Open main menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U· COM:ANU

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.


Archives
13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)


Note

  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:ArtinplEdit

I'm not too familiar with relevant policy but is "delete yourself" a (1) good reason to reverse a speedy deletion copyvio request and/or (2) a threat of some kind? In any case, very unpleasant. You may also see this at enWP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This edition was sneaky, this user is deleting and disputing my work wherever he can. Artinpl (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If someone only ever uses h-self as a source to identify portraits & other images and then to profess in a multitude of Wikipedia aticles that such an identification is legitimate as sourced (i.e. the kind of "work" which is not allowed there), someone else is bound to discover and disclose that eventually. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing, sorry, but I don't get it. A depicted 16th-century painting is tagged {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and you requested deletion because of "Copyright claim at Flickr is unacceptable"??? --Achim (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Ah, just noticed File talk:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking! I did not want to remove the PD-Art|PD-old-100 tag, only because I've experienced that the uploader is prone to edit wars and unpleasant remarks and I'd like to cut down on that. The uploader has made changes since I reported this. Actually, there is no evidence of any kind, with a reliable source, that this image is old. That, together with the fact that the uploader h-self alleges to have a copyright on it "© ML, all rights reserved" here, to me would make any PD-Old tagging inappropriate. This could be a drawing of anyone, by anyone, done anytime, for all we know, as based solely on sources and allegations by the uploader. (I could draw a "famous" great-x25-grandmother, upload her to Geni or Ancestry & then try to get her into Wikipedia articles.) We need reliable sources, and all we're getting from this user is things like "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So flickr/facebook looks like 2nd-hand source. Artinpl, where did you File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg scan from? --Achim (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, pages created by the uploader h-self at Flickr, Facebook, Pintarest etc. (as addressed here) never have any other sources than the uploader h-self, as far as I've seen. In other words, unfortunaltely for Commons, this particular item looks like the tip of an iceberg. I hope I'm wrong, but the whole thing certainly needs attention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Source, references, and decription are clear. I am not doing anything wrong here, as Artinpl is individual, educational project. Here is some more clarification about the file [1], which represent my own research and flickr/facebook are frequently a source here. The file from flickr is not the same, hence it was added as refs. I made many valuable contributions and ceded to public domain many of my works and this is only aimed at making harm to me and show how meaningless I am. I am not making any editions to this article as it is owned by one user, who do not accept any new ideas. Artinpl (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User also keeps reverting here arbitrarily, to add h own unsourced conjecture over and over, without using talk. Speedy deletion there is warranted, due to obvious copyright violation. The file, as unidentified & not reliably sourced in any way, is under the uploader's personal copyright as given in the Flickr link also submitted above.

Claims of article ownership are far from factual, as are claims of being persecuted. Accusations of that type, with no basis, constitute personal attacks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will wait for another few days for the user to reply to Achim's question before reverting the conjecture again & tagging that image for speedy deletion again as a copyvio on an unknown image under copyright to the uploader. Nothing (nothing) other than the user's own allegations has been stated yet to explain or substantiate

  1. where this image came from to the uploader?
  2. where the original is today?
  3. whether or not it actually is old?
  4. who it represents as a portrait?
  5. why it is under copyright to the uploader?
  6. why the user has added it to various Wikipedia articles with no other source (none at all) but h-self?

The lack of all that information is unacceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As per h own info in the first link provided above, the user is also known as "Marcin Latka" and the image is copyrighted to that name in the Flickr link. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a permanent block on enWP for "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" and subsequent block evasion under a new name there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

