercat, electric motors? This appears to be basing "linear motors are not linear" on the basis of some exceptional possibility, not their basic attribute of linearity. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of electric motors produce a rotary force output, but a small subset (called linear motors) produce a linear force output. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a well-defined technical term for motors of the common type: they are normally just called motors or electric motors (the term torque motor is already taken, and is used for something much more specific; rotary motor would be the obvious but is not much used). A logical option would be to have two subcats of electric motors, namely linear motors and something descriptive such as motors with rotary output. Or, have a single subcat linear motors with everything else going within electric motors. Not everything needs to be held at the same level in the tree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So you're not trying to delete or merge Category:Linear motors? Then what's the way in which they are different? This is their linear nature, and our categorization should reflect that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything other than reply to the questions you posed above. I have re-read my answers and I believe them to be technically clear and responsive to your questions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

To prevent an undesired merge, it may be sufficient to add a note to each of the involved categories, summarizing the result of this discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Gurera

This user's userpage indicates shared use. Its edits this year have been adding Indian cartoonist photos to English Wikipedia articles, including en:Indian Institute of Cartoonists. It uploaded to Commons all of the photos it adds, claiming the author to be "IIC", wikilinked to its userpage on Meta, and claiming "Own work" for small images with unoriginal EXIF metadata. Therefore, it appears to be the "Promoting on Wikipedia" arm of the Indian Institute of Cartoonists.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sir, As also mentioned, let me clear in more detail, "Famous Fifteen" was the name of the cartoon exhibition of Famous Fifteen Senior Cartoonists, some of them were already no more at the time of the exhibition. IIC is one and only non profit organization of cartoonists in India which preserve and exhibit their work. This image of collective photographs of 15 cartoonists (not individually clicked) is a part of the main "poster design" by me in print of the exhibition "Famous Fifteen" during August17-31, 2013, organized by IIC ... This image can be used as the collective information of the exhibition ... Regards Gurera (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurera (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me to delete this pic

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monikanitin.jpg delete this picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by FATHAYSINGH (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Bild hochladen

Ich wollte ein von mir selbst fotografiertes Foto eines Gemäldes aus dem 19. Jh., das sich in meinem Privatbesitz befindet, von meinem PC hochladen. Es hat jedoch nicht funktioniert. Ich bekam nur folgende Meldung: "Wir konnten nicht feststellen, ob diese Datei für Wikimedia Commons geeignet ist. Bitte nur Fotos hochladen, die Du selbst mit Deiner Kamera aufgenommen hast,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunfelsia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Das hört sich so an, als ob du die automatische Prozedur zum Hochladen von Bildern irgendwo mit widersprüchlichen Informationen versorgt hast. Um das abzukürzen, kannst du es auch so machen: benutze diesen Link und trage in die "Dateibeschreibung" folgendes ein

• |Description= eine kurze Beschreibung des Gemäldes mit Angaben zu dem Maler (wichtig ist dabei, dass er vor 1947 gestorben ist).
• |Source= {{own}}
• |Date= Datum, wann das Foto gemacht wurde
• |Author= {{u|Brunfelsia}}

|Permission= und |other_versions= kannst du weglassen, aber du musst in dem Drop-down-Menü "Lizenz" unter dem Textfeld eine freie Lizenz deiner Wahl aussuchen, z. B. "Eigenes Werk, Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0". De728631 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Another obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked sockpuppeteer Sridhar1000

Hello, this user is obviously another sockpuppet of the indef blocked sockpuppeteer Sridhar1000 who was using 32 different accounts in the past, and this new one he created recently is number 33! Please block the new sock indef and close the nonsense deletion requests he opened in the last few days. Thanx.--Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Dear Zindagi

Shankadevan (talk · contribs) - It seems Sockpuppets of Dear Zindagi has arrived. --AntanO 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Daphne Lantier 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@AntanO: In the future, please make a request at COM:RFCU. I just caught six more socks which might have been missed if I hadn't happened by, and having RFCU records greatly assists documentation and recognition (I do know, and appreciate, that you did this previously with Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ambuli8022; RFCU has instructions for adding to existing pages). Эlcobbola _talk 19:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Thanks, noted. --AntanO 08:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia icon missing from Google Earth

My photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Milestone_14_at_Dyrham_and_Hinton.jpg uploaded on 24 March 2017 (together with other photos of mine) is still showing correctly in Wikimedia Commons. The link to Google Earth appears to work, opens Google Earth and goes to the correct geolocation. My problem is that the Wikimedia Commons icon on Google Earth (which appeared correctly when I uploaded the photo) is no longer visible. Some other Wikimedia icons are visible on Google Earth, just not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Hallett (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Hallett: That's not a problem with Commons, but with Google. Trying contacting them (via email I guess?). Thanks and good luck, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Austriantraveler

For the record: After this and this edit, and considering the previous warning and the block, I gave the user a final warning to stop those shenanigans. If similar behavior continues, a longer block might be in order. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User: RyanMcClelland

Good day.

