Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 81

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

Petebutt

Mass removals of different Glider types from Category:Gliders without replacement, especially on 5 October 2019 and 13 October 2019.
Example: Schleicher K 8. Info: Category:Schleicher aircraft contains not only gliders.--- (Attn/Info: Themightyquill.) Uli Elch (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The linked example was an appropriate edit. Schleicher K 8 should not be in the Category:Gliders because this category is meant to be a parent category and only contain subcategories. One of it's subcategories is Category:Glider manufacturers‎ which Category:Schleicher aircraft is in. At worst, you could call this type of edit controversial but not blockable by any extent. ~riley (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism as this is not a case of Vandalism and more appropriate for AN/U. ~riley (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Just another personal attack from the Mighty Quill. I do all my edits in good faith ( controversial or not). i can say no more than, an investigation into the mighty quills dogged pursuit of my activity might be in order!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm seem to be a little late to this discussion. Where did I personally attack you? I've never suggested your past edits weren't in good faith - in fact, I'm sure they are - but they were also disruptive and uncooperative. Hopefully that's no longer the case. I don't see the problem with the linked edit above either. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
[1] Unfortunately, this particular edit indicates that you are continuing your old patterns. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Petebutt (talk · contribs) has also returned to making edits such as this, in which categories which have been sorted into sub-categories have been copied back to the parent category, creating a clear COM:OVERCAT violation. This user conducted an en masse edit such as this across several aircraft manufacturers in 2018 (same page edited in 2018), and was notified [2] of the problem with their edits last November by Apalsola (talk · contribs). Much of the damage has been repaired since the original mass moves, but since last month, Petebutt (talk · contribs) has taken to undoing those repairs. While I presume that they are doing this in good faith, at the same time, they do not appear to acknowledge the COM:OVERCAT violations they are causing and have not ceased creating these violations which take time and effort to clean up. (This is my first time in over a decade of Wiki contributions that I have felt compelled to comment on another user in this forum) Josh (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Another block seems to be in order, but I'm not so experienced with these things. What's the logical progression? The user has been blocked 6 times, growing progressively from 2 hours to 6 months without any change in editting pattern. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible block/lock evasion

Possible block evasion of Skh sourav halder. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  Yes, blocked indef. I think, Glock request should be made on m:SRG. kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 14:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

10 spam user pages

10 spam accounts, creating spam user pages that needs deleting.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

All deleted now. A number among them is already blocked, few even globally. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinasCamorucoADOA

Escape block of Ángel D. Olivares (talk · contribs), same deleted images reuploaded on es:Anexo:Alcalde del Muncipio José Tadeo Monagas. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done I've blocked them indefinitely because everything they uploaded was a copyvio. The sockpuppet accusation can be further looked into to see if the Ángel D. Olivares block needs to be modified/extended. --Majora (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ankit8968Soni

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nous même

Continues out of scope uploads out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him for a month (second block). Thank you for nominating all his remaining uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Simon waziri msika

Everything is copyvio. Already blocked. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

JHsssss

Copyvios despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Block for User:Filmybhadaas

Copyright violation after last warning. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked for a week. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Joemohney

Continues out of scope uploads despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

IP troll trying to import en.wp issues to commons

See recent history of my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. They might be blocked on en-wiki, and which is why they are probably posting messages on your Commons talk page. I agree that en-wiki issues should stay there, Commons is not going to bear the burdens of other projects. A semi-protection of your talk page would do just fine. Masum Reza📞 21:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Both are CU-blocked on en.wp. I'm not a CU there to know who it is though. I semi'ed your user-talk. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked both for one day as other talk pages have been used as well. We can move to longer blocks if necessary. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been an admin over at en so long I can't possibly keep track of every troll I've had to block, but this user seems to be implying themselves that they are User:Simulation12, who is globally locked. I vaguely remember that name from like a decade ago but don't recall what my involvement might have been. Thanks for the semi. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

File replacement failed

File: Классификация государственного долга Российской империи по уставу Государственной комиссии погашения долгов в 1817 г

The new version of the file has been nominally downloaded, but the old version is still displayed. Please fix this issue. Ailbeve (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ailbeve: Empty your browser cache. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done, I forgot that once. Ailbeve (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Olena Pianykh

Continues copyvios despite warnings. Reuploads today the same set of pictures already on deletion but with taking care to remove the photographer's name from EXIF. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Varaine

It would seem, all of their 7000+ uploads are actually copyvios.

They are all cropped, resized and flipped and fake meta data added to avoid detecting their true source.

Other funny finds

I would guess this user is the most successful copyvio uploader of all time?

I propose indef block of user, and deleting all their uploads.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

{{Vd}} all. Much of it is mangled and thus out of scope, the rest can't be trusted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I wonder now if the early work may actually be genuine. What is the earliest example of a dodgy upload we have? I haven't found anything for 2016 yet. (still looking) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
2016: take a look at File:Monastère de Solan IGP Cévennes rosé.jpg. Now look at File:AOC costières-de-nîmes Domaine de Donadille rosé.jpg. Dat label.. is.. is photoshopped.. onto.. the bottle?!? WHY? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Le Merlet Fabienne Magnet.jpg (20 September 2016, Canon PowerShot SX110 IS) is a badly butchered version of https://bistrotscama.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/le_merlet_soyans_2_3.jpg. (see https://imgur.com/a/J1Hq5WI, no doubt) Horrific. They do have some Flickr uploads, so we probably shouldn't delete everything. But this will be a lot of work.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
File:AOC Jongieux rouge et blanc.jpg I don't even.. are they blind? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
What kind of upscaled garbage is this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Make it stop please - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
They probably think that they photos they have edited, are their own work. Masum Reza📞 09:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Imo this wouldn't explain the overwriting of the EXIF. This looks rather like a grand scheme of purposely faked files – the motivation can only be speculated about. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can a French speaker notify French Wikipedia? User has 8000+ edits there, many of which are adding these stolen images. Deleting single images is not helpful, as non-admins cannot view deleted files. We need more input from others to authorize the deletion of such a large amount of files. Pinging selected users who have detected problems with this users uploads before for their view. @Elisfkc: , @Ww2censor: , @Ies: , @Droit de retrait 03: , @Patrick Rogel: , @Titlutin: , @Herbythyme: .--BevinKacon (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I left a message in English at w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/23 septembre 2019, someone will probably translate it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that French Wikipedia's ANI? Masum Reza📞 19:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it's their village pump. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I also left a message on COM:BISTRO. --Thibaut (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. There are also:
Kind regards, Jules78120 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Varaine is a sockpuppet ([9][10]) of JPS68, same interest for wine and
produits du terroir
, same overexposed and overprocessed pictures, both sign "Cdlt" (Cordially) on frwiki, same cameras in the EXIF data than JPS68's or Marianne Casamance's uploads (his partner), the three accounts contribute to the same articles... See also this timeline.
I remember JPS68 uploaded this picture where he claims it's "IGP coteaux de miramont" wine but there's absolutely no information on Flickr. Someone on frwiki asked for an explanation, but didn't get any reply. --Thibaut (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Update: 14:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the more I found copyvio. Some of the earliest files from 2016 may be kept but we should delete all the others. Going back, this file from 2018 File:Salérans vue générale.jpg is a copyvio of this file on this website (2010). Meanwhile, there is some rare exception that should be kept: this file File:Eugène Martel Portrait de Jean Giono en 1937.jpg (imported in 2018) is legit and indeed in public domain. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hexasoft (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Does the uploader own http://wines-world.over-blog.com ? File:Tastevin taillé dans du buis origine Auvergne.jpg, File:Hameau de Tastevin (Ardèche), Malarce-sur-la-Thines (ex-Thines), à la mémoire des six maquisards du camp de la Fournache à Rochebrune (Drôme), morts le 4 août 1943.jpg, File:Tastevins de la confrérie de Loupiac.jpg and File:Soupe des vendanges au vin et aux légumes.jpg come from there and they look strangely familiar..
File:Blason de Vesc dans église paroissiale.jpg, File:Château de Comps Étienne de Vesc, portait tiré des statuts de l'ordre de Saint-Michel BNF Fr14363-f3r.jpg and File:Lourmarin (Vieille tour).jpg don't fit well in any of the new categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work, Alex. I appreciate that you used your precious time to categorize all those files. Masum Reza📞 09:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: obviously, I can't give personal detail but yes, I *know* and I can assure it is very likely (let's say 95 % sure) that Varaine own (or at least works on) http://wines-world.over-blog.com (you can contact me by mail in private for more information). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
In "Public domain" category, this picture of Ali Yata looks like a crop+flip of the picture on the wall on this page. Moreover Ali Yata was born in 1920 and the description states "1940s": I doubt that he was 20-30 years old on this picture… Hexasoft (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Thanks, I think that's all I really needed to know. I nominated the files for deletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of the own work pictures are of such poor quality, that they could be deleted without causing a noticeable loss. Marc Mongenet (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Most pictures claimed as own work have no global usage at all (according to Global Usage Badges) - all those could be deleted without loss for sister projects... --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I might be paranoid, but this just came in by a brand new account. From wine to water? De728631 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: I have my doubts, these words seem to be German. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm finally done cleaning up Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr. Overwritten a load of upscaled/oversaturated garbage with the originals, fixed some license tags, re-cropped some files. Everything else was re-reviewed by the bot. Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr with issues can be deleted after the four dupes in it have been processed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
What are we going to do about this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/10 octobre 2019#Varaine's copyvios deletion vote - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

More accounts

Thibaut is correct above, JPS68 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is the same user, as the uploads show the same fake meta data being added. They have 11,000+ uploads, I'm sure User:Alexis Jazz will be happy to review all of them!

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Vote! Delete Varaine's files claimed as own work

Proposal: delete Category:Files uploaded by Varaine claimed as own work and everything in it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marianne Casamance: But how could we figure out which photos are truly his own work? We can't ask Varaine for obvious reasons. I don't think we can ask you, because you have suggested on frwiki that JPS68 and Varaine are different people. So who could we ask? @Jules78120 and Thibaut120094: ? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting for the record that there is at minimum a conflict of interest issue here with additional concern in relation to Marianne Casamance discussed on fr wiki. ~riley (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Account created by JPS68 to upload copyvios and not get caught. I don't really care what happens with these images. --Thibaut (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support delete all, and global ban the contributor – et faux-nez– from all the wikiMPedia projects. Contributeur qui n'a jamais respecté les règles et a fait perdre beaucoup de temps à la communauté.--Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Though I don't mind deleting all, we could consider as a first step keeping and further examining pictures with metadata corresponding to a Canon PowerShot SX110 or from Flickr and deleting those without metadata or other metadata and not from Flickr. — Racconish 💬 11:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing decision: This proposal has been open longer than the minimum DR duration and with no additional comment in 4 days, I do not foresee much more consensus coming out of this. Between the comments immediately above and also in the section above by BevinKacon, Marc Mongenet and Hsarrazin, I believe this is as much input as we'll get from the community (even after BevinKevin tried to get more input by other users). Closing this specific proposal as   Delete files in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine claimed as own work,   Manually review files in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr and   Manually review files in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine in the public domain. My rationale is not in the best interest of the project to have volunteers one by one review nearly 8,000 files of varying degrees of dubious work and quality, however, the latter categories that are of lesser quantity, higher use (read: currently in use) and higher likelihood of legitimacy need it. ~riley (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: I had already reviewed Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr but forgot to update the category description. (which I have done now) The files in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine in the public domain require another approach. These would be better sorted by someone who understands French and French culture better. As for an approach.. Well, it's gonna hurt either way, mainly because many files are photoshopped garbage. There's no satisfaction in saving that. But here goes:
  • I'm willing to give a hand reviewing those files claimed as PD. My understanding is we need to check the PD claim is justified and possibly overwrite with a better version. But then what ? How to update the category ? Would it work to rename the category in something like PD claims to be checked and remove files from the category as they are checked, one way or another? — Racconish 💬 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter that they are claimed as public domain, as the uploader is untrustworthy, all need to be either deleted or manually reviewed by human.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Vote! Delete JPS68's files claimed as own work

Proposal: delete Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 claimed as own work and everything in it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: The problem is that we can't actually detect copyvios reliably. We can probably confirm some as own work (like those taken at Wikimedia events, I guess), some can be confirmed as copyvio (but this is extremely labor-intensive and I'm not doing it), but what about the rest? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  Comment @Thibaut120094: Inexact. JPS68 n'est plus depuis plusieurs années un contributeur de confiance ("truster user") sur la wikipédia francophone ; de nombreux textes copyvios publiés par JPS68 ont été détectés, et JPS68 est désormais banni de la wikipédia francophone. --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
was
Tout n’est pas à jeter dans ses photos. —Thibaut (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thibaut as-tu des exemples ? Et surtout, est-ce que l'on pourrait facilement distiguer ce qui est à garder de ce qui est à jetter (selon un critère dans les EXIFs par exemple). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @~riley: thanks for stepping up to get this resolved. There's been no activity here in 5 days, and any opposers are mostly "please save the non-copyvios if possible", yet no way has been found.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Making the cut for JPS68's "own work"