All this looks like stalking. Artinpl (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Achim made a very brief appearance here 6 days ago and asked the user a question which was answered summarily and somewhat cavalierly. Anyone else interested in self-copyrighted, unknown images being on Commons and/or in habitual self-sourcing? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User's new account at enWP has now been blocked indef like the previous one has been since 2017. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Each day there will a new report here about my activity? I ceased all my interactions with this user. Despite trillions of guidelines I am feeling harrassed and no one is doing nothing, this is the best proof how effective they are. Artinpl (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not about interaction between any users. It's about the 6 unanswered questions above re: this image. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Marcin, zakładam dobrą wiarę. That is, I will take no measures against you. a) The block of your account on en:wp was finally a soft one because of your user name and b) it has no effect here on commons. I can understand that you feel stalked by Serge's peeking and poking. On the other hand: Some months ago we had to delete an image of a contemporary painting that had been made in late medieval style. Of your uploaded File:Anonymous Lady with eagle pendant.jpg we know nothing: No painter, no reliable info about who's depicted, no real source. If I lived in Vienna I'd have a closer look, but so it will be deleted precautionary. Please add the source of your image in a verifyable way, not only facebook or flickr. Btw, I agree that it looks like 16th century and also that File:Okänd kvinna kallad Anna prinsessa av Sverige - Nationalmuseum - 15094.tif might be attributed wrongly to depict Anna Vasa. --Achim (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I too always like to assume good faith (zakładam dobrą wiarę), when that is realistically possible.

The current block at English Wikipedia is for abusing multiple accounts. Frankly, I am very surprised & dismayed that any Commons administrator would choose to agree in criticism of someone who's tried to investigate such matters a bit, and who's recommended a wider investigation of the actions of this user at Commons in uploading vast amounts of images that seem to be sourced only to h-self; a user who also could upload any (any) image to Commons which is clearly copyrighted to h-self on Flickr. Has this user really (really) taken all those beautiful museum-quality photographs h-self? Well-known museum photographers normally have a few listings as such (listings not created by themselves) e.g. on Google. There is no such thing, not one, that I can find. Who really took them? If the user and the administrator know each other, perhaps an uninvolved administrator would like to have a look? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The block log reads "Promotional username, soft block", but that doesn't matter because this is Commons. I'm not willing to accept Commons to be used as another stage for trouble some users have on a different wm project. So I'll leave any decision regarding this case to others. I don't see Marcin's disrupting behavior here on Commons, but maybe someone else does. As I said, I'm fine with the image in question to be deleted if it's not sourced adequately. --Achim (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, however you are still looking at the old block, not the recent one which is not soft. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the reason of a soft block? To give the user an opportunity to create another account. To block that new account per "block evasion" is just a joke. --Achim (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If you choose to call that "just a joke", an indefinite block for sock puppetry applied by an administrator like User:Jpgordon with 15 years of Wikipedia experience, that is up to you. I don't think it's a good idea, but it does look similar to your friend's the addition of Minnie Micky Mouse to a third-opinion volunteer's input (linked here below). Constructive suggestion: strike that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't accept that you presume me to be a friend of Artinpl. I didn't know anything about him until you opened this case. --Achim (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Anna Vasa imageEdit

Re: attribution of the generally accepted Anna Vasa image (a subject not actually concerned in this section): I have given evidence here that 3 Swedish academics have used the image in their books: "The image which the National Museum does not choose to identify specifically (that's not unusual) is used in several respected books by academics, e.g by Lars W Ericson (p. 318), Dr. Ulf Sundberg (p. 63) and Dr. David Norrman (p. 128h). All the museum has done is decline to identify. That does not mean they have said it is not Anna." To that and the helpful opnion of a third opinion editor,this user has replied with "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published." plus a gallery picture of Minnie Micky Mouse! Is it any wonder if the user is considered hard to deal with in good faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: attribution of the not generally accepted Anna Vasa image (a subject not actually concerned in this section): During these years the fashion changed quite rapidly as it is verifyable by very many paintings. That fact allows us to state by consideration of clothing, fabric, hairstyle, jewelry etc. that this Okänd kvinna kallad Anna prinsessa av Sverige - Nationalmuseum - 15094.tif painting depicts a young lady in the 1630s (+/- a few years). Assuming her to be Anna Vasa (1558-1625) would mean that she is shown in her year of death aged 56. That is obviously not the case. --Achim (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not unheard of that older portaits are updated re: fashions to show later trends than were relevant during the lifetime of the subject. In any case, I suggest we go by the academics I listed, not by any interpretations of our own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Queen Kristina as a Child - Nationalmuseum - 23742.tif: Same style, same painter/workshop (Elbfas'), same time. Must have been created after her father's death in 1632 because of the regalia. You might believe in the fairy tale of post-mortem creation or altering of Anna's image. I do not and am off now. Best, --Achim (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Our purpose here is not to act on what we users believe or not believe, whether or not we call those beliefs "fairy tales". Our purpose here is to act upon what reliable sources believe. Several reliable sources believe that the portrait is of Anna. Not one reliable source, as far as I know, asserts that the portrait is not of her. One museum has chosen not to identify it. That's all we have.
I have never seen an administrator on any Wikimedia project behave like you. Still amazed and a bit shocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yuraily LicEdit