I have noticed that this editor has uploaded many images claiming "own work". Clearly these logos are not. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RyanMcClelland

Is there some way to mass delete these offending edits or do they have to be hand bombed individually? Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Wikicology created mass deletion request. Taivo (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. However the editor has begun uploading the same items again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/McClellandRA

I have warned him/her about labelling these as "own work". We shall see if the warning is heeded. Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. Most obvious copyvios deleted. The rest is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by McClellandRA. Some may be PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nyttend

The current behavior of Nyttend (talk · contribs) left me no choice other than reporting him here:

• Nonsense removal/rollbacking of valid problem tags, e.g. Special:Diff/240518442, Special:Diff/240518562 (file deleted), Special:Diff/240551615, Special:Diff/240518448, Special:Diff/240518387, Special:Diff/240518572 and many more
• Threatening other users/admins: Special:Diff/240551850, Special:Diff/240570655
• Asking another admin to block a (long-term) user: Special:Diff/240501523/240570970

At first, I feared that the account may have been hacked by someone else, who now performs nonsense edits and threatens other users. But probably something else must have happened to Nyttend that the user currently behaves (at best) in a non-constructive and clearly non-admin-like way. I am unsure what to do in that case. --Leyo 22:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The diffs speak for themselves. This is indeed unbecoming for an admin. Maybe we should ask the checkusers to see if this account is compromised? Jcb (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Tagging our checkusers to see what they think: @Elcobbola: @Jameslwoodward: @Krd: @Magog the Ogre: @Trijnstel: - Jcb (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: The account is not compromised. Nyttend is fully responsible for the above mentioned edits. Jcb (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down, everyone. Threatening to block other admins is inappropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree that this is an over-reaction as the discussion is not yet finished. There some users (Jeff G., Taivo, Nyttend) expressed an opinion that Template:No source since should not be used if a file has a source mentioned even if it is not valid. Tavio suggested to technically disable the use of that template by making code in that gadget too. That template is prone to misuse and need a solution. That said I don't agree an edit-war while the discussion is going on. So I share same opinion of Magog the Ogre; just cool down. Jee 03:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment If there is no source alleged at all, tagging with {{subst:nsd}} -> {{No source since}} is perfectly acceptable, I would like to see Nyttend (talk · contribs)'s reasoning for Special:Diff/240518442. On the other hand, in probably all the other cases, a source Own work or similar was alleged; the appropriate action for each party (tagger & Nyttend) would have been to start a DR if that source was not believed, or even was alleged to be not believed. Failure to do so in all cases is a cause for concern, but then so is uncivil behavior like threatening Admins, dismissing their comments as disruptive, and using rollback on their non-vandalism edits.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank for expressing exactly what I wanted to say. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear friends. I'm on holidays ando cannot contribute here. I've noticed that I made a mistake in my message to Nyttend (the past tenses are slightly different in English and Spanish). I should have said that I was an admin for years (I resigned) but not any more. I don't think a regular user deserves less respect than an admin, so that it doesn't change anything about the unacceptable behavior reported here. I wasn't amare of the ongoing discussion on tags but it makes it even worse, as it seems as he's using his admin powers to make a point. Sorry for the typos. I'm using a mobile Phone. Besos --Discasto _talk 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Several of files I tagged were affected, so I used deletion requests instead. Whatever personal opinion about template usage could be, blind removal of them was bad idea. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that Nyttend hasen't responed yet but did find time too edit en-wiki. @Nyttend: please respond since the issues brought up are pretty serious. The moment admins start threatening experienced editors instead of talking it over you can derail a community and that alone is reason enough to worry. Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Natuur12, I am not sure Nyttend is aware of this thread. Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Will leave him a note. Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that Nyttend was unaware of this topic. Currently, the Wiki gives you a notification if somebody mentions you at another project, if they link your user page, with or without using {{Ping}}. Nyttend must have received several notifications in the past 48 hours and will have been reading this discussion already. Currently he continues to edit English Wikipedia (last edit less than an hour ago) and apparently has no plans to respond to this discussion. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, you really need to calm down. I am very familiar with how {{Ping}} works and I can tell you that it fails at times. Natuur12 already mentioned above that they would leave them a note at en:wiki. So, be patient. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I meanth a talk page note at Commons for now. But if he continues editing at en-wiki a talk page notice there seems like the next logical step. Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicology: not sure what you mean. I am perfectly calm. I just wrote down what I observed. Jcb (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have left a message at en:User_talk:Nyttend to rule out a massive but selective failure of our notification system. Jcb (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I knew that I was on the verge of getting too distressed to discuss calmly, and the easiest way to prevent that from causing problems, to prevent a nasty edit war, is to take a complete break from the matter.