Per Racconish suggestion I created Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 taken with Canon PowerShot SX110 IS, if that helps. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Do you have the tools to analyze cases where EXIF data was copypasted/inserted? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
To reveal how to do this, even if possible, would help the abuser again in future.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No need to reveal anything, Fæ can probably check this and categorize suspect content or share details in private. I have some rough idea of what could be looked at, but Fæ is much more familiar with this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What evidence is there that these are not stolen too? They look just as bad as the rest File:Cabrières-d'Aigues Bar restaurant de l'Ormeau.JPG, File:Canards à foie gras.JPG, File:RN 7 Borne kilométrique.JPG, File:Beaumont de Pertuis Grotte de Saint Eucher.JPG, File:AOC Saint-Mont blanc.JPG.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: If I understand correctly, there are some that were taken at Wikimedia events where other frwiki users were present. Besides that, if some of those (other than Marianna Casamance) are able to confirm that some photos were taken around Varaine/JPS68's house or at some event they attended as well, we could possibly confirm those as own work. But we'd really need help from frwiki for this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If any uploader had demonstrably faked EXIF data with a clear intent to mislead on copyright or attribution, then all of their uploads should be considered suspect and require full verification from there on. We should not get into a volunteer-time-wasting escalation of detection and avoidance techniques. If anyone has a single case of suspected EXIF tampering, they can email me about it; however suspicions are not forensic science and it is easy to make poor presumptions about EXIF inconsistencies which may be down to poor camera design or software bugs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A brief review leads to me creating two DRs under Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_uploaded_by_JPS68_claimed_as_own_work_and_in_use. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: Some were already mentioned above. File:Le Merlet Fabienne Magnet.jpg is [13]. (in slideshow on https://www.bistrotdepays.com/le-merlet) File:Revest-du-Bion Poignée de châtaignes fraîches.jpg has EXIF saying it was made with a Kodak Easyshare C315. But this image is a mirrored and oversaturated version of https://i2.wp.com/no1dergi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/kestane-2.jpg which also has EXIF: Canon PowerShot SD200. download Varaine's crap. For JPS68 we'll have to search a bit, but what is File:AOC Brulhois.jpg anyway.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing Fæ didn't read the entire thread, DR is not needed.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing decision: I don't see much more consensus coming out of this discussion, so closing now. I also don't see any other admin stepping up to make a decision here. Many, many files (nearly 2,500) deleted - these were all not in used or if they were, had copyright concerns (about 300 in relation to Fae's DR). 1,000 remaining that require review in Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 requiring review - these are all in use and require human review to ensure we are meeting the mission of the Wikimedia projects and not removing encyclopedia value from the articles/pages they are in use on unless there is concerns that the files are not own work or there are additional copyright concerns. ~riley (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: Taivo has just deleted Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 confirmed by trusted users as own work. How to move forward from here? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It was empty. And category:Files uploaded by Varaine claimed as own work has only 2 files. Taivo (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: Obviously, trusted frwiki users were supposed to move files from Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 requiring review to Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 confirmed by trusted users as own work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I restored the category. It was incorrectly categorized and I recategorized it. Taivo (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please take care of Fan page of himanshu jaykar (talk · contribs)

Uploading over speedy deleted pages -- Eatcha (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Has no edits since this morning. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Weird Note In Email

My last four edits: 2019-10-21T12:15:27 diff hist  +255‎  File:Asiatic lioness PikiWiki Israel 48094 Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem.jpg ‎ ‎Added [en] caption: Asiatic Lioness (Panthera leo persica) at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. current

2019-10-21T12:13:44 diff hist  +230‎  File:Eagle at Gamla Nature reserve.jpg ‎ ‎Added [en] caption: Eagle flying in a blue sky with white clouds. current

2019-10-21T12:11:16 diff hist  +245‎  File:Ceratotherium simum in Jerusalem Biblical Zoo PikiWiki Israel 14485 Wildlife and Plants of Israel.jpg ‎ ‎Added [en] caption: Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) in Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. current

2019-10-21T12:07:49 diff hist  +241‎  File:PikiWiki Israel 37244 anemones.JPG ‎ ‎Added [en] caption: Anemone flowers growing in a field in the Negev, Israel current

I did not change the name of any file; I added English captions.

Five days ago, I received this puzzling email

Hi

when you change the name of a pikiwiki picture you destroy the  connection from the source of  the picture in wikicommons  to the original thumbnail in  pikiwiki look at the source, it leads to nowhere It says in the wikicommons page Please consider notifying the project before renaming or deleting this file. please DO NOT CHANGE PICTURES NAME,

thanks --

This email was sent by ShaulaH to Nlaylah by the "Email this user" function at Wikimedia Commons. If you reply to this email, your email will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email address to them.

Looking for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShaulaH leads me to find that there is currently no such user UPDATE: no profile for that user, which I found confusing.

...I am being asked to "NOT CHANGE PICTURES NAME" (sic) even though I did not change the name of any picture (only provided English caption as suggested)... (Edited because I had just never gotten an email through the system here, before, and I panicked. So relieved. No offense meant by asking. SOrry.)

The pertinent question for me is: Is it "okay" to go on providing captions in English for files that don't have one? Is that (somehow) "changing the name of the file"? Even if they're from pikiwiki? Because if this 'complaint' is somehow valid, and doing so somehow 'breaks' the page, then supplying captions for these pictures should be impossible.

Thanks for your time and attention. Nlaylah (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nlaylah: Well we do have such a user, if you look at Special:Contributions/ShaulaH. Perhaps s/he does not understand the difference between a filename and a caption, and you should point this out on their Talk page. Please bring this back if you have no luck, but I see no edits from that account in the last seven days. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Rodhullandemu; I have a better idea how this works, now, and was able to contact her, so we'll see.

Nlaylah (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked IP a potential long term issue

I hope I wasn't out of line doing this as I am not an admin, but I just declined an unblock request by the IP causing trouble on the Tony Ricca group here. I hope my reasons aren't out line. I'm posting here to explain that and also suggest the block be extended from the present three days because from the way they talked I suspect there will be more trouble when the current block ends.

Just as an aside - could the admin review two of the keeps in that group? There are three pictures that are the same and two really should have been deleted. I voted as such for this reason alone. They are Tony RiccaWWE.jpg and Tony Ricca Profile.jpg. They are duplicates of Tony Ricca.png. TLPG (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

For background see COM:AN#Tony Ricca Deletion Requests and my talk page. I'll stay out of this unblock request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The user concerned reverted my closure. I just restored it. Given that the IP range this person is on shifts hopefully this one can't reverted as it would no longer be that user's talk page as such. It shows I think that I'm right. This could be a long term issue. I agree with Sebari's decision not to be involved. Very sensible. TLPG (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@TLPG: the .png is no replacement for a .jpg due to how Mediawiki image scaling works. (png scaling is less sharp which is needed for text and sharp lines) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Oh I see. But the three are all duplicates of each other, so two should be deleted. So maybe it should be Tony Ricca Profile.jpg that is kept instead and Tony RiccaWWE.jpg and Tony Ricca.png are deleted. I based my previous note on the .png file being the best image in my view. I take your correction and thank you very much. TLPG (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: I saw that you re-blocked for a week, and @Hedwig in Washington: denied both of his two appeals, and just as I logged in he reverted Hedwig's denial and added a touch claiming a lack of notability. The week isn't long enough now. Pretty sure as I said at the beginning this one is long term trouble. Suggest the block be extended to six months and that talk page access be removed. I'd suggest an indef, but residual damage could be too great. TLPG (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have just reverted said reversion of Hedwig's denial and added my two cents on the second talk page. TLPG (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reblocked now with talk page access denied, but have not changed the block length. But I agree that the next time it should be several months to a year. (Indef is always problematic with IPs.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: Given that you were the one who did that I'll wager when the block ends he'll attack you again. More importantly he may revert the Deletion Requests again. With the latter in mind I recommend protection for the ones that weren't deleted (one was) so he can't revert it again. It'll force him to get an account if he wants to continue to edit war. TLPG (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@TLPG: I have to agree with Srittau here. Blocks on IPs and especially IPv6 addresses are troublesome because of how variable they usually are. That is why IPv6 blocks should always be rangeblocks. Judging from their first block and them coming back on the same range it seems that this IPv6 distribution is a tad more stable than others so perhaps a longer block would be fine but definitely not indefinite. Indefinite blocks on IP address should really never be done if there are any other options. The indefinite semiprotection of the files in question would be a better option if this continues rather than the indefinite block of an IPv6 address. As for reviewing of the unblock request, I'm not going to disagree with what you did but it is probably best left to other admins to close those in the future. People are entitled to have their block reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. That is why I didn't review it myself when I saw it as I was the blocking admin. Non-admin review of unblock requests can only lead to accusations of unfairness, regardless of the fact that I would expect any admin reviewing that to also decline. I'm all for sticking with established processes here so I'm going to have to ask that you don't review such requests yourself in the future. Unblock requests get categorized and an admin will review them eventually. --Majora (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I knew from the get go I was maybe out of line with the review and fair enough. It just looked to me that he was going to be long term trouble and it needed quick action. That's all. I'll back off that now, especially as he can't edit anywhere now for the week thanks to Srittau. As far as the semi protection goes - I was actually talking about the deletion requests, although the files themselves could also be worth it. But there are two that should go anyway as I indicated above for totally different reasons (duplicates). As that hasn't been done yet would I need to do a request there myself? Or would asking here be enough in the circumstances, given that if I do the former and it takes beyond the week as it appears it might it may give this person an excuse to get involved again (unless the request is semi protected anyway). TLPG (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Rogel`s actions

Good day! Please check the actions of this user who nominated for deletion files and does not respond to a request for clarification. On his talk page, Patrick Rogel ignores requests from other users. On my talk page the same situation - no answer. I indicated under which license, permission and from which site permission was obtained. Ukrainian participants received the right to upload photos from the site http://football.ua. --Artem Ponomarenko (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we'll need a Russophone OTRS agent to take a look at Ticket:2011101010016175. Umm... @Krassotkin: ? GMGtalk 12:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Ahonc. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: is quite active today, so a courtesy ping added as they may wish to clarify their decision. Artem Ponomarenko please note I have changed the template you used at the start of this thread. Failing to reply to questions is not evidence of disruption. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @GreenMeansGo: for pinging me but it doesn't concern me (and not the Administrators I guess) since I'm not the deleting Administrator and don't have access to this file anymore. @Artem Ponomarenko: should wait a bit (a complain 2 hours after his first message!) and contact @Hedwig in Washington: for further enquiries or directly request an undeletion. The other accusations are unfounded and no diffs are provided. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images reliant on OTRS ticket 2011101010016175.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That was a long DR that I had entirely forgotten about. The analysis that I did back then in 2016 is not reassuring that everyone understood the issues before !voting and whether this met precautionary principle, but I'm not going to willingly jump back down that rabbit hole. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I got you,guys. Everyone is very quick to nominate for deletion, but when it's time to explain - "I'm not going to willingly jump back down that rabbit hole" and etc. P.S. Don't forget to delete all files that were downloaded with permission from football.ua. --Artem Ponomarenko (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to summarise the issue raised in 2016 in really simple to understand terms while skirting the rabbit-hole, Commons hosts low resolution photographs from football.ua with a credit given like "© ОЛЕГ ДУБИНА" and on a release of CC-BY-SA-3.0. In addition the image pages include the statement "This permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images." Legally, this is not what the CC-BY-SA release does, so the community should interpret the statement as unenforceable and is unlikely to propagate on reuse by other sites. Taking an example like this, a google image search shows the file being hosted on wikiwand and is available to the public as CC-BY-SA-3.0 with no other restrictions, simply because the file was released with this CC license on Commons. The same photograph is available on shutterstock at 4,695 px x 3,133 px (about 5 times the size on Commons) and given the apparently confirmed CC release, it would be valid for anyone to take a copy of the high resolution photograph and reuse it using the same CC license, as there is no size restriction built in to the CC license. It would seem perfectly legal to also overwrite the file hosted on Commons with a higher resolution image because of the CC release, as this can be read as an independent release in its own right, regardless of any additional advisory text.