Yuraily Lic (talk · contribs)

New user: two weeks, two thousand edits (!), and they're all deletion requests regarding Japan and copyright claims. Their understanding of copyright isn't as good as they think and there are major flaws in many of these nominations. As well as nominating for deletion, they're also tagging other editors with warning box threats of blocking: User_talk:Manami#Copyright_violations

This is not good editing and it needs some more eyeballs over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously. Deletion requests are contributions to Wikimedia Commons. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
They're only positive contributions if they're accurate and appropriate deletion requests. Otherwise they're a massive time-sink for other editors to deal with.
Also Commons relies on the efforts of many contributors here. Threatening them with blocks (which you have no power to implement) on inaccurate grounds are not a good contribution to that. Clearly you are lacking in any respect for anyone else here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Deletion requests to copyvio files are legitimate contributions to Wikimedia Commons. No problems. Why do you see them as problems ? Do you want to keep copyvio files in Commons? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Filing DRs is not in itself a problem. However, I find a new user accumulating a thousand edits a week, entirely filing DRs, to be rather suspicious. Your attitude is also unacceptable - threatening blocks for what appear to be unintentional copyvios is not appropriate. You also have chosen to respond in a hostile manner to legitimate criticism of your DRs, and of entirely justified questions about your intentions. I strongly suggest that you move away from DRs for the time being and find other ways to contribute to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators, please warn users who uploaded copyvio files. If there are no copyvio files in Wikimedia Commons, I will not submit DRs. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about the behaviour of uploaders, it's about your behaviour. You are bulk listing DRs, and they're not adequately accurate DRs, thus disruptive in themselves. You have ignored all comment since and you have not responded to any challenge of your DRs. Even during this, you're still bulk-listing DRs and they're still no more accurate. This needs to stop: either by your action, or by a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
"Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously." As this sentence, I think admins should strict measures to users uploaded copyright violation files. But, my thought and admin's thoughts do not seem to match. Com:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#CEFICEFI --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

About User_talk:Yuraily_Lic#FoP_in_Japan.

Andy Dingley, Do you mean that "No FOP in Japan" is not appropriate as a reason for DR? “No FoP in Japan” is a term used in DRs. And, administrators understand them. Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ERENGELION_VS_Woman-type_Giant_at_Universal_Studios_Japan.jpg.