{{No source since}} is for situations when the source is missing, and the relevant speedy deletion criterion (file #5) applies if The file is missing essential information, such as a license, permission, or source. We tag those with {{No license since}}, {{No permission since}}, and {{No source since}}, respectively, and these templates are not for disputing the source; that's not covered by the criterion, so you must do a DR for such a file. Anyone can make a mistake here or there, but if you're repeatedly tagging files for deletion with a reason that clearly doesn't apply, either you're clueless or you're intentionally going against policy (thus you need a warning), and either way you've made "clearly mistaken edits", to quote Commons:Rollback. Moreover, when you reject the warning and revert and threaten the admin who enforced the policy, you're clearly going against policy intentionally, and it's time for sanctions. We are all equal here (the en:WP:EQUAL essay is useful), and if you're violating policy, sanctions are at least as appropriate for you if you're an admin as they are if you're a clueness-and-persistent newbie. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As emphasized above, the discussion on Commons:Village pump/Proposals#No permission and no source tags is on-going. Hence, your claims of users repeating mistakes and violating policy are unsubstantiated. --Leyo 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I, personally, interpret 'clearly mistaken edits' to mean "it is obvious that the editor did not actually intend to make the edit you are reverting", not "I believe it is clearly wrong.". If the editor is not a vandal, and clearly meant to make the edit, then you should not use rollback. - Revent^talk 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As a further note, I actually agree that those templates should only be used when the required information is actually missing. However, it has been the practice of many editors, for a long time, to use them... loosely, I guess is how I would put it, and it's been widespread enough to make it apparent that it's a problem with the directions, not the specific editors. I think the exacerbating factor here, honestly, was your apparent decision to take a 'hard line' on the misuse of the templates... I don't think that is the best course of action. - Revent^talk 00:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Would you be willing to convert such a tag to a DR rather than just removing the tag in future cases? That is, for cases where there could be a valid reason for deletion, but you disagree with the chosen process. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. --Leyo 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's merely a matter of disagreeing with the chosen process, of course. Sorry for the delay on response; I was away from consistent Internet access for a good while, and this is the first time in several days that I've even been logged into my account on any WMF project. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then I think we can close this topic for now. Jcb (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Noting that Jcb has 'pre-agreed' on the English Wikipedia to close this discussion, if Nyttend agrees to this suggestion (diff). --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Everybody who clicks this link will notice that you are either unwilling or unable to read english. Jcb (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My English comprehension is first class, thanks for your concern for my reading skills, I am sure you did not intend to be personally insulting.

Perhaps you are reading the wrong entry, your words on the English Wikipedia were "If you could agree with this and state so in the topic, I will then propose to close the discussion as 'resolved' and everybody will be happy". This is clearly pre-agreeing a close for this discussion, and doing so off-Commons. I have no idea why you would want to do that. --Fæ (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will spell it out for you. "Propose to close" means: "I will suggest that somebody else could close" rather than "I will close". We have a wiktionary entry on 'propose' if necessary. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So long as you are not closing this AN/U thread, that's super. Shame that was not what you said on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you might consider corresponding in these situations on Commons, or even better sticking to making suggestions about closures within the AN/U thread to ensure transparency is seen to be done. Just an idea for the future. --Fæ (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that by now nobody understands what you are trying to state or what you are trying to achieve in this topic. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Info All files mentioned in my introductory statement have been deleted. --Leyo 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Yann (again)

What to do with the disruptive speedy DR closures of User:Yann? This time he speedy closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mardetanha, where the files have an obvious problem that needs to be fixed, where at least more than 2 authors are involved and where we at this moment have only heard of one of them, who did no yet disclose of which of the files they are the author. The only other involved admin, @Mhhossein: also clearly explained to the uploader that there is a problem with these files that has to be fixed. The last time Yann did such a speedy closure on one of my DRs, see the history of Deletion requests/File:Pamela Castro Tamayo.jpg this DR, Yann became so consumed with revenge feelings, that he even tried to have me desysopped over his own disruptive actions. Yann is leaving a trace of problematic files behind while excersizing his rage and apparently he tries to achieve that nobody dears to touch them. How should we deal with this? Jcb (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, stop this would you? This DR is clearly useless and disruptive. If there is any remaining issue, you can talk with the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not even about the contents of this specific DR, this is on your continuing disruptive handling of DRs, with which you have been causing damage to the reliability of our collection, for the sole purpose of bullying a colleague. Jcb (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