It could be that our community understanding of the issue has evolved since 2016, however we should be cautious about emails to OTRS which were predicated on the Wikimedia Commons project agreeing to host files with an implicit "ND" restriction (the simplest way of enforcing a no-resolution-upgrade restriction on CC-BY-SA-3.0) which in practice the community will not honour and our agreed policies do not permit, per Licensing policy. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • We have permission from this website (Ticket:2011101010016175). But in my opinion we should take only their own images from there (their correspondents and contributors). --sasha (krassotkin) 14:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think one of the problems is the template {{Football.ua}} is badly worded. The text Fae quotes was added by User:Denniss, not a native English speaker, and added really as a note to any Commons editor making a decision about whether to upload/tag a photograph they got from that website. Instead it reads as a note to any re-user of this individual image, and that re-user will rightly query WFT it is talking about "galleries" and "image services like Getty Images". Fae's comment above simply compounds the confusion when saying "Legally, this is not what the CC-BY-SA release does, so the community should interpret the statement as unenforceable and is unlikely to propagate on reuse by other sites". That's just nonsense. Either this individual image has a CC BY-SA licence and can be hosted here and freely re-used, or it does not. The re-user simply wants to know: Is this image free? We should reword it similar to {{Unsplash}} to make it clear who the audience of the warning is (Commons uploaders looking to upload other images from football.ua). -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ali.nabdoo

Everything is copyvio and doesn't care about warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Voted delete, and added an image that you missed to the list. TLPG (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel and TLPG:   Done Blocked indefinitely, DR closed delete, all uploads deleted. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MariaFacebook

The user keeps uploading the same out of scope files that have been deleted multiple times. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In case it's required - the user linked was blocked for this for a week back in September. Clearly not getting the message. TLPG (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked - 1 month. ~riley (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please check the edits of "User:81.183.55.22"

Could someone please check these edits? I am using Public Wi-Fi and have a few appointments so I can't, but they seem to be removing content without any justifications. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a typical vandal to me. Masum Reza📞 08:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked for a week. -- FitIndia Talk Mail 08:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MarThib

Almost everything is copyvio, except logos (by chance I suppose). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

They are all cross-wiki. I don't speak or read French (it's the french Wikipedia they come from) so I can't check if the copyright over there (if there is any) helps. Might be worth someone who can read French to go over there and have a look. TLPG (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done. I blocked the user for a week. Now I'll delete his uploaded photos as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Kevino18meza

Kevino18meza (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio, recreates deleted content, fakes EXIF like here and here. I suggest nuking all user's uploads since he can't be trusted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 week. Uploads nuked. ~riley (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Alirezamahzad

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

Uploading copyvios after final warning. CodeLyokotalk 03:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a month. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Fitindia blocked User:JasonVoorheesNaughty and User:AryaShahN indefinitely, User:Kbshah6p (another sockpuppet) is locked globally. User:Aryashahnaughtyyyy uploaded File:Arya Shah.jpg again, and is very likely to be a sockpuppet of User:AryaShahN per duck test. Ahmadtalk 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Duck

Uploading same images. There are older accounts that uploaded the same image but can't seem to find the exact usernames. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done Both indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Capitano1988

Capitano1988 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploads and reuploads the same deleted image. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 3 months. Doesn't seem to learn Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ragnarök de Althar

Fair use files despite warnings and block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked for a month. FitIndia Talk Mail 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

OlivaresAray2005

Escape block of Ángel Olivares Aray (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked indefinitely. FitIndia Talk Mail 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ummehasna2 spambot

Ummehasna2 spambot.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked inef and uploads nuked. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ORCHIDI888

  • Looks like everything this user has uploaded has been deleted. Their recent uploads (NSFW), even if properly licensed, are of dubious educational value, and are probably more exhibitionism than anything else. Non-upload edits like this one don't inspire supreme confidence that the user is here to contribute productively. GMGtalk 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Subsequent to this message the user concerned tagged his or her most recent uploads for deletion. The user also appears to be French FWIW. Quick deletion of the images recommended but the user may have realised their folly now and might become inactive. Worth observing only at the moment I think. TLPG (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. As of today, 5th, user has uploaded 2 complete Playboy-issues as pdf and 2 commercial movie-trailers. In addition, the was a blatant vandal edit[14], and currently about 100 uploads from this user have been deleted. So, an indef-block seems justified. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done. I blocked the user indefinitely due to total disregard of copyright. He uploaded Playboy magazines as own work! All uploads are either deleted or nominated for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that among the first things this account did was comment on the talk pages of two other apparent throw-away porn accounts. Not sure if it's worth a CU or not. But finding user talk pages at all, not to mention leaving wiki-love messages, correctly signing their comments, and opening DRs...not the behavior I expect of someone figuring out how to use the software for the first time. GMGtalk 12:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

فداء تونس

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

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Миодраг Крагуљ

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

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 3 months. FitIndia Talk Mail 16:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Addimages

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

Block them, were already warned for the last time. Uplods nonsense gif porno. //Eatcha (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done, latest upload nuked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

PoisonCarnival8

User continues to revert tropical cyclone track map edits dealing with a topic discussed in these places:[15] and [16]. This user has been notified and warned twice but refuses to talk. Their only edits have been reverts with the maps. Supportstorm (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Choppers and categorisation

Please would somebody settle this dispute. This editor is going through changing all my categorisation edits that have been established for some time. Eddaido (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, see Category:1949 Maserati A6 1500 s/n 068 for instance. Established in 2016, Eddaido recently removed it from Category:1949 Maserati automobiles and instead placed all the pictures individually in that category. See WP:Subcategorization. Hope for quick resolution. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Erm we need to have this sorted out. Categorisation "policy" must be reviewed. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
All pictures in Category:1949 Maserati A6 1500 s/n 068 are of a 1949 Maserati. Therefore the individual images do not belong in Category:1949 Maserati automobiles. Just as how the images contained within Category:Bentley Mark VI by James Young do not themselves go in Category:James Young Coachwork. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Commons Village Pump Eddaido (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how that relates to subcategorization. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, that's why you are mistakenly fighting. Eddaido (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Eddaido - I can see no reason for your changes here. Mr.choppers is quite correct.
OVERCAT is often mis- or over-applied. But it's appropriate here. 1949 Maserati A6 1500 s/n 068 is one, individual, specific, car: a 1949 Maserati. When it's categorized as such (as it was), then that implies that all members of the child category are therefore 1949 Maseratis. Now, not every Commons categorization can claim this. In many cases our categorization is a bit vague and less ordinal, so the simple rules of OVERCAT aren't always appropriate. But in this case, they absolutely are. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Mr Choppers categorisation - There's subtle differences between all of the image in those seperate cats so therefore I would say categorisation is needed and isn't over-categorisation, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I created the two Maserati categories (and more than a thousand others for Ferrari, Alfa, ...). Subcategories greatly simplifies a large and still ongoing auditing and correction process, where Mr. Choppers have been a kind contributor. There are still thousands of wrongly categorized images as to year, model and oftenly, originality (replica vs non-replica). To most people, these are just "cars" (identification by sight). To some enthusiasts, they are desirable and extremely high valued objects that deserve correct description and proper categorization. To aid in this, we (who contribute to this auditing work) need to know what has been audited (placed in subcategory) and what has not (remains in the parent category). In some cases this gives "overcategorization"; in other cases it prevents "overcrowding". So it has its pros and cons. Meanwhile, please keep images subcategorized into year and other useful attributes. It has been brought to my knowledge that many categories earlier this year have been "wrecked" (broken), and we could try to correct these as we go along, if needed.Ketil3 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Are you advocating Mr.choppers' categorization? Or Eddaido's?
When we have a category for one specific car, all relationship to that car is "a 1949 Maserati" - no exceptions. So in this case, we're simpler and narrower than many cases on Commons. For this case at least, being part of s/n 068 completely implies being part of 1949 Maserati – and so we don't need to repeat that, per file. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry about poor and imprecise language above (just ignore it). My view: I like Mr. Choppers linking system best, it gives a neater. But, sometimes it is nice to see the images in the parent category as well, like Eddaido likes. Ketil3 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Olena Pianykh

Reuploads deleted content despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 2 weeks. -- FitIndia Talk Mail 12:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Santosh Nishad Basti

uploading OOS files despite warning. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 16:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Shizart

Please block this user for repeat copyvio upload after two warnings. Single-purpose account on en:Wikipedia, apparently not willing to interact in any way, either here or over there. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Shizart for a week and will delete his last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

OoooooYeaeah

OoooooYeaeah (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

He is constant uploading OOS images and files created as advertisments. He is a paid editor per their words on their en-wiki talk - "I might get fired" . I understand that that's not a Commons problem but he is clearly trying to advertise his clients on Commons. Also most of his uploads are depictions of his clients and might not be his "Own works". So those are possible copyvios. Masum Reza📞 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked, as the account was Spamming for Khabina Kan Kha a General Store. - FitIndia Talk Mail 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't notice that. I forgot to mention that he violated copyrignt polices on Wikipedia multiple times (copy-pasted copyrignted content from external websites). So his uploads were potential copyrignt violations. But that doesn't matter anymore, now that he is blocked. :) Masum Reza📞 01:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Miroslav Mica Ilic

Escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs), same uploads relmated to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery), same image uploaded (File:Фирмилијан Оцокољић епископ.jpg). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked indefinitely - FitIndia Talk Mail 15:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Антон Бондаренко

Escape block of Olena Pianykh (talk · contribs), especially images from http://bandershtat.org.ua/galereya/ --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Anton Bondarenko indefinitely as sockpuppet. Uploads are mostly nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yao-gay-cabrera

Insults in the file name and description of File:El Marica.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely. The file is deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Estefano 2

Uploading fair use files despite warnings and 2 blocks. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked for 3 months. - FitIndia Talk Mail 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Move Category

Hello, please move Category:Experimental Garden of el Hamma (Algiers) to Category:Test Garden of Hamma. It has been proposed to move since July 2019. --86.212.236.28 16:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  •   Not done There was no compelling reason provided why the page should have been moved. On a different note: This noticeboard is only for issues with the behaviour of problematic users, but not for "general" problems with editing Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Jaime Falero

Copyvios despite warnings and block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hdorfmann

Alama32

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 week. - FitIndia Talk Mail 16:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Issakha Abdraman Khan

User's only activity is spawning tons of accounts writing about themself on each other's userpages, continuing now for almost two years:

See also:

Not sure there's anything to do except block and tag them all (too obvious for CU action?), but I couldn't find a central report of this sock-drawer. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Also just found en:User:Issakha Abdraman Khan Tchadien, who has not registered on commons. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Good find! I have mass blocked these as they are all ducks with connecting evidence. Since it's crosswiki, I have opened a SRG report; I think that makes more sense than having our local CUs handle. ~riley (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Locked by stewards. ~riley (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Jicco123

Every file this user has uploaded has been a copyright violation (many are still not tagged as such, but I'm getting on it), and they're continuing to upload new files that are clearly copyvio. Latest upload is from today. The user has received six speedy deletion notices on their talk page since 8 September, including one regarding his removal of speedy deletion tags from their own files. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: It seems some of the uploads are PD-textlogos and I'm in the process of marking them as such. Latest uploads are still clear copyvio though. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 week. Copyvios nuked. ~riley (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Spambots

Spam bots..

  Done. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be the same user.

Uploading content depicting the same person. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  Blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts, uploads nuked per F10. ~riley (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like enwiki and commons both found this sock-drawer, but interestingly neither one originally noticed any of the same accounts as each other even though several of them have edited both sites. Let's remedy that and sync from en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barathkumaar:
DMacks (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Good catch, blocked and tagged based on behavioral evidence in edit summaries from enwiki Special:Log. ~riley (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This one:
just popped up on enwiki and was blocked there. Not registered on commons though, so I can't block. Can a CU look for an underlying IP to block and/or should global stewards take over here? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DuaLipa19

Please speedy close, delete copyvios and block user. --Denniss (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week and speedy closed. - FitIndia Talk Mail 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tony Ricca image disrupter again

I noticed in the last 24 hours that he was at it again and was blocked for a month. Honestly @Majora: it really should have been a lot longer like a year. I fully expect him to be back again. With that in mind I suggest that what has already been done to the images should also be done to the delete requests that hasn't been already, although I did notice that he knew he couldn't revert the images that had been protected (one was missed by the way and that has been taken care of) and left those requests alone as a result. Also, I think a strong message should be left on the talk page of the range - if anyone thinks that may help stop this on top of that.