First @Mhhossein: is not an admin, second as I see here, you are exactly practicing same thing and showing exactly same behaviors which proves you have not learnt from your mistakes, it is really sad to see you are still admin trying to troll users who have been working very hard with no proper reason. please keep your cool and try to be team player, rather than Acting as a "lone wolf" Mardetanha ^talk 18:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Mardetanha, you are the one at fault in the first place in this DR, by first uploading the files with bogus authorship information and then refusing to fix it. But this topic is not about you, this is about the structural long term disruptive behaviour of Yann. Jcb (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann and Jcb. Everyone is pretty tired of reading serious claims like "revenge feelings", "bullying" and "long term disruptive behaviour", but never seeing anything change, even after appeals to the Bureaucrats. Probably both of you too. How about I raise a 'reconfirmation' RFA for both of you at your request (which will basically say almost nothing in the nomination), and we can let the community decide if each of you are suitable to keep sysop rights and you can lay out any evidence in the comments rather than expecting others to do this analysis for you, for free? That's fair right? --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fae, I am fine if you do it for both of us. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the slightest idea how much energy the hole discussion of the past month have cost me? No, I am not interested in such a RFA. As you can see, I did not propose in this topic that we should start a RFDA on Yann. But this behaviour must finally stop and now Yann is clearly not prepared to stop by himself, the help of the community will be needed. Jcb (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest from my experiences with you, now I understand how others have been suffered from your actions, this photos have no bogus authorship information, I am the owner and copyright holder of photos but u even didn't bother to discuss it with me at the first place. I give you every right to feel dubious about copyright status of any photos but it seems you don't want to listen what I am telling you. to show my good faith I even asked my friend who helped organizing the event to comment to help you making sure everything is just fine but instead you got more aggressive Mardetanha ^talk 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Mardetanha, welcome to the club.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb. No you both would benefit from the reconfirmation process. I strongly recommend you choose now, either put up or shut up as the community is no longer interested in investing the volunteer time of *the rest of us* in this dispute. If you want to complain properly about Yann, you both have reconfirmation RFAs and you can both layout the evidence on each others. No need to waste the valuable volunteer time of anyone else. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not interested. And I disagree with you about the possible benefits. This discussion is on the specific behaviour of Yann, with which he causes damage to the reliability of our collection. Please don't go off topic. Jcb (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged and think that I should say Yann's speedy close of the DR, amid the talks, was questionable. Although, I think discussion method works better. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A user here has made a complaint about another user. The respectful and professional thing to do would be for admins on this project to investigate the complaint and judge if it has merit in full or part, and decide whether a rebuke or correction is required. And of course, such complaints may boomerang. There would be far, far less drama on this project if admins did that sort of thing, and demonstrated an intelligent approach to difficult problems, rather than disruptive "reconfirmation RFAs", or sweep-under-the-carpet suggestions of interaction bans (which I see in a section on other users further up). Both are cop-outs from spending the time to do a job properly and disrespectful. I would appreciate if Fae gave his opinion in the singular rather than claiming to voice any community viewpoint. If he has no interest in solving difficult problems, the unwatch button is available. -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment -To be honest, Yann's speedy closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mardetanha was not constructive considering the fact that the issue has not been resolved prior to the closure. That being said, Jcb should have discuss with Mardetanha before nominating those files for deletion but Mardetanha should know better than uploading images taken by others as "Own work". Yann why did you speedy closed the discussion and why did you think the nomination was disruptive? Wikicology (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology thanks for your analysis. The chronology appears to be that User:Mhhossein engaged in polite conversation on User:Mardetanha's talk page and was told rudely "you have no clue about what your are talking". To me that suggests the discussion should be opened up to a wider audience which is exactly what a DR is about, so Jcb opening a DR seems reasonable. The "Own Work" declaration on some photos seems dishonest at worst and naive at best. When the actual photographer joined the conversation at Commons, and was asked nicely to update the "author" field appropriately, Mardetanha viewed this as "useless extra work". What has Commons come to when getting the "author" right in a work of copyright is "useless extra work"? Martdetanha continues to assert "I am the owner and full copyright holder of all photos and everything is just fine the way it is". If some of the photos were actually taken by someone else who excercised some free choice over subjects, composition, etc, then this does not appear to be the case. We have, at the very best, some disagreement about copyright law that deserves community discussion and citation of policy/guideline and scholarly legal advice. A speedy closure claiming "Disruptive DR" seems to be a very bad admin decision, and Mardetanha's rude and abusive behaviour should receive some admin warning IMO. Yann, why do you claim "no valid reason" when we have an admission that the uploader has wrongly asserted "own work" and is not in fact the copyright owner. They lent the camera to someone else, who I assume from "both of us were shooting this photos alternatively", means that that person had full control over what they shot and when. A DR is not the same thing as "deletion". It is an opportunity for community review. I think in this case Jcb has a point, and Yann should explain to the community why he closed the DR like he did, and Mardetanha also has some need to educate themselves on law. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with both Wikicology and Colin here. The speedy closure was wrong, as there are legitimate issues with the attribution of the images, and no valid policy rationale for speedily closing a DR as keep unless it is withdrawn. At the same time, Jcb needs to avoid attributing motives such as 'revenge' to other editors, as such language does not lead to a productive discussion.... it's important to discuss what other editors actually did, instead of your perception of their motives, if we are going to have a useful discussion. - Revent^talk 02:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As per Wikicology, Colin and Revent. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Let me explain my viewpoint as one who had tried hard to solve this issue. I know they are non native English speakers; but the first comment by Mhhossein at User_talk:Mardetanha#Please_modify_the_info_or_remove_the_pics, "There are many balatant violations of copyrights wonderfully uploaded by you" is hardly a friendly one for me. Immediately after Mardetanha replied "It was may camera and asked someone to take photos of the edit-a-thon, I assume you have no clue about what your are talking" Jcb started that DR. It is no way fair to start a DR in the midst of a discussion; that why I commented "Jcb, there is no need to swiftly create a deletion request in the midst of a discussion as it can be easily resolved there."

Later Mardetanha brought another user who stated that he took many photos in that list. I asked him to mark them; but he didn't respond so far. But it is almost clear that he has no complaints on the way how Mardetanha uploaded those files including those attributions. Now we need to understand that our file page has only one field "author" for "author", "copyright holder" and "attribution". Even though it was not Mardetanha who took those photos, it is up to Darafsh (if author) to decide what attribution he prefers. If he has no complaints, we have nothing more to do.