Meanwhile - as no one responded I am going to tag the duplicates on the relevant deletion requests as the month long block will allow me to do that and it should be dealt with away from his interference. TLPG (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected all files, DRs, and the category for six months (unless I missed something). This is likely more effective than blocking an IP, which may change. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes but I suspect it won't stop him from complaining again. Just saying. Any thoughts on the message idea on the range talk page? TLPG (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current course of action(s). As Sebari said, longer blocks may be counterproductive. While this particular IPv6 range is rather stable, which is why I felt comfortable blocking for a month, generally IP addresses are reassigned so longer blocks may stop valid contributions. Semi-protection is a fine idea. --Majora (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that, Majora. It would be better to chase this one away altogether, which is why I suggested the message on the range's talk page. Unless you or anyone else has an alternative suggestion. TLPG (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The range doesn't have a dedicated talk page. They'd have to know to look there. It isn't listed as a selectable option at Special:Contribs/2001:8003:5999:6D00::/64. Not having a dedicated talk page makes sense if you think about it. The /64 range on an IPv6 address technically incorporates 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (that's 18 quintillion+) addresses. It just so happens that the entire /64 is generally dedicated to one person. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Actually if you go to the link you gave and look in the salmon box indicating the block you'll see a redlink "talk" alongside the range. So it does have a dedicated talk page. I do take your point about them knowing to look there though - that's true. But I can't think of a better spot given that we have no way of knowing which IP he's on at any given time. I have prepared a draft message in Notepad for cutting and pasting. Just waiting for an OK to do it or any other ideas. TLPG (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The pink box derives from a system message. A standard message that includes the talk link. That message is not what is seen when you try to edit from a blocked account or IP. This is. The message isn't designed to link or mention ranged talk pages. It actually uses $3 which is the specific IP address of the connection (if not logged in). I don't think it is necessary to leave a message on the range talk page when it isn't likely to ever be seen. Nor do I really think it is necessary to leave a message in this situation regardless. They can't respond to it. Their TPA is revoked. They know why they were blocked. It is quite obvious. It is also obvious what will happen if they continue their behavior when the block expires. I do not believe that leaving such a message will help here. Thank you for taking the time to draft such a message but I just don't think it is necessary. --Majora (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: Given that he has come back from blocks three times now and not changed I don't think they know why they were blocked. Actually, I think they are denying the reasons behind it. He's obsessed with this as I think Quakewoody observed (or it might have been someone else) to the point of ignorance. That's why I think some more detail is needed. For example his claim to not socking has an explanation that I already gave and would be repeating in the draft message I've done. He also insists that Ricca wasn't a contracted wrestler with WWF (as it was then) and I know that he was and how as well using another wrestler's experience as proof. He's also overblowing the self promo idea. If you want I can put the draft message in my sandbox and you can see what you think of it. I think we agree that it would be best if this disruption was stopped but I can see it continuing verbatim unless something proactive is done in order to head it off. TLPG (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: I've noticed in the history of the other admin page that he frequents that he's been back on the mobile. I looked at the IP's and there isn't much but he's pressing himself as a different person. Has the range been blocked in both cases? I've lost track as I've just completed a house move. But it certainly backs up what I said about him being ignorant, and I think we really do need the message. It's just a question where do we put it? TLPG (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Majora: It's okay now. He's shown up on Wikidata after his block there ended, and I put it there instead. See what you think here. Worth watching. TLPG (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to engage with the IP, even if I personally think it will not change anything, considering the IP's previous behavior. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

مهیار مهرنیا

Everything is copyvio, recreates deleted content and spam. Blocked on several Wikipedias: not here to contribute. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the user for a month. Uploads are mostly deleted, the rest is mostly nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior of User:Steindy.

I am an administrator who is involved in a conflict, so I ask that another administrator consider the situation.
The essence of the conflict: Steindy mistakenly considers himself offended when considering his QI nominations.
Unacceptable remarks from Steindy continue from November 5 to today (November 13).
Have a look to

Steindy also had conflicts on German Wikipedia, see here de:Benutzer Diskussion:Steindy
On Commons unacceptable messages were addressed to me, User:Podzemnik and User:Smial.
This negative behavior lasts 9 days, and i do not think that we should ignore this further. All my attempts to peacefully discuss the situation were unsuccessful. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Comment This appeared to me to be "throwing the toys out of the pram" and I did ask Steindy to consider whether withdrawing support already given, on spurious reasons, was fair to other contributors, but he seems to be persisting, erronously objecting to images on non-existent or irrelevant grounds. If he won't take advice, I suggest he takes a holiday, voluntarily or otherwise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is likely to strengthen his feeling that he is merely being hounded by evil admins. WP:IDHT comes to mind though. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I support what George Chernilevsky said (thanks for bringing it up!). I also tried to solve the conflict peacefully but the user keeps behaving in a way that is bringing harm into our community. He's obviously targeting me in his actions which I don't mind but I can imagine that it is annoying to other users. I can provide a few more diffs that show unacceptable behavior of the user further: [17] [18]. Particularly edits like [19] [20] [21] [22] [23][24] are hard to deal with and take a long time to fix. I suggested to the user to take a break from the project which he didn't take - perhaps a forced brake would be beneficial for both him and the project. He'll be welcome to come back if he decides to contribute in a constructive way. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 7 days; obviously disruptive editing on QIC (see for example difflinks 6+7 above). --A.Savin 00:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment I don't believe that a block will really change the behaviour of the user and I would have liked to have seen another attempt being made to try administrative persuasion. But I also know that there are always far too few administrators on commons, and that it is therefore hopeless to deal with such cases in a time-consuming and detailed manner. --Smial (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, I tried in my usual tactless way(:-), but it's clear he was on a "frolic of his own". Admins are just ordinary users with a few extra buttons, so I don't think he would have been impressed by anyone else having a go at him (as he would see it). Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

কুমকুম_ভাগ্য

Keep on opening non-sense deletion requests. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 2 weeks. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 08:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Glocked by Nahid. Long-term abuse. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 08:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Duck

Uploading files depicting the same person. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrobras XXIII (ship, 1985)

User:Sturm redirected this category. Unfortunately to a name that differs from the name as the ship was registered. We discussed it in User_talk:Sturm. The right name is Petrobras XXIII (ship, 1985). I cannot undo the redirect. Can it be done via this noticeboard? --Stunteltje (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Moved. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Rehman ehmedov

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 week. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Komamatsu

Repeated copyright violations. Could someone warn the user? Thanks, 153.205.197.101 08:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done First warning given Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Chrispekarton

Doesn't understand Commons' scope. Abuse multiple account with Oloya Chrispekarton (talk · contribs) too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful scuba fans

This user has been tagging celebrity cats with Category:Underwater divers (or one of its subcats by country) more freely than one normally would. Help needed in discerning where the beach ends and the trolling begins. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I reverted underwater diving and blocked the IP. If somebody is able to dive under water, then (s)he does not become an underwater diver. For example, I am able to run 100 meters and I have done it multiple times during my life (sometimes even with time measuring), but this does not make me a sprinter. Taivo (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Daising Shiumia MA

Where do I even begin. I want to point out that I have no intentions to w:WP:BITE (although it may have already been too late). I was perusing the latest files, when a number of newly uploaded images caught my attention, namely those in Category:Black & White Milk (brand) because of the potential rationale for deletion per Commons:PACKAGING, which then snowballed into questions of Commons:Scope and Commons:NOTHOST. If one takes a look at Special:ListFiles/Daising Shiumia MA and User:Daising Shiumia MA, it's an indiscriminate upload of personal and/or vacation images (and often near duplicates), as if Commons is an image hosting service. I had the thought of leaving them a message or a message via a template like {{Scope}}, but (1) I fear that may have already rubbed them the wrong way, and (2) no decision has been made on deletion, so the template does not work. Any thoughts on how to proceed? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 11:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nevermind, left a relatively gentle message on user's talk page. Will see if they respond, then proceed from there. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible same person

If one looks at the uploads of each of the listed users, the naming and type of photo is eerily similar (i.e. [Intitial of location in English][Chinese name][name of place or hotel in English][Chinese name][description of place in English][Chinese name][Description of item][device used][number].jpg). Each of them have been using Commons as a vacation photo collection or image hosting service with the images having no educational value, which is clearly out of project scope. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Same person

Same person. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 11:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. - FitIndia Talk Mail 12:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

MaarPublishing

His almost files are copyvio. I checked by Google Images. 7/10 files come up. He is a malicious user. --Batholith (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done. I warned the user and will delete all his/her uploads. Quite small images, .gif is not a proper extension for photos anyway. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
He is a beginner who looked like a malicious user. Please don't block. Thank you. --Batholith (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Regular upload of fake diagrams

Hi everyone,

Ded padla keeps uploading fake diagram, generally the USSR Duma, with parties such as "Национал-социалисты" (national-socialists) and "Фашисты" (fascists), seating in the arliament with " Большевики" bolsehviks. The user recognises those are alt-history diagrams apparently for a Vkontakte chat/group, and I have already requested the deletion of some of them. The user keeps uploading such files, despite several deletions. A message in Ded padla's discussion page did not change anything, I am thus requesting the Administrators' help. What is your opinion on this subject ? Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Ded Padla for a week and deleted all his uploads not yet nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Joeyyyy69

Copyvios despite warnings. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked and thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Asloobhashmi

Advert only account. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor editor bad uploads

  Done. blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet of Kuma momn speak. all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user/username

See this deletion request. Everything uploaded by this account and their earlier incarnation is their private medical and police papers. The real-world 'Comandante Pakhomov' is a police officer on the case. The files mentioned in DR were used for petty personal attacks on wikivoyage [25]. Retired electrician (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. All contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mladen Vuleta

Probable escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs), same uploads relmated to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I deleted last remaining contributions of both users and blocked Mladen indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

photo credit stolen by simple edit

i uploaded a picture a few days ago which was edited by one of the admin there. now when i search for my contributions i do not find MY photo, but an edited version I DID NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION TO EDIT. please delete the edited version or reinstate my credit for the work. merely lightening up the picture should not cancel the contribution of my original photo. thank you for looking into this.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balanced_diet.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlandflyer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

When you released this image under a free license[26], you gave everybody permission to edit the image. A totally different thing is that our project's policy asks not to upload a heavily edit image over the original file; but that has nothing to do with copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

never mind

i adjusted the colors myself and reloaded the image.

thank you for the SUGGESTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlandflyer (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Patrick bouvier kennedy"

New account Patrick bouvier kennedy (talk · contribs) has an inappropriate account-name, as it (obviously intentially) suggests to be en:Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, a child of JFK, that died as a newborn. So far, the uploads of this account are copyvios and shots likely of himself, which are labelled as "Kelvin Macallister", which might be his true name (or not). I propose to block the account due to inappropriate name. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Inappropriate user name/troll account. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Charmi004

Continues copyvio despite blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangel Carregosa

Doesn't understand copyright or licenses. Blocked once. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Venom43x

Copyvio despite warning 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 01:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia Talk Mail 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Same person

Uploading same content. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 01:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dileep.mann

Still uploading OOS files despite block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 01:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia Talk Mail 02:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Srittau

I have disagreed with the decision surrounding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dalida Miss Egypt 1954.jpg by explaining why to the closing Administrator Srittau before renominating the file to deletion. This same person has reclosed the discussion with no specific new rationale but a "warning" as a bonus. In fact this renomination was intended to be closed by another Administrator. Was I wrong or a new Administrator may take a look and close the discussion? Thanks in advance. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can not reopen DRs, until you get the outcome you'd like. If you really disagree, bring it up on the Village Pump or one of its sub-forums to get the decision reviewed. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Srittau is right: we don't accept re-opened RfD's, unless a new valid reason for deletion is provided. --A.Savin 18:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Second incident

User:Srittau is forcing closure of DR of File:Ska Keller & Bas Eickhout, EGP candidates 2019.jpg three times in a row based on his personal preference—special:permalink/376149438#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ska_Keller_&_Bas_Eickhout,_EGP_candidates_2019.jpg special:diff/376464831 special:diff/376473264—despite being noticed of arguments against it.

This behaviour is similar to what User:Patrick Rogel reported above, so it is filed in this subsection.--Roy17 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I closed the DR once, considering all arguments that were put forward. Unfortunately, Roy17 did not accept this and continued to argue (see my talk page). I explained that my decision stands and I couldn't see any new arguments, but I also provided a way forward if Roy17 really does doubts the authenticity of the license. Unfortunately he decided to instead open a DR under a new name, together with more files. I struck the previously kept file, repeating the way forward that I could see. Instead, Roy17 decided to start an edit war about an administrative decision (see the new DRs edit history). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Srittau: you should not strike out my comment. Your forced closure does not adhere to COM:PCP or COM:EVID. If anyone is editwarring, it would be you who disregard the evidence and edit another user's comment without approval or valid reason.--Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
As an administrator it is my job to assess deletion requests and make decisions about them, to the best of my knowledge and at my discretion. This is what I did in this case. I will freely admit that this is not a clear-cut case and some administrators would have decided differently, while others would agree with me.
Still, I made my decision, considering all the evidence that was brought up and considering Commons policies like the PCP. You can not just reopen a discussion without new arguments, because you do not like my assessment or judgement and hope that another administrator will come to a different conclusion. In this case it is especially frustrating, because I have told you multiple times now what you can do to convince me that the Flickr uploader did not have the rights to the photo, but instead of pursuing that avenue, you prefer to edit war over this and continue this discussion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
COM:EVID: In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained. What steps has Srittau taken to demonstrate that the photoset was published with the consent of EP under a CC licence which is different from EP's terms?
Why does Srittau choose to disregard the explicit copyright notice embeded in EXIF and on EP's website, push his groundless assumption, resort to editwarring on my comment, and then accuse me of editwar?--Roy17 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict at File:Barry 2019 track.png

Okay, I'm having this troublesome editor that keeps on reverting the file. I revert it back to the last good revision, and the user who keeps reverting it to their revision. I just need them to stop and place protection on the file if deemed necessary. Felicia777 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Felicia777 and FleurDeOdile: I see no proper discussion of these edits, only an edit-war, so have protected the image for a week. Please both go to the Talk page to discuss. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemantdasmanikpuri

OOS files despite warnings and block. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ZABIBO123

ZABIBO123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like all this user has done is upload explicit photos that are copyright violations. Doesn't seem that a week block got the message through. GMGtalk 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 3 months and nuked. - FitIndia Talk Mail 19:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