I'm no way happy with that DR opened. I see no chances for those files get deleted as Mardetanha can bring N number of photographers from that user group who may take photos randomly. We can't demand every photographer need to be correctly identified as it is practically not possible.

I'm not happy with the way Mardetanha commented as some of his comments are rude, but it is the result of the rather rude way we handled it. (initial comment "balatant violations of copyrights wonderfully uploaded by you", swiftly created DR, etc.). It was we who "killed" the possibility of a friendly discussion. This is a multi-lingual - multi-cultural project; we should be more careful in handling disputes. We should predict the possibility of the difficulty of understanding when language is a barrier. Jee 03:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jee you are right that the opening statement on the user page is not as friendly as I had suggested above. Perhaps there is some previous dispute that causes all these parties to begin in an unfriendly manner. It does seem that we have users involved who have strong views about copyright/policy that are not shared by others, and that the community have not established firm guidance on. Yann helpfully pointed me at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Bystander selfie. My understanding (which may be wrong) from this situation is that a camera was shared between two users. Each user had full control over the images they took and thus are sole-author of such images. This is not a "bystander selfie" argument, but merely a shared camera. Thus it is wrong to claim that one user has full copyright over all the images from the event, and clearly so for the ones in which they feature as a subject. The argument "I provided the camera and sincerely asked one of our admin to photograph the session, We our self paid for the edit-a-thon and fully hold copyright of everything" is wrong and I don't think any admin here would support that rationale. That the real photographer is currently unconcerned to assert a claim to the images is not really a valid argument. User:Mardetanha, I note you uploaded these with "CC BY-SA 4.0" licence. You do realise this enforces a legal obligation on any re-user to correctly attribute the photographs. You are therefore imposing more obligation on re-users than you can be bothered to do yourself, and making life difficult for them legally. It would be less hypocritical of you if you had used CC0. Jee, I disagree with you that creating a DR in the middle of the discussion is rude. When a few people strongly disagree, to the point of being rude and insulting, the solution is to open this up for wider community discussion. A DR is just a discussion.

IMO it seems Jcb and Yann have diametrically opposing views about the copyright of "bystander selfie" and similar images, and this will lead to continued conflict where one overrules the other. I suggest therefore that both of them avoid closing the other's DRs, or similar admin actions, when the deletion rationale involves this argument. A DR is a proper place for community discussion of copyright issues where there are copyright concerns that are not obvious in policy. Yann's bystander selfie proposed policy was not accepted by the community, so the issue must continue to be discussed at DR on a case-by-case basis. -- Colin (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I agree that there is a difference in opinion among our admins/patrollers on how to handle photographs when the author is a subject too. Some people question every such photographs without even give allowance for the possibility of selfies too. Bystander selfies is the next case, which is still in a discussion. Here, the uploader agreed that these photos are generated by random people from a closed group. They have monthly Edit-a-thons and it may be difficult to identify the photographers for each photos as a single camera (probably in auto mode) is used and photographers are chosen randomly. This is an area where theoretical copyright law has not much relevance. Another issue here is, the main concern for me, is how we handle Wikimedia movements. I'm not happy if this DR made even a slightest harm to the enthusiasm of "Iranian Wikimedians User Group". It was the same harm this DR had made in the midst of a Wikimedia blog. This doesn't mean I support Mardetanha on his lack of knowledge in copyright matters. He needs to cooperate on improving the attribution and try hard to identify the photographers as much as possible. But this should be through a friendly discussion, not this way. Jee 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin, my opinion about bystander selfies are backed up by legal arguments and by a complete and detailed analysis by Carl L., who is much more knowledgeable than Jcb or me. On the opposite, Jcb has no legal argument whatsoever. And here the issue is not exactly that. Mardetanha is a long term trusted user, and I believe that treating people like Jcb did here is wrong and abusive. That is the reason for my closure, and I stand by it. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yann I read the long discussion on the bystander selfie proposal. Carl is not the only user who provided legal argument, and IMO, was rather focused on US law and not willing to give an inch wrt User:Revent's arguments. I think there are scenarios where "joint authorship" is a likely outcome, and this may in the US allow users to licence such works with a CC licence. But there are also scenarios where the camera-holder is likely the sole author and copyright owner, and has given an implicit licence to the subject to use the image how they like, which does not extend to releasing it under a CC licence. In the case above, it appears the camera was given to the actual photographer for them to document the event how they wish and over a period of time. I see absolutely no legal argument that suggests Mardetanha has any right to licence such images under CC BY SA. Your proposal failed for precicely this sort of reason. Mardetanha may well be a "long term trusted user", but they are also wrong. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin: See Jee's answer above, which has expressed my opinion much better than myself. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jee Copyright law is what it is. It is sad that this limits what we are permitted to upload to Commons vs the "getting away with it" freedom on e.g. Flickr. I'm afraid that trying to support an Iranian Wikimedia User Group is not really a valid rationale to disregard the legal issue. Surely you agree with me that placing a CC BY SA licence on an image where you either can't remember who took the photo or can't be bothered to fix the attribution, is absolutely unacceptable from an admin and established user here. There are lots of photos we delete where "the law is an ass" and where the uploader is discouraged. I don't think admins should be permitted any special graces in this regard. Anyway, the point that there are various disagreeing viewpoints here, just justifies that a DR is the appropriate way to discuss this, and the speedy closure demonstrates Yann's inability to accept that he has so far failed to establish community consensus for his strongly held opinion. That, to me, is a red-flag that suggests Yann should abstain from using his admin power to overrule. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin: You make a lot of bad assumptions here, and any collection of bad idea doesn't make a good one. I suggest you stop doing anything like this. Yann (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright holders need to be attributed unless they want to stay anonymous. This is particularly true for the family of CC-BY licenses. And copyright holders have to consent to a publication of their work under a free license. If the uploader is not the copyright holder, we need to process this through OTRS. These are all well-known rules and there are no exceptions. (And I do not think that any proposed bystander selfie rule applies here as this is not a single shot but a series of photographs where full creative freedom was taken by photographer.) It is quite natural to voice concerns in this direction as it happened here. And if this does not work out, anyone is free to open a deletion request as it happened here. We might wonder if this affair could have been avoided by operating more tactfully, i.e. by not threatening with removal right away, or by calling the other side as clueless. In my opinion, the speedy closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mardetanha was not justified as the issue was not yet resolved. It might have been better to resolve this at the talk page or to split this DR in more managable groups as the filed photos were apparently taken at different events. But this does not appear to me a valid ground for a speedy closure with the claim “no valid reason for deletion”. I would suggest to reopen the deletion request or to file it anew with one deletion request per event. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