M.I.A.G 99

M.I.A.G 99 has been repeatedly uploading copyright violations. They might deserve some sanction. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

After last message he/she doesn't upload anymore photos, I don't think that a block be appropriate, if he continue uploading photo then we must block his/her account Ezarateesteban 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 03:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Shahnam26

Shahnam26 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) had uploaded a number of images which appear to be from commercial sources. I nominated one for deletion. Having to do a captcha multiple times for one nomination is a bit much let alone nine. 2606:6000:CB81:1700:E058:8CEB:61DA:BF90 05:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nuked, uploader notified. Final warning issued. IP is encouraged to create an account. ~riley (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

আতাউল করিম জুন্নুন

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Rcurra

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

Continues copyvios despite block. Understand nothing to copyright. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Luis1944MX

Luis1944MX (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

The user persists in uploading non-simple logos protected by Televisa or other companies, although I place templates for their removal he reverts my editions.--Bradford (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No, in reality the problem that this user brings with me is already personal and I will explain them below: The problem with this user has started a series of editorial problems in Wikipedia in Spanish that resulted in him being blocked by sabotage. [28] [29]
Months after its defined block, the user began to harass me by avoiding his blockade of Wikipedia in Spanish, to accuse me of alleged plagiarism, putting plagiarism templates on articles that had copyrighted text, in the end it could be fixed by removing all plagiarized text and blocking the ip's that the user used, And he soon responded the following days later. [30] Not only has he accused me in WP in Spanish, he has also done so in WP in English twice in a row (the messages are in spanish): [31], [32]. Now the same thing is presented again, here in Commons, which has been succinct for two weeks now, designing the logos I upload for Wikipedia in Spanish, not only for television programs, but also up to the level of copyright planting the logos of TV channels, some that I didn't even upload to Commons, and which affects the publishers of those articles. Today, the user did not take long to verify that he was uploading to Commons, which, he took advantage of when I finished uploading the logos that he sent to plant for possible copyright, which are referenced with source, author and origin of the image. In itself, most logos are simple text, and it complies with what it says in the "PD-textlogo" license template. And how ironic this situation is, this logo, it was uploaded by the same one (Bradford) that planted the logos that I charge to commons, and is awarded as their own work when it is owned by Televisa S.A. C.V., and does not put the origin of where I get the logo. To any administrator who reads this, an apology with my poor level of English, but this user is taking advantage of the fact that I am new to Commons, and I'm sorry I will learn how to use this Wiki. I also invite any administrator to intercede in this problem, since although it seems that it is a problem with the logos, it is actually harassment of the problem already mentioned in this message. --Luis1944MX (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The user deviates from the main topic to solve their personal problems here. Obviously, I have been contributing to Wikimedia Commons for a long time and I am currently reporting for removal non-simple logos or logos with obvious copyright infringement (as you can see in my contributions). Previously, an administrator deleted several files uploaded by the user for the same problem and continues "thinking it is harassment." These logos were previously removed because they were not simple logos;
--Bradford (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
No, the user is wrong, this has already become harassment, and if he says that he has been contributing here for a long time, he could easily have noticed, but not, from the constant messages of harassment and blockage evasions in WP in Spanish, the user did not He has stopped following my steps, movements, or whatever he does. It always makes an excuse that I am getting off the subject, but that is not the case, if everything is related, the seedlings, the harassment in other Wikimedia projects, and only pretext the aforementioned. --Luis1944MX (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

3 spam bots

  1. Alexhelan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Hani670 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. Mega_shah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gokktofd/Bot Computer Enternaiment/Nicewels

Gokktofd today uploaded images relating to serial killers. All are likely copyright violations. Over on Wikidata, Bot Computer Enternaiment added those images to entries within half an hour of Gokktofd's uploading them here. Bot Computer Enternaiment is blocked on Spanish Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Nicewels. The accounts appear to be all the same person. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I missed another one: Pluswyllie. Images upload by Pluswyllie were very soon after added to Wikidata entries by Bot Computer Enternaiment. All uploads are obvious copyright violations. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj

CptViraj had approximately 36,000 edits a few days ago. Today, he has 50,000 edits. Checking CptViraj's contributions, it appears he made 14,000 edits by creating and adding Category:Flickr files uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao to all uploads made by Ser Amantio di Nicolao at an edit rate of approx. 500 edits per minute. After doing this, he updated his userpage to reflect his new edit count (Special:Diff/377190523) and notified the user at User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Note! saying:

Hi, I've created Category:Flickr files uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I hope that's fine for you. Thankyou!

— CptViraj (📧) 16:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If my suspicions are correct, CptViraj had a case of Editcountitis and found himself a get-richedits-quick scheme. ~riley (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • If you see no reason to require a bot account for a task like this, I am not sure if you understand the principles of a bot. Edit rates of 500 edits per minute (COM:BOT is no more than 12 per minute) cause database lag. Combine that with 14,000 edits swamping recent changes and watchlists (you should see mine right now). Not to mention, bot tasks are approved to ensure tasks are logical and have consensus. ~riley (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Bots are generally able to edit at 120/min rate via API. Another case is, whether it is justified to use such rate in Commons. Ankry (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Well aware of what bots are able to do, heck, I've been yelled at by a dev for the speed my bot was able to edit with API, but like you said, the question is what is justified. ~riley (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 
flood-flag
Lol, I had a feeling that this would happen someday but never thought it would be so soon. His edit count was 16000 approximately a week ago but then I noticed his edit count was raised to 36000! But I don't see how it's a problem. Bot tasks are usually automatic but in this case, Cpt's edits are semi automatic. If something goes wrong, he would be responsible. But I agree that 500edits/minute rate is very high. And TBH he should have used a bot account. This makes harder for others to review their contributions when he requests for rights. I think we should create a "flood" flag like simplewiki and meta-wiki to prevent database lagging. Masum Reza📞 10:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The flood flag on simplewiki and meta, unless I am reading incorrectly, have no impact on database lagging - they simply hide edits from recent changes. There is very little to no need for flood flag on Commons, imoh, when there are a number of bots available to handle these tasks. ~riley (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. I thought hiding edits from recent changes reduces DB lag. Masum Reza📞 10:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is problem? My edit count or recent changes? -- CptViraj (📧) 10:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Why did you create that category? If they wanted a category, they could have created by themselves. Masum Reza📞 11:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    If they have any problem with it then they could say by themselves. I haven't done any wrong categorisation. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    @CptViraj: it is unusual to say the least to create uploader categories for other users. (creator categories are another thing) Uploader categories often serve primarily the uploader. So if this wasn't requested.. who was it done for? You surely don't have to create a "Flickr files uploaded by Alexis Jazz" category, I don't need it and I doubt anyone does. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    The edit count is neither here nor there. Anyone who knows enough about edit counts should understand that they are...not totally meaningless...but often pretty close. But others here are correct, @CptViraj: popping several thousand edits at 500 epm becomes a bother to others, and is probably something that should really be handled by a bot if it is needed in the first place. Maybe it's not openly disruptive, and certainly doesn't appear to be intentionally disruptive, but it does wind up being kindof rude. Probably best for all involved if we treat this as an opportunity for the community to provide some constructive feedback, and we just agree, like strangers sharing a hostel, that we're all fine making a good faith effort to not do things that come off as rude. GMGtalk 12:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    @~riley, Masumrezarock100, Alexis Jazz, GreenMeansGo, and Ankry: I got the point, I'm apologized for this. I won't create any uploader category now. But since this category has been created should I add remaining files or not? And I can create creator categories (like Category:Files from Matt Brown Flickr stream), right? -- CptViraj (📧) 12:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@CptViraj: you should ask Ser Amantio di Nicolao about the remaining files. Creator categories are fine with me. (but I can't speak for others) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd left a note on their talkpage when I created the cat but no replies since now. Many users do creater category categorisation so, I believe there is no problem in it. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My concerns coming out of this are as follows:
1) Seek permission before creating user categories.
2) Regardless of tool (automated, or semi-automated), your edit per minute should remain under 250 (more than fair).
3) Seek assistance via COM:Bot requests, seek out a bot that is already approved to do the task or file your own bot task if it involves 7,500 or more edits. ~riley (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not support this. I have been lauded multiple times for work that violated these made-up restrictions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The category should be deleted for being useless, and CptViraj forbidden from using any automated tools for 1 year as they don't see the problem in their actions.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dude, why do you want to cause extra work for admins? CptViraj already apologized and he is a experienced user. We all make mistakes. Forbidding him from using all automated tool is too much. Needless to say that I don't support your proposal, at all. Masum Reza📞 14:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not extra work, a bot can remove the categories. CptViraj still didn't see a problem as per their comment above at 10:52, 23 November 2019, despite everything said before it.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
A bot can. "Reverting something that doesn't make sense" does not make sense either. His edits were not vandalism nor I see any problem if we keep that category. Reverting all of those edits would mean 14000 new edits and it would take up unnecessary diskspace amd cause unnecessary database lag. Not to mention it would consume unnecessary machine power. Forbidding CptViraj fron using any automated tool would mean even not letting him use the AQD (aka the automatic DR script). Besides we don't seem to have any specific guidelines about this. If you want to discuss further, feel free to open a VP thread/proposal, whatever. Masum Reza📞 15:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I really see no reason to delete the category, nor to forbid (ban) CptViraj from using automatic tools. About reviewing their contributions count, toolforge:dewkin/CptViraj@commonswiki can be very useful. Deep Wiki Inspector (aka DEWKIN) shows a detailed summary of a user's contributions in a project. This shows that CptViraj has made 43,976 edits using cat-a-lot so far (that's 89.19% of all their edits to Commons). Besides, edit count is no longer very important. But yes, I think they could do it using a bot, they could reduce their edit rate, and they could dicuss it first to see if it is really necessary. Nevertheless, I think it is not that serious, and there is an ongoing discussion above. Deleting a category, removing it from thousands of pages and banning one of our active users from using "all" automated tools (or only cat-a-lot, no difference) is really over-strict in my opinion. I would just wait for CptViraj to reply back. Ahmadtalk 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Every user has different area of interest and I have this one, I admit that my edit count was going high because this which was encouraging me, but I always know that edit count is just a number. When I was doing this I didn't know that this can be problematic. In this discussion above I realised that creating a user category without user's concert is wrong, I'm apologized for that. But being honest I don't think I have done something that serious which should end in a tool ban. And about the bot thing, I see no reason to do it with bot when I can do it myself, Humans are better than bots, anyway. Once again I apologize for the inconvenience. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
A "bot" isn't necessarily a programmed tool. You can create a bot account (just a normal account), request for bot flag, and then normally login to that account and do what you did with your account. This "bot" can work with AutoWikiBrowser, python codes, cat-a-lot or tools like COM:VisualFileChange. This will hide all edits from recent changes and will also keep your contributions clean. Ahmadtalk 17:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Whoops! I didn't know this, I would have definitely used a bot account if I knew this. Nevermind, I'll create a bot account and will use it for large mass-categorisation. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmad252 and CptViraj: I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate. Bot flags are generally for bots, not for VFC and cat-a-lot. Steinsplitter said on Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2018#VysotskyBot (not a Bot) that he saw no need for a separate account for cat-a-lot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Ah, I'm confused now. What should I do? -- CptViraj (📧) 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Being honest, I really don't want a seperate account just for Cat-A-lot. Isn't there any alternative way? -- CptViraj (📧) 17:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you need to do anything. Users don't slow Wikimedia sites down, interface admins or probably admins can. If sites slow down, it's not our responsibility to fix it. Wikimedia Foundation have a bunch of employees. Masum Reza📞 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Then what's the issue now? Recent changes or Special:Contributions? -- CptViraj (📧) 17:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Depends, in my opinion. A bot is "an automated program that carries out repetitive tasks that would be tedious to do manually", I think this is very similar to what cat-a-lot does. Here we have ~14000 files added to the category, so I think having a bot for that (and for other automated or semi-automated tasks they want to do) is okay.
But, at the same time, I agree that a seperate account might not be needed. However, I think such tasks (automated or semi-automated edits made to thousands of pages) should be discussed first, no matter what account (bot/non-bot) one uses to conduct them. This is because of the bot-like nature of these edits, and because reverting them isn't easy. Also, having a bot account for that means the task needs to be discussed first in COM:BRFA. Ahmadtalk 18:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:AMD CPU mit einer 50Cent Münze im Vergleich.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2019_October_30_10:30?uselang=de

KnochenJochen (88 edits)

Talk | Contributions | CentralAuth | Deleted Contributions | Uploads | Perform batch task | Nuke | Block | Block Log User has warnings about missing licenses User has warnings about missing permission User has DR notices 

   AMD CPU mit einer 50Cent Münze im Vergleich.jpg
   Google image search
   CC-BY-SA-3.0 self
   302KB 2160x1620


________________

WHY ? User has warnings about missing licenses User has warnings about missing permission User has DR notices

KnochenJochen (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

and this deletion not ok https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wadenstecher_Video.ogv KnochenJochen (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