AFBorchert, see a photographer's comment here. Only he can demand for a different attribution for works he photographed. He didn't so far even though I asked. OTRS is good; but not a must. A comment as he did is enough. Jee 12:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I was not aware of that. Still, the attributions need to be fixed. All this is no big issue if it would right away fixed instead of turning this into a mess. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment --- Yann are you simply trying to impose/enforce your failed proposal here? AFAIK, your proposal failed and there is no such policy/guideline as Bystander selfie on Common. Mardetanha being a long term trusted user does not mean they can't be wrong. In fact, they are wrong in this case. Trying to justify your action with pointless argument is unacceptable and egregiously poor judgment is incompatible with the status of administrator. Regardless of your intention, your speedy closure of that discussion is inappropriate and of course, inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Since Mardetanha has refused to fix these problems, may I suggests that that discussion be re-opened? Wikicology (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology: No. Please see my answer above, and the much better written message by Jee. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did not see where Jee (whom I so much respect) said your closure was appropriate even though they were not happy that the DR was created in the first place. Your failure to admit your mistakes is worrisome. Wikicology (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Almost every body believe that the attribution had to be done correctly. Yann: As you see above Jee said:" He needs to cooperate on improving the attribution and try hard to identify the photographers as much as possible."

To be honest, as the photos belong to various times and places and they are done by random people, it's very hard to determine the true authors and make proper attributions. However, after this rather long discussion, I see no plan for handling these violations. May be we should see if Mardetanha has any solutions for the case. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the photographer(s) need to be attributed as best as possible. But, again, this DR is the wrong way to request what potentially need to be changed. A DR is for checking potential copyright issues, and I don't see any here. Seeing the context of Wikimedia User Group meeting, there isn't any doubt that the photographer(s) have agreed to release them under a free license. That is the whole point. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is AN/U not DR. Arguments such as this should be made at DR. Yann, you should re-open the DR and premit a community decision. It is not your job as admin to impose your own personal viewpoint. And regardless of "the whole point" feelings about the purpose of a Wikimedia User Group meeting, we have these images with a CC BY SA licence and that to me is utterly unacceptable. The "BY" aspect absolutely must be removed if folk cannot be bothered to get the attribution right. Can you concede this point at least? -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I'm commenting here instead of replying under each section. I agree with all that "photographers need to be identified and attributed as much as possible". It may be very difficult considering the possibility of 30+ users in that group. Another possibility is to attribute to that usergroup and making an OTRS permission from the mentioned email. The contact person is the uploader himself; so again, not a possibility for a chance that we need to delete these files. I  Oppose re-opening the DR. There are 32 people and a DR is not going to notify all those people. We need to give them some time so that each person can check which photo they had taken. I'm going to post on that usergroup talk page. Jee 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jee 13:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already asked Darafsh Kaviyani to correct the attribution, he is busy with university exam atm, he will fix them later Mardetanha ^talk 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :@Jkadavoor: I should say that your proposal fails to solve anything here as you are holding the false assumption that all the works are done by the mentioned user group. Mardetanha had thought the he would own the photo by asking random people to take the photos and we can't assume that all those people were part of that community. Most probable scenario is that some, if not most, of the photos will be left unselected and deserve deletion. So, I propose both opening the DR and making notifications on the usergroup talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein: You make 2 bad assumptions: 1. all evidences show that these people are part of the group, and 2. they do not want to release the pictures under a free license. And 2 bad ideas do not make a good one. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yann, you yourself are making assumptions and refusing to listen. Yes, we do not know all the details, and we need to. What a mess, by people who do know better, but are refusing to budge. The major point is we have good reason to suppose the author information is inaccurate and the copyright holder very much not who is claimed. They had no copyrightable role in the taking of (some of) these photos. They are released under a licence that demands these specifics are correct. This is basic policy, Yann, which you well know. A DR seems perfectly reasonable place to sort out this mess, rather than AN/U or a talk page where people are throwing insults and refusing to communicate like grown ups. The consensus here is you made a mistake closing the DR and it should be re-opened. Jee's concern about notifying people is easily solved by ... notifying people. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin you saying so and keep repeating your self, copyright is very well clear here, at best attribution should be fixed which I asked my friend to help when he has time, DR is not place to solve this, I orgenize the event, I control the time, I control the place, I control the pose,I control the camera setting, I hold all files (photographer/button pusher has none), he just pushed the button, I don't understand why such simple issue is not understood. Copyright of everything is fully mine and I am liberty to release it under what ever licences I see appropriate, But yet again, I asked second person who helped me to fix the attribution when he has time Mardetanha ^talk 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mardetanha, you might have set up the scene to be photographed and probably the angle/position of the camera and direct someone to press the shutter but I am struggling to believe this actually happened considering the inconsistency in your comments here. Anyone can say "I engineered the shot" but we hardly have evidence(s) to support claim like this. Wikicology (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mardetanha let's be quite clear here. The "Copyright of everything is fully mine" is completely false unless you took all the photos at your own leisure, or hired the photographer with a written "work-for-hire" contract. You have admitted lending the camera to another person (persons?) to "take photos of the edit-a-thon". You are not telling the full truth. Your current assertion that the photographer was merely a "button pusher" is not really credible. Did you stand next to them framing every shot, looking at the viewfinder, adjusting the camera, telling them exactly when to press the button? Even the ones where you are apparently in the shot? Or did you leave them to "take photos of the edit-a-thon"? Which version is the truth? The fact you hold all the files, organised the event, arranged the venue, owned the camera, is all completely irrelevant. I look at the contribs you have made to these discussions and I find them both abusive of your colleagues and not honest. I expect more from an admin. If the photographer was left to "photograph the edit-a-thon" then they are the full copyright owner, and not just "attribution" needs to be sorted out. -- Colin (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin, You forgot to assume good faith, I am sad to see you are accusing me of lying. Truth has one version, and I just told you above Mardetanha ^talk 18:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