As this is a list of contributions by (relatively) new users, the warnings refer to the various messages on your talk page, but in this case they are not related to the 50 Cent file. Regarding the deletion request, you may want to contest the result at Commons:Undeletion requests, so the deletion can be reviewed. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

1 spam bot

  1. Drmeads (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Valmir de Teófilo Otoni

Recreates deleted files: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Valmir_.jpg. 2simple (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the user for a week. Uploads are mostly deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nghi Mặc Huyền Khế

Continues copyvios after warnings, recreates deleted content. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Terminature

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

Continuing to upload copyright violations despite warnings and previous block. GMGtalk 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 month. - FitIndia Talk Mail 15:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Talismanov

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

Everything is copyvio. Doesn't give a damn about warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week. - FitIndia Talk Mail 01:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

VF9

VF9, a new user, has reverted my speedy deletion tag on one of their uploads three times now ([33]. [34], & [35]). I could just create a deletion discussion but it is an obvious copyright violation and there is another issue with this user. They have created Category:Rule 34 for anything they feel fits the internet meme "that states that Internet pornography exists concerning every conceivable topic" and have been adding files to it. It might be better to save ourselves some work later on and put a stop to this sooner rather than later. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember World's Lamest Critic, both of us are going to be scrutinized here.
  1. First, throughout this dispute, World's Lamest Critic has repeatedly been very disrespectful, violating the Code of conduct policy. They've already told me, among other things, to "Go back to 4chan, kid.", to "Hold on there, little fella.", and in regards to filing a deletion request, "There's even a pretty button for you push." Looking through their talk page, I see this is a recurring issue with them and other users.
  2. Second, combining their repeated violations of the code of conduct with the fact that they also tracked my contributions after finding out that I created a category they found to be "juvenile bullshit", they've created a hostile environment for me, which is harassment.
  3. Third, World's Lamest Critic thinks the endangered turtle file is F1, but the alleged copyright violation is not obvious, making a COM:SPEEDY delete the improper way to handle it. The image was published under CC-BY-SA, but World's Lamest Critic thinks the copyright holder is not the publisher, despite having no conclusive evidence of this. (He should have created a COM:DR instead.)
  4. Fourth, regarding the the category of dispute, World's Lamest Critic has already created a COM:CFD, and the creation a category that someone finds distasteful (or, in World's Lamest Critic's words, is "juvenile bullshit") is not an appropriate reason to complain to the admins.
I hope that gives you all a bit more context. I'm just trying to improve this project, but all I've been met with is disrespect. VF9 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Plua, there's a guy who accuses me of harassment pretty much every chance he gets, and I also called a another editor a racist once. I'm sure there's more if you're willing to look. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, you have a history of not getting along well with others. VF9 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)   Administrator note: I have deleted File:Armenian tortoise.jpg as an apparent copyright violation. The website (a Wikia fandom) lists CC BY SA as their general copyright policy for community content, however, the image on the source website does not list a specific license for the image and the Wikia has no copyright policy in place. A recent upload from the same uploader lists "This file was originally uploaded on Pinterest" linking to the source [36], still with no license listed. Additionally, the image in question is watermarked by the copyright holder and there is no evidence to suggest that the uploader is the copyright holder or represents the copyright holder. This is a common case of Commons:License laundering, except it's a Wikia, so they probably don't realise the copyright implications. Separately, I have issued a standard warning to VF9 about removing speedy deletion tags - whether he agrees or not about the tag, the instructions are clear on how to proceed (opening a DR and replacing it with a DR tag). I have additionally issued the standard edit war warning to both users as this was passed the 3 revert rule. ~riley (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Following up on the above incident. I hoped another administrator would have chimed in, but nobody has. We have established the proper handling of the file in question, and unfortunately, it needed to be deleted. Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Rule 34 is going to run its course until there is consensus to either keep the category or delete the category. Following up on behavior.. VF9 has been warned about removing speedy deletion tags, both users have been warned about edit warring. While the Wikimedia community does not have a Code of Conduct (linked CoC is for Wikimedia Staff), World's Lamest Critic has demonstrated above that he is unwelcoming to a user making good faith contributions and while the contributions may or may not have been within Commons' policies or guidelines, it did not warrant such a derogatory behavior/attitude in response. @World's Lamest Critic: I invite you to correct your behavior moving forward and should it need to be said, this is an official warning. Continued behavior can and will lead to a block. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Civility, with extra attention to #Edit summary dos and don'ts. ~riley (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    For information, Commons:Assume good faith, Commons:Civility and Commons:Staying mellow are available rather than linking to English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If these are insufficient to guide the handling of dispute cases, then it would be useful to propose changes or elevating the essays to Wikimedia Commons community agreed guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    @~riley: VF9 has just added an image to the Wikipedia article on Armenian tortoises. It is of a tortoise clearly identified as a Russian tortoise, not an Armenian tortoise. And it is having sex with a shoe. Interesting choice. I'm going to step away from this discussion now. Have fun! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been trying to assume good faith from the user, but it has been getting ever more difficult. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    I could say the same about you. You've removing files from a maintenance category because they are easy to be recategorized, which doesn't make any sense. You're also not using the talk pages for virtually any of the files you dispute. VF9 (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    You have been creating categories and repeatedly putting them on images in ways that the result is a false description (eg 'unknown date' for images with known dates). Your declaration that your inaccurate categorization is a "maintenance category" does not seem helpful then when amount of extra work to add an accurate rather than inaccurate category seems miniscule. I've tried to offer some tips and would be happy to do so further, but I don't think simple accuracy and honesty in your edits is too high a bar to expect, especially when problems have already been pointed out to you more than once. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A photograph of an attractive topless pornstar is definitely erotic art, and this is not the place for a content dispute.
  • As for the "edit warring," (which doesn't break the 3RR) it was completely unintentional. I can't say the same for the other two users though. I've been using cat-a-lot and didn't notice that some files, which were part of multiple categories that I would copy many files from from, were removed from the new category I've been curating (ie They didn't let me know on the file talk page). Because of this, I re-added the files multiple times without knowing. In the times that I realized it, I tried to avoid editing that file and used the talk page, like here and here. VF9 (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Both images have copyright tags on them, & thus are incompatible with any CC license. Peaceray (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Now you're moving the goalposts, and that isn't how cc works. VF9 (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, show us the CC documentation that says copyright tags are permitted in CC images. Peaceray (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
CC-BY 2.0 does not relinquish all rights for the work. The work is still under copyright. [37] VF9 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see you are correct & stand corrected: "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" Peaceray (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Peaceray: see also COM:NOTCOPYVIO. It's a common misconception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz,   Thank you.! Peaceray (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peaceray: Neither of the files are eligible for speedy deletion, and as such, I have removed the tags. As there is no valid rational for deletion, a deletion request was not started. If you wish to contest this, you may start your own while keeping in mind the following:
  • Copyright marks do not make CC licenses incompatible
  • Copyright marks in lower right hand corner correspond with Flickr author.
  • Files have a valid CC license on Flickr.
  • Files has passed License Review both by bot and user (me).
  • EXIF data states author is "Daniel Culleton" and Google search matches Daniel "Dan" Culleton as B71 Photos.
Please review Commons:CSD and Commons:FLICKR before tagging future images for deletion. ~riley (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Thank you for your correction, education, & due dilligence on this. I will read Commons:CSD and Commons:FLICKR before tagging something that has a CC license on Flicker. I do wish to note that media from Flickr is not as clear cut as it seems from your response. I have encountered:
  • An image of Wendy Carlos uploaded to Flickr with the requisite CC license, which was not the work of the uploader, despite ownership claims. I suspect Flickr's vetting process is not as rigorous as Commons.
  • A video from A21 that was uploaded by the creator & tagged with CC licenses, but nevertheless did not comply with copyright because it contained copyrighted music that was not covered by the CC license.
In neither case were these spotted by a bot, nor would a bot flag a image for review when it had copyright tags within the image itself. Somethings just require a human set of eyes, & I thank you for your effort with this.
Peaceray (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I have indefinitely blocked VF9 based on an enwiki checkuser block and behavioral evidence here. (The sockmaster is RockingGeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who I have blocked for one month.) I will leave this thread open to allow continued discussion of their edits and uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: And to think I was trying to so hard to AGF... What is the rationale for a one month block for RockingGeo? Should be indef. I have blocked the other sock (GeoDude123), all tagged. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: I've changed to indef. Is there specific policy regarding block length for sockmasters? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Great question. Specific policy? Specific policies are far and few between on Commons, we moreso have broad policies  . It is briefly discussed in Commons:Blocking policy#Use and is decided on a case by case basis. Usually, a sockmaster's block length is decided by a CU who has the full scope of abuse. If you are blocking based on crosswiki data, the block here should match the block from the wiki with originating CU data. 95% of the time, it is an indef block for all accounts - when its not an indef block, think to what purpose you are trying to achieve with the block and how that will be achieved (key point: there will have to be more discussion than throwing a tag on the user's talk page). ~riley (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Kitausagisapporo

Uploading a copyright violation after a 2 week block. --153.205.224.14 12:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked, three months this time. Sealle (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

MedinaSergioWiki

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Not everything was copyvio, so I blocked him only for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Elymanci

Disruptive sockpuppet of Vinci84 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for doing the very same. Recommend immediate indefinite block and revert of all edits not reverted. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done I blocked the user indefinitely and deleted a lot of edits. For some edits I am not sure, do they need revert or not. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Uploads links to sales page at user's website sales page

If someone has the time to have a review of special:contributions/Koberger and maybe have a chat to the author. The source link on their uploads link through to what is their commercial website (per user page). It is my opinion that the links push the commercial aspect too hard. Numbers of the images are in place, though a couple checked didn't necessarily occur, though a bit hard to tell wihtout a forensic look.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I peeked a few of this user’s edits and it seems to be merely a link to a webpage (always the same?) where apparently these photos were all originally published: Nothing spammy about it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

The master and one of his socks Anshdeepsingh95 and Arshpreetsinghjosan have been blocked on en-wiki for sockpuppetry, and I believe the other two accounts are Rising Artists is also connected. They are all uploading copyvio images and sending fake emails to OTRS for permission per declaration here. Rising Artists uploaded two images including File:Alok Pandey in 2018.jpg and sent an email to OTRS which is exactly same as this one sent by the master earlier. All have same editing patern, they first upload an image and then they add a caption. GSS (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I added Honeyjeetsingh above. This user (and socks) is almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor at en.wiki, under investigation there, and their "stories" are ever-changing and full of ludicrous holes. Someone who can do so should certainly compare/check the credibility of the OTRS emails, particularly as the user now says: "I thought that through the email I should ask for pics from them and attach it to the article so that the article looks good. I took their email address from their social accounts and at that email address I asked for their photos. they send me and I uploaded. I didn't know that leads me into the problems." [38], which is seemingly an admission that they were "fake" (I don't believe the story about emailing via social media accounts either, but that's immaterial if they do not have the right to release the images, which it seems they do not.) -- Begoon 04:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

User:LEAP INDIA OFFICIAL

Spam-only account, violates COM:UPOL as a promotional username. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done. All his/her contributions are deleted. Herby warned the user and spam stopped after warning. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: Username is violating COM:UPOL, Account should be blocked. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done. Sorry, I forgot. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Olga Smolianinov

Abuse of multiple accounts related to a single purpose (Tyler Richard Moore). None of them seems to be the photographers so copyvio and likely OOS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done Эlcobbola talk 19:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Spam bots?

  1. Monira875 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  2. Jamunar4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  3. Soniaw12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  Done. I blocked them all indefinitely as spambots and deleted all their contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Liupi

Continues copyvios after multiple warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Taivo. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Harlling iki Lakone

Abusing multiple accounts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Doctor of Directions

This seems like a copyvio-only account. All of Doctor of Directions' uploads seem to be Google Street View caps. The account has been warned since 2017 with nary a reply to their user talk page. I'm shocked if you all never blocked them, but I don't know how'd I'd easily check. Seems to me like an account that should be blocked permanently, but IMO, that's not justified if it's a first block. I'm not an admin here, but on Wikivoyage, we would first warn a user to stop violating copyright/copyleft rules, then after any subsequent violations after they've had sufficient time to read their user page, we'd start with a 3-day block, then escalate it if the violations continue following their return to 2 weeks, and I believe the subsequent block lengths are 3 months and then indefinite, except if they're an IP user, in which case we usually wouldn't go over 3 months at most (usually blocks on sight of 1 month each time).

Tangentially related comment: Now that I'm patrolling here, I think it's a waste of time to patrol User:WMSR's edits, which are all copyright violation notices (is that user a bot?). So could you all make WMSR an autopatroller?