AGF is just that, an initial assumption. Once your story changed with every edit, you rather lost that right. I'm unwatching this discussion now. I have no wish to argue with people who are not fully honest. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a strong policy/guideline on when to start a deletion request. But the available one strongly advise to discuss with the uploader for less serious issues like "a lack of information" as in this case. The uploader already offered to look into this. What more we required now? Jee 17:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jee, the problem isn't lack of information, but wilfully incorrect information. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jkadavoor, You have been very helpful, I am hopeful to see more users like in commons Mardetanha ^talk 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Please consider that we, and probably Mardetanha himself, have no clear idea of who did which photo. Darafsh and the other members of his community have done some of them, but not all of them. How do you expect to find the authors? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein: 1. I can't comment on who took those photos. I don't know whether you too from that same community or have any clue on what had happened. But unless stated otherwise, I expect most of those photos were taken by members of that user group. After the marking of them over, we can make a deletion requests for the remaining ones. 2. I'm well aware of the situation when photos are taken by random friends. That's why I commented in Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Bystander_selfie: "Some people commented that why not use OTRS in such cases. See how this discussion became active again. Most of these photos are from Wikimedians who are non-notable people who are not using a verifiable email address. If we ask their friends to send a permission mail to OTRS, we will get another unverifiable mail. It can be even from that subject claiming their friend, who knows. Another way we can offer is to suggest that subject to ask his friend to create a Wikimedia account and upload themselves. Again we get another unverifiable account. It can be even a sock claiming his friend. We can overcome the "legal issues" these ways; making our system less reliable. IMHO, the permission coming from the subject claiming copyright is more reliable than these two options. Jee 03:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)" That's why I see not much use in finding every photographer here. They will provide some names; and we have to satisfy with it. Jee 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: All the problems stem from the point that you are holding a false assumption and "expect most of those photos were taken by members of that user group." As we saw fluctuations in Mardetanha's comments and as he has only tried to resolve one of the problems among many others by asking Darafsh (who could be the author of only some of the pics) we need to be cautious. In response to such a behavior on his part, we don't have to keep dubious files and "satisfy" with the names they provide. I'll re-open the DR after a few days, if no sensible improvement is seen. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: I think we are all at the point where an interaction ban between Yann and Jcb is required, not only for their sake, but for the sake of our sanity. I hereby propose a two-way interaction ban between Yann and Jcb. This does not include normal admin actions in which they would naturally intersect. If someone else wants to come up with a more detailed proposal, be my guest. Many users (including myself) are sick and tired of the Jcb vs. Yann on the various AN noticeboards. I have no issues with either of these admins. I am just tired of the rehash by Jcb and Yann. Enough is enough. TJH2018talk 21:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TJH2018, this thread is not about Jcb's conduct but about inappropriate closure of a legitimate DR by Yann and I don't see it as Jcb vs Yann dispute. Wikicology (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to interaction bans for precisely this reason. "sick and tired" is not a reason to ban any user from contributing on Commons or any admin from performing their role. And I also remind TJH2018 that they speak only for themselves and should always frame their personal opinions as such. There is a consensus here that Yann was improper in closing this DR. This seems related to Yann's strong opinions about "bystander selfie" photos (not that this is one, it appears), and not particularly wrt Jcb, though that is possible. It happens that Jcb has strong opinions in the opposite regard, but he is far from alone in that. It seems to me that Yann has not listened to the community when his "bystander selfie" proposal failed with significant opposition. It therefore seems more appropriate that he be cautioned not to execise his admin authoritiy to enforce his opinion on that topic, and to continue to permit community discussion of the mattter at DR. He is welcome to submit a better-worded proposal for community review, but until such time, DR is the place to discuss concerns about authorship/copyright ownership/licensing, not AN/U. Mardetanha additionally does not come out of this well at all. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mardetanha and their woeful lack of comprehension regarding copyright is the root cause of this mess, however it would have been better if Jcb had acted in a friendly, collegial manner and helped Mardetanha fix the authorship/attribution issues, and it would have been better if Yann hadn't gone charging at Jcb for opening up the DR. Every party comes out of this badly, so I think moving forward, Mardetanha needs to learn about copyright, Jcb needs to start being more collegial, helping his fellow Commons contributors, and Yann needs to stop taking an opposing position to Jcb quite as often. Nick (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. Jee 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, seeing the number of DRs were Jcb and I are involved, I don't think any interaction ban is possible. It would mean that either Jcb or I stops doing any admin work. However due to Jcb's refusal to discuss some issues with reasonable arguments, I try to avoid some DRs. Not very practical in the long term... Regards, Yann (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Could we agree that we at least don't speedy keep-close each others DRs and if we keep-close each others DRs after 7 days that we always write a clear explanation for the decision? Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes - the first part of this is to be encouraged, I would suggest it would be a very good idea that you avoid speedily closing each other's DRs, and would go one step further, you should both be thinking "Should I be opening this DR and will any other administrator want to speedily close this DR" when drafting one. DRs are for managing the deletion process of one or more files, issues such as copyright, attribution, FoP, URAA, author death/pma queries, particularly where the uploader is a trusted member of our community, should first be dealt with through discussion with the uploader. If issues are identified which necessitate deletion, I would expect trusted members of our community to self nominate their own uploads for deletion - either speedy deletion or through DR depending on the issue and what presents the best approach. The second point - any DRs you keep close should have a detailed rationale, you're not doing the close just for the benefit of the other administrator, but also the uploader and other members of the community who may have read, watched or taken part in the deletion discussion. Nick (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your second part, but in the scope of trying to come to a workable situation with Yann I didn't want to go that far. In the past months Yann has keep-closed dozens of my DRs with the standard 'No valid reason for deletion' rationale, without telling why I would be wrong in my nomination reason. It would be helpful if that at least would no longer happen. As for my own keep-closures (and delete-closures if needed) I try to provide good closure statements. If a nominator or anyone else has still questions, they are always welcome at my user talk page. Jcb (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Yann did not respond at all to this message is worrying. Apparently they have no plans to fix their behaviour. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the third AN/U topic in a few months on inappropriate speedy DR closures by Yann and again he does not admit that he did anything wrong here. What are we going to do to prevent this behaviour from continuing unchanged? Jcb (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from Yann unfortunately. Jcb (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless you supply evidence for your opening allegations against Yann of "rage", and that their actions are "for the sole purpose of bullying a colleague", you should drop the stick and never pick it up again. In my view allegations of bullying should be taken extremely seriously, but serious claims require serious evidence. Multiple repeated allegations like this, which are made in public but never have any evidence and can be safely considered to be false allegations, should be considered disruptive and treated accordingly, not rewarded with the subject of the allegations being picked to death by the peanut gallery. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fæ: Please note that Yann's speedy closure of the DR in question was objected by most of the users here, if not all of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, however asking for admin action because of rage and bullying is a far more serious allegation than the technical rights and wrongs of closing a DR early. So far, no evidence has been presented. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You want to see some of the evidence once again? No problem. Just a few examples: Yann trying to get me desysopped in an attempt to enforce his own inappropriate closure of a DR, see here. Yann using rollback to remove the notification of a DR from the user talkpage of the uploader, see e.g. here, I cannot think of any other reason to do that than to just show aggression. Yann using rollback when I post a message at his user talk page, see here. Yann trying to involve a colleague in a wheelwar when he disagrees with a deletion rather than to go to COM:UDR or to my talk page, see here. Jcb (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yann's request with regard to your potential desysop was civil, I read nothing bullying about that, simply holding you to account for your actions, in the way that you would like to hold Yann to account for theirs. As for the rest, there is nothing there that creates a hostile environment or would be called bullying or harassment. Reverts may be ill advised or pointy, but unless the edit comments were threats, there is nothing there that you could not have discussed yourself, without eating up the volunteer time of anyone else. Behave like an administrator, as officially required by the community "understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends", and strike out your false and disruptive allegations about "rage" and "bullying" or make the choice to hand back the mop if you are incapable of recognizing when you have dug a hole so deep you cannot climb out of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)