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek! Not a bot, just not totally sure how images I need to tag before it's overkill. I'll stop now. Also, I didn't know this page existed; otherwise I would have come here first. I'm not super experienced with Commons. That said, this user is also quite disruptive on en-wiki, though I don't think they've been blocked there either. WMSR (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't suggest you did anything wrong. Quite the contrary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Doctor of Directions has posted to my user talk page; see User talk:Ikan Kekek#Copyright violation accusations. I have suggested to them that they should post here. If they commit to stopping the copyright violation, we can slush this nomination to block their account and hope they don't do it again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This user's extraneous remarks to me about what they've done on Wikipedia interested me enough to check it out. You might want to do so, too: w:User talk:Doctor of Directions. I would call this thread particularly relevant - w:User talk:Doctor of Directions#Google maps Image on WMATA Metrobus articles. - because it's from November 10 and would seem to belie the user's claims that they think there's such a thing as "fair use" in uploading per se copyrighted Google Maps images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
They certainly have w:WP:CIR issues on en-wiki. WMSR (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no way to know whether someone is trolling or unable to understand things they read, but there's no need to try to read their mind. All we need to do is judge their actions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: It seems the Doctor of Directions has gone and removed deletion tags from their images. @Doctor of Directions: please engage in discussion here, and do not remove deletion tags! Also pinging BevinKacon. WMSR (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WMSR I recently caught three YouTube videos that match the images that is uploaded by Doctor of Directions, which the original work image is uploaded by LOCO-motix Road and Rail Videos of YouTube. I removed these images various times on the main Wikipedia articles, but the user keeps putting them back to the article. Leobran2018 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(moved from Leobran2018's wikimedia talk page) How did you find out that the two wikimedia files I posted are from YouTube? I agree that those two files should be removed but none of the other files are from YouTube. Are you some kind of whistleblower then or what?

Ever since you called me out on Wikipedia for using Google Maps Images, other wikipedia administrators have begun searching through all my wikimedia photos, accusing me of uploading all of them from Google Maps Street View, and have been blasting me off and threatening to shut my account down.

Besides when I try and upload wikimedia files that are not my own work and give the authors credit, Wikipedia gets so sensitive and the administrators immediately try to remove the photos I have uploaded even though I am well within my rights to do so. Maybe wikipedia has this extreme paranoia or fear. Not very friendly towards users who are not administrators. (Comment by Doctor of Directions at 1:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctor of Directions, 5 Wikipedians users (including myself) already see this issues on various Metrobus articles. Now by adding many unnecessary travel-guide like info can be a minor issue. I explained you about the Google Maps images on November 10. The 5 of us kept removing them, but you keep placing it back. I am not a whistleblower, as I already knew these image issues since the beginning. I am not an administrator, but these images is a big issue. Leobran2018 (talk) 3:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Doctor of Directions You have displayed a pattern of uploading images to which you do not have rights and claiming them to be your own work. Increased scrutiny should be expected. In addition, you have repeatedly removed deletion tags and restored images after being told not to do so. I am also not an administrator, as I have said before. We are not trying to attack you, but you are making it quite difficult to work with you by making accusations every time you engage in discussion. Editors are justifiably concerned about your uploads; the best course of action is not to insult the people who reported the images, especially when many of them were in fact copyright violations. As a general rule, you should not upload content that is not your own, even if you give credit. You need special permission from the author to upload their content. WMSR (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User has been given final warning, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Doctor of Directions is open for user to explain. This can be closed.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

神崎蒼月

Every file this user uploaded is copyvio. --本日晴天 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I warned the user and deleted all his/her remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done. The user re-uploaded a deleted file and I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible same person/Single-day use accounts

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.
After extended analysis and discussion, 55,000 photographs uploaded from accounts from 2006 through to November 2019 which are highly likely to be from the same photographer, have been added to Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. The use of high numbers of anonymous "disposable" accounts is not against policy, though it is recognized that this makes it impossible to communicate with the uploader. The photographer category may be added to in the future, as this may help better topic categorization and harmonization of descriptions, format and naming. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

and possibly many many many many more...

I've already tried to raised this, but have yet to receive an answer from a Commons sysop.

I've been noticing a pattern as of late and realised that there's been a string of uploads that follows the same naming patterns (i.e. [Intitial of location in English][Chinese name][name of place or hotel in English][Chinese name][description of place in English][Chinese name][Description of item][device used][number].jpg).

Futhermore,

  1. each of them have been using Commons as a vacation photo collection or image hosting service with the images having no educational value, which is clearly out of project scope.
  2. Photos are from the Pearl River Delta area
  3. each account is only active for one day, then never logs in after, only to have another new account continue the uploads.
  4. Some account clearly use the same device per EXIF metadata (esp. the ones uploading in the latter half of 2019).

With this pattern, I have no doubt in my mind that an individual is creating single use accounts/sockpuppets to upload their entire photo collection and to use Commons as it were Flickr. This I find extremely problematic. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nat, how is this a personal photo ? It's in scope in my opinion. I understand that it is problematic for users to create single day accounts but some images are in scope. And as they are traveling, we can't stop them due to varying IP addresses, also we can only contact them while they are uploading. --Eatcha (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO, they're personal photos if taken as a whole (as in the batch) and looking at the context. It's vacation photos. Not only that, but some of the photos are almost duplicate of the others (for example, there are several photos of the same hotel room toilet or another set of closet hangers). Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I interpret personal as "an image with a big face as the main subject or a group of random people covering an important building or structure". No one is going to use all of their images but some of them can be used on Wikipedia. At COM:FPC and COM:QIC I've seen photographers with multiple images of a same subject, it's not a serious problem to have multiple images of same subject. Is there any image which shows their face ? Their kids, spouse or any family member ? If not I don't think they are personal photographs. --Eatcha (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Understood. However, the problem still remains. One person creating multiple users. Also, I think I've seen photos of the same yoghurts and sauces, and frankly, near duplicates of the same building at least 6 times each. Anyways, I guess there nothing that can be done. How frustrating... --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nat: This user started somewhere in 2013 and an account lasts for about a day or so. As of now, the number of accounts created is somewhere between 1300-1500. + this issue was raised several times before (dig the archives if you want). 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 16:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Please use VFC to tag them as a whole bunch if the request is the same. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You should file a SPI case so that they can be investigated by a CU. Masum Reza📞 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Filed before. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Liauyu Riuhwa. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Been discussed many times before. Nothing much we can do. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_74#Accounts_seems_like_owned_by_the_same_person.--Roy17 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nat's DRs

I suggest speedy keeping all related files (about 410 photos) User:Nat nominated today: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Deletion_requests_November_2019&from=23%23File%3AMC , unless there's copyright problems.

As you browse through the link, you'll see the photos depict the interior of shopping malls, a restaurant, all kinds of foods, interior and facilities of a hotel, and Macau skylines. They obviously have educational value. They may have poor names and are over-categorised, but that does not affect the values and potential usage of these photos.--Roy17 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. They are vacation photos. And uploaded by problematic user no less. Does half a toilet seat have education value or a person's buffet plate? I don't think so. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
But whatever, if the community feels that these files should be kept, I won't stand in the way. But I am disappointed that nothing has been done or will be done about the clear case of sockpuppetry that has been going on since 2013 (!). --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Suckpuppetry is not addressed by deleting the puppets’ uploads. Furthermore, these photos are obviously in scope and should be   kept. However, by opening a few hundred deletion requests you make it possible for some of them to escape to the hands of deletionist admins without a single opposing vote. All these DRs have (essentially?) the same text and affect very similar images, from a single author — these should obviously be bundled into one single DR, for centralized discussion. That’s what you should be sternly warned against about. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They do. Those images are educational for those who never saw them. They certainly don't appear to be personal. Example, you go see the Nigra fall on a vacation and you captured some photos of it. Would you call those personal? No? They may be vacation photos but they are educational. Commons is a free file repository. Besides you don't even know if they are being used by external sites or not. My vote would be to   Keep all. Masum Reza📞 16:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)I just want to leave this here before leaving this alone, per COM:NOTUSED: "The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph." --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  Keep except clear derived images I nominated , see User talk:Bamhocuioo MAU. I left some paintings which were too small. --Eatcha (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: there's {{FoP-Macao}}.--Roy17 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
USCA 1976, Section 106 applies to wmf servers --Eatcha (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I suspect close-keeping these DR's at all is a pain. It's probably easier to just delete these pages:
(Very large list removed) --Majora (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
and de-list them from Commons:Deletion requests/2019/11/23. @Majora: unless you can think of some easier way? Delreqhandler doesn't even seem to like non-file pages, so even deletion may require something custom. But it's probably less painful than actually closing them all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
We can just Special:Nuke them if necessary. No need to list them all here as that doubles the size of this noticeboard. --Majora (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
There obviously is emerging consensus to close these as keep. Out of scope conversations that have reasonable objections end in keep anyways. Since closing over 400 individual DRs is a waste of resources I'll just go ahead and do what was suggested above. Give me some time to clean up. If someone wants to go back through these and renominate them either via batch processing or with more concrete rationales as to why they are no in scope please feel free to do so. --Majora (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: I thought the list might help to process them, I'm not familiar with Special:Nuke. I could remove the deletion tags from files if you want? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Not necessary. All clean. --Majora (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Pragmatic steps

Example of an in-scope video, a slightly scary taxi ride
 
An educational and potentially valuable image, illustrating recent Hong Kong protest graffiti
 
Early 2006 upload of local scenery which is also in use on Wikipedia

Given that the user is not in any strict way breaking policies by using a new account every time they upload, this may continue and may result in further discussions. A positive step may be to create a user tracking category for all uploads. Would anyone like to suggest a category name we can use for this, or put forward a rationale as to why this should not be done?

I am happy to use a bit of smart scripting to add images to such a category so long as there are reasonable ways to identify the connected uploads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is some sort of "outing" problem I am unaware of (please email me off-wiki immediately if there is), I can already see a way of automatically categorizing/tagging at least 18,000 photographs currently hosted which appear to be connected to these accounts. I am not willing to explain exactly how just in case there is some privacy issue for the uploader being resident in China. I'll make up a temporary category unless a good suggestion is posted, and try a slow test run later today. This is probably the most 'passive' way of handling and analysing the uploads, especially if anyone wants to go through them and do a mass DR on obviously problematic images, but ignore the others. Apart from this passive approach, we should probably just let them carry on with the quiet enjoyment of their hobby, even if their behaviour is less than ideal for our project. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's identify the problems and address each.
  1. Creating throwaway accounts to upload photos - Nothing to take action...
  2. Bad file names and descriptions - I am hoping some kind of tool would allow users to view photos in slideshow mode and edit descriptions without reloading pages.
  3. Over categorisation - I am hoping for a tool that can select files like VFC and replace all categories with user-input cats. Alternatively, let a bot check this user's uploads and detect which cats are over-cats and remove them. (His over cat pattern is for example putting HK, 2019 in HK, Nov 2019 in HK on a single file. Obviously only the most specific cat is needed.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd call him Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1.--Roy17 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  Comment COM:DGP might help. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 [OK] as mentioned I'll not be explaining exactly how, but will soon be adding suspected related files to the suggested category. If any additions are incorrect (they may well be), please leave a note on my user talk page. The identified files are not going to be complete, I may need to take a second look at related files not categorized.
Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1
--Fæ (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  Info User:Lumisid_MviuUUV gets matched, but is a longer-term account. It is a useful counter-example and the uploads have not been added to the anon HK photographer category.
Examining the possible matches, the files being added have a very high probability of being the same person. However other accounts may be accidentally added to the photographer category and these should be removed using a tool like cat-a-lot when noticed. It is also likely that large collections of uploads have been missed out. After attempting to do some softer types of matching, these had too many erroneous inclusions to be useful. Stopping analysis for the time being, though Faebot will continue working through the current remaining good matches… --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Still the same guy. Looking at the contribs records I'm pretty sure Lumisid_MviuUUV (talk · contribs) is him, but it is surprising that he revives an account after several months. (I have seen cases of a few weeks' hiatus but not half a year like this account.) I didnt know he also uploads videos. I believe he's been active since 2006.--Roy17 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  Info Another interesting case that pops up is Shekao Fumia 288 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Soa M Ahhsui (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I thought this was showing evidence of the activities of more than one person, but though they edit on the same day, the 'Shekao' account is retired precisely one hour before 'Soa' is created. This may be the norm, perhaps creating a new account every time they start a new photography 'event' on the same day, as Shukoi bOenckod (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Ho Simons 2019 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) are retired and created just 16 minutes apart.
  Info Faebot's run is complete, there were 597 accounts included, which is demonstrably not all of them, and 23,884 files were included in the photographer category. The match success rate using this method appears to be reliably high, but not perfect.
Stats: In October there were 58 disposable accounts created, the most active being Ceis RIuaXso (talk · contribs · logs · block log) with 591 uploaded photographs while two accounts only made a single upload. So far in November there have been 40 accounts identified, 5 of these uploaded more than 200 photographs. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  Info The first tranche of identified files dated from mid-2018. A second tranche based almost exclusively on behavioural patterns appears to have been productive, finding disposable accounts dating back to 2006. The matching is not perfect, but on manual review this appears to show over 3,600 accounts which are very likely to be used by the same uploader. Faebot will be adding these to the photographer category today. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Having previously commented on this uploader, the last time examples were raised at AN, after spending more time looking at a sample of photographs in detail and setting up the photographer category, I believe this is a case where the Wikimedia Commons community should be seen to support a long term user that is obviously keen to stay anonymous or at least pseudonymous. Though some may be irritated at weak naming and categorization, and others find their approach of using mass disposable accounts non-collegiate, they are clearly a truely avid shutterbug and highly committed to sharing their photographs on Commons. Despite intense scrutiny, there is nothing in their contributions that appears in the least bit malign or deliberately disruptive and they add value to their photographs with meaningful descriptions, original EXIF data and attempts at categorization. If the suggested dates of 2006 for earliest Commons contributions are correct, they also deserve our admiration for their persistence in contributions, making them part of oldest Commons volunteers.

Should others wish to further analyse uploads the photographer category may help, but considering the uploader is based in China, please avoid publishing anything on-wiki that may be used to explicitly track the person or could expose their real-life identity in ways that they may find unwelcome. If in doubt, keep detailed analysis off-wiki even though it may be relevant to discuss problematic lists of files on-wiki. The uploader's choice to stay anonymous should remain respected.

If Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer reads this, please feel welcome to carry on as your contributions should be taken in good faith. Please consider the value in corresponding with the community on project talk pages like this (in any language), especially when other volunteers are raising legitimate questions about your photographs. Using disposable accounts to do so is fine, if unusual. Thanks   --Fæ (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 --Achim (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

During the categorization, we have found a new type of (very rare) file corruption bug which leads to the erratic display of file histories. It seems to have only occurred for uploads 6 or more years ago and the cause is currently unknown. Devs are on it, see Phab:T239213. --Fæ (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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


Бучач-Львів rename requests edit war

There is an issue with Бучач-Львів engaged in edit war around rename requests for a couple of years.

This user has a problematic behaviour in Ukrainian Wikipedia, resulting in ArbCom banning him from moving pages. His major conflict was around use of words Успіння or Внебовзяття in names of churches, and his proposal to replace Успіння with Внебовзяття was rejected in Ukrainian Wikipedia (e.g. uk:Вікіпедія:Перейменування статей/Костел Успіння Пречистої Діви Марії (Отинія) → Костел Внебовзяття Пресвятої Діви Марії (Отинія) or uk:Обговорення:Костел Успіння Пресвятої Діви Марії (Умань)).

He then exported this conflict on Commons and started requesting renaming files with Успіння to Внебовзяття. In the majority of cases sources (e.g. parish websites, as well as article names in Ukrainian Wikipedia) opt for Успіння as the main term, in the minority of cases sources both Успіння and Внебовзяття are used. Commons:FR#FR3 (the criterion) he requests for applies to obvious errors only. Успіння is in no way an obvious error, usually a dominant spelling, and at the very least a common spelling.

Multiple filemovers who did not speak Ukrainian stated they were effectively misguided:

I think the pattern is clear: requesting the same rename multiple times, reverting rejections by Ukrainian speakers, and waiting until a non-Ukrainian speaker unaware of the problem renames the file.

I would suggest banning Бучач-Львів from requesting any renames of files containing 'Усп' (standing for 'Успіння' or 'Успенський') in the name — NickK (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note this user is blocked indefinitely on 2 Wikimedia projects; English Wikipedia for disruptive editing and Russian for violating What Wikipedia is not policy. --VKras (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Власне, ви забуваєте, чим не є вікіпедія. Ви надалі хочете помилки: правильно - Внебовзяття, неправильно - Успіння. Бо на цих світлинах - римо-католицькі храми, а не православні, не греко-католицькі. Решту - потім. Зараз хіба скажу: ви посилаєтеся на застарілі джерела, на джерела з помилками і т. д. Щодо тих моїх блокувань, особливо в заполітизованій рувікі - це некоректне пересмикування. Там очевидні зловживання адміністраторів. Як і очевидні зловживання NickK в укрвікі. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You were shouting at your talk page while blocked on the Russian Wikipedia, you have lost your talk page access there. --VKras (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Бучач-Львів I do not speak Ukrainian well. Why don't you use English here. Don't you even know English? --VKras (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I speak English so-so. Some minutes ago when I editing you make yours edit quickly )) This isn't war editing from me, because I edit slowly ))) Why you've wright on my page about last попередження? ))--Бучач-Львів (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Translating Бучач-Львів's statement (AFAIK he does not speak English):
So you forget what Wikipedia is not. You want further mistakes: Внебовзяття is right, Успіння is wrong. Because all these photos depict Roman Catholic churches, not Orthodox, not Greek Catholic. Everything else later. Now I will only tell: you cite outdated sources, sources with mistakes etc. Regarding my blocks, especially in politicised ruwiki, it is an incorrect manipulation. There is an obvious administrative abuse there. As well as an obvious abuse by NickK in ukwiki.
This summarises the same arguments that were rejected in ukwiki (see links above). According to Бучач-Львів, only sources that support his position are right, while all others are outdated or mistaken, even if it is the website of Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine or the website of the parish itself — NickK (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
English - Assumption. Polish - Wniebowzięcie. Ukrainian - Внебовзяття. До завтра. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
English – Dormition. Polish – Zaśnięcie. Ukrainian – Успіння. Actually both terms refer to the same event. For difference between assumption and dormition see Assumption of Mary or Dormition of the Mother of God. I think that technically Бучач-Львів is right, i.e. a Roman Catholic church should be called "church of Assumption" while e.g. an Orthotox church should be called "church of Dormition". But if the sources state otherwise, so be it. BTW. I think the best sources are websites of appropriate dioceses where all parishes should be listed. --jdx Re: 08:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@ NickK On their user page on German Wikipedia, they claim they speak English at a intermediate level. --VKras (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I had some encounters with them on the English Wikipedia (I probably even blocked them), and I can attest that they do not speak English at any reasonable level.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Ymblanter The blocking admin is Drmies and this is the only user that has ever blocked them before. --VKras (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@VKras and Ymblanter: That's enough you two. Commons is a multilingual project, remember? Let them justify their actions in a language that they can speak well. We'll see what happens next if they fail to provide a clear and good reason for their actions. Masum Reza📞 21:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I support NickK suggestion. I understand Бучач-Львів explanation and even agree with something but Ukrainian sources use both names and existing titles are more traditional. I think in this case we need to keep the original author's name of files. This isn't a mistake anyway. That's why Бучач-Львів's requests look like pushing one point of view. I doubted only because users of Ukrainian Wikipedia calmly looked at such renaming of articles on the home wiki. But now Arbitration Committee has taken an unequivocal position. --sasha (krassotkin) 23:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

English - Dormition, Ukrainian - Успiння. User ukrwiki AlexKozur, according to him, even asked representatives of the Lviv archdiocese how to write correctly - Assumption (ukr. Внебовзяття) or Dormition (ukr. Успіння). He got the answer - Assumption (Russian: участник укрвики AlexKozur, по его словам, даже спрашивал представителей Львовской архидиецезии, как правильно писать - Внебовзятие или Успение. И получил ответ - Внебовзятие.)

krassotkin. No, these are different things. See 1, 2, 3. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:VKras. This phrase of yours, as if I'm lying, is extremely incorrect (see (Russian эта ваша фраза, будто бы я вру, есть крайне некоректной). In addition, for some reason, you and NiсkK did not want to discuss this episode with me ... (Russian: Кроме того, вы и NickK почему то не захотели обговорить со мной этот эпизод... ) --Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:VKras. As for my locks in Enwiki and Ruwiki, I report that I sincerely sincerely apologized for my own, I believe that such misconduct is not so significant that they would block me indefinitely after an apology. In addition, the administrator of Ruwiki User: Petrov Victor, who was blocked indefinitely in Ukrwiki earlier by User:Yakudza, blocked me after the events of Maidan 2014 for my over-emotional reaction to this vandalous edit about Ihor Kostenko in the article about his village see here. (Russian: что касается моих блокировок в Англ и Рувики, сообщаю, что я давно искренне извинился за свои, считаю, не такие уж существенные проступки, чтобы меня после извинений блокировали бессрочно. Кроме того, администратор Рувики Участник:Petrov Victor, который заблокирован бессрочно в Укрвики еще раньше, заблокировал меня после событий Майдана 2014 за мою сверх моциональную реакцию на вот эту вандальную правку об Игоре Костенко здесь.) --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


I am not good at telogic terminology. The term "Внебовзятие" was first seen in this discussion. And i want to offer Google search results for review. This is a good statistical method for evaluating how often such a term is used.
Russian terms:
Успение 2 060 000 times
Вознесение1 760 000 times
Внебовзятие 253 times

Ukrainian terms:
Успiння 353 000 times
Внебовзяття 16 400 times

This is currently not the most common synonym, and I believe that renaming is not constructive. Perhaps, over time, if this will be a generally accepted synonym, then renaming becomes desirable. With best regards to all --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I think I should clarify one point here. COM:FR is not about choosing a better name for a file uploaded by someone else, it is only about correcting obvious errors.
    • From Ukrainian Wikipedia discussion, using Успіння for a Roman Catholic church is not an obvious error. For example, File:Костёл Успения Пресвятой Богородицы, фрагмент (2).JPG depicts the sign of the Roman Catholic Assumption Cathedral in Odessa which uses the word Успіння. If a Roman Catholic cathedral uses this word, how can it be an obvious error?
    • In many cases there are sources for both Успіння and Внебовзяття. In this case per Commons rules the original uploader should be the one who chooses the filename. I am perfectly fine if some uploaders use Успіння and others use Внебовзяття: categories, monument IDs and why not structured data help find the image no matter what the filename.
    • My main argument is that renaming files uploaded by someone else to make a statement violates COM:POINT. Regarding @Бучач-Львів: 's argument that for some reason, you [VKras] and NiсkK did not want to discuss this episode with me, the reason is clear: I already discussed this with Бучач-Львів at Jarould's talk page. I though that explaining once is enough, but rename requests edit war after a discussion on this very word is beyond the point where a discussion can help
    NickK (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


How about if they engage in rename requests edit war again, they'd be blocked. --VKras (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As Jan pointed out correctly: Внебовзяття is appropriate for Roman catholic churches, Успіння for orthodox ones. --Achim (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: I would rather ask the opposite: is Успіння for Roman Catholic churches inappropriate enough to remove it even despite uploader's wishes and even despite several filemovers declining requests? — NickK (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
NickK, assumptio and dormitio are different things. A Roman catholic church is never dedicated to the dormitio = death of Mary but to her Assumption. --Achim (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: My question is not regarding Latin words but about Ukrainian ones. I know the difference in Latin, my question is about Ukrainian. For instance, what would you say on the sign I mentioned above File:Костёл Успения Пресвятой Богородицы, фрагмент (2).JPG? — NickK (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
NickK, sorry, I didn't get it because most wps do distinguish like uk:Успіння Богородиці and uk:Внебовзяття Марії. If you being a native speaker say it's common practice naming rc churches as Успіння even though it's not correct, so be it, I'm fine with that. Best, --Achim (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: It is not just me who says that. Here is a book on religious terminology by the Ukrainian Catholic University which states that Щодо назви літургійного свята, то назва успення відповідає латинському assumptio (Успіння corresonds to assumptio when we are speaking of the feast), they consider внебовзяття a wrong loanword from Polish, and they state that небовзяття is an appropriate term for the dogma. As churches are named after feasts and not dogmas, from theological point of view Успіння is acceptable in the name of a Roman Catholic Church — NickK (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for google translate )) It turns out that the main protector of the word Dormition (ukr. Успіння) in the names of churches of the Assumption on this popular site (ukr. http://www.rkc.in.ua/index.php?&m=k&f=__&l=u ) was Ihor Sidelnyk, who, as I understand it, is not a priest, but not Bishop Marian Buczek. Moreover, due to the position of Sedelnyk (http://rkc.in.ua/index.php?&m=n&f=a201908&p=20190815a&l=u), the site ends its existence (http://www.rkc.in.ua/index.php?&m=n&f=a201908&p=20190823a&l=r). (Russian: Оказывается, главным защитником использования слова Успение в названиях храмов Внебовзятия на этом сайте был Игорь Седельник, который, как я понял, не есть священником, а никак не епископ Бучек. Более того, из-за позиции Седельника сайт заканчивает свое существование.) --Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Akmal Hashim Kapat

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done User warned. @Patrick Rogel: Users should be warned before we consider blocking them. Perhaps you can warn them yourself before bringing to AN? The gadget User Messages has templates for this Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: User has been warned before on October 27 and November 10. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
How did I miss that. Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Valmir de Teófilo Otoni (again)

Blocked one week by Taivo above. Continues to recreate deleted files and to upload out of scope images: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Valmir_de_Teófilo_Otoni. 2simple (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Fitindia deleted his uploads and I blocked Valmir for a month. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ComputerHotline

This user keep on removing deletion/nsd/npd notice without archiving them. User has been warned Special:Diff/368330820. --219.78.191.143 16:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ComputerHotline is an experienced user and has surely read the notices. There is no duty to archive them in that situation. --Túrelio (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What administrative action is being sought? Deletion of warnings is merely discouraged, per both the warning you cite itself ("removing legitimate warnings and notices [...] is discouraged") and per COM:TALK ("Others delete comments [...] but this practice is no longer recommended—archiving is preferred"). Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_81&oldid=380077139"