In addition, "no fop in the us" is also used. Please see, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KI Dinosaur.jpg. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And, I linked to FoP in Japan in DRs. So, administrators and users can understand about "No FOP in Japan" by reading it. Please see, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace Statue (Nagasaki). --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course Japan has FoP, you are even linking to our page on the topic. It's not a particularly free access to such content and rarely of use at Commons, but that is not the same as making a false statement that there is, "No FoP in Japan". Just how many times do you expect me to have to point this out to you?
Please do not continue to create huge numbers of deletion requests based on an obviously false statement.
"No FoP in Japan" is not a valid reason for a DR. It is a problem with your DRs, it is a problem with those other DRs too. But we aren't talking about those. If you want to question those, start a thread on it.
A reason of "There is no FoP for this image in Japan" would be better and it would be far better to state "This image cannot have a free licence for commercial use under the restrictive Japanese FoP, so is not freely licensed as would be needed for Commons." But Japan does have FoP, and it has a more free FoP than some countries. In particular, buildings will often be free in Japan but not in some others.
You are also misapplying COM:PACKAGING, ignoring COM:TOO and especially COM:TOYS, where Japan is more free than most countries. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, is it OK this reason for a DR? Com:Deletion requests/File:Yujiro - panoramio.jpg --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really. You seem to have not read, or not understood, a word here. See [2] for the detail of the problem.
"(iv) reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies." is forbidden under Japanese law, but permitted for Commons content.
We even have a template already that is clearer than this. {{NoFoP-Japan}} Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, "No FoP in Japan" is a short phrase. But, I always linked to FoP in Japan. The linked page contains OK cases, Not OK cases, and Japanese copyright law. Is this not enough? If you think it is not enough, you'd better suggest additional writing to make FoP in Japan sufficient. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
To administrators. Is "No FoP in Japan" (linked to FoP in Japan) not appropriate as a reason for deletion request? In the past, this term was used and accepted in DRs.
I want opinions and advice from administrators. (Please in simple English.) --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: this user also does not make good answers when we ask him, he only do a copy/paste of sentences which are on his user page. It is important to communicate, but with him we cannot, his english level is very bad. --Cody escadron delta (d) 06:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
So what's to be done? There seem to be no admins interested, and he's continuing to file these DRs. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please name a DR which was created without a valid reason? I checked the last ones created today, and they have at least a plausible reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe see my replies at [3]
These are all DRs for a "good" reason. But they're also extremely simplistic and show no evidence of any understanding or depth of thought for what's a complex topic. They consist of "No FoP in Japan" (which is untrue) or "COM:DW" or "COM:PACKAGING", but those aren't good enough. There are exceptions and constraints to these, and those aren't being looked at. Yuraily Lic appears to be working though on the basis that "All costumes in Japan are deletable under COM:DW" or "Any photograph involving any visible product falls under COM:PACKAGING".
These are only a handful, I haven't got time to even read all of them, but these are just some where the central theme of the DR is "correct", but nothing beyond that seems to have been considered. Copyright is complex and there seems to be none of the necessary skill being applied to these. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of these may be kept, but they are not abusive DRs IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No-one has described them as "abusive", although it's a term I'm certainly considering, as they keep appearing. A smarter editor would at least stop with further nominations during this process.
What do you reckon to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Menu bord van het café “Mother Leaf Tea Style” in Joinus Yokohama, -19 maart 2016.jpg ? Is Yuraily Lic's judgement for "derivative works" reasonable here, or is this example (as I would claim, and COM:DM practically gives as an example) too trivial? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've taken the liberty of uploading a version with blurred COM:DWs to eliminate that problem, and also fixed the perspective. Should be OK now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The old version is not OK for us, but the new version is. I closed the DR, and hid the old version. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So how about AN/U §CEFICEFI for abuse of another editor? I am very uneasy with this rush to, "May I warn them?", as if that was the whole goal of editing at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rebirth10:, I see you've been affected by these too. The cards in particular should have been kept under COM:TOO and COM:DM. Any logos on there were copyright, but also too simple to be protected to this extent. The decorative aspects likewise too trivial. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has a policy "Precautionary principle". If you think about those images as COM:TOO or COM:DM, but copyright owners may not think so. Administrators would have made judgments while also considering precautionary principle. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That is not how Commons works (or at least shouldn't work). We work by consensus at DRs, not by one admin applying a supervote.
Also the "precautionary principle" was abandoned on Commons when Commons continued hosting the monkey selfie. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ThempirecrewEdit

Can an admin delete the above stuff. User keeps removing DR templates. Thanks. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Blocked & deleted by Эlcobbola, thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Manakpreet SinghEdit

Manakpreet Singh (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

An extensive reading of COM:L and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India seems necessary. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

HelpEdit

Users uploaded files depicting the same person. Paris Hamilton uploaded File:Parriss.jpg and PoulDeLaSaise File:Paris Hamilton.jpg both files are relatively similar. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, users warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

JcbEdit

Here’s the undeletion request started by someone else. This discussion is causing pointless drama. 1989 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have asked several times Jcb to bring his deletions back to agreed common standard. He removed my messages without answering. Again today, I asked him to undelete Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News, which was deleted against all consensus and without any valid rationale. His only answer was that I have "something personal" against him. This is obviously complete bullshit. I used to have good terms with Jcb. Seeing the current situation, and the refusal to amend, I don't think Jcb can stay as an admin. I therefore request his de-adminship. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talking to him is useless...--UltimoGrimm (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that complains against Jcb are recurrent (understatement). The last serious one: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 71#User:Jcb. Yann (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Could I just point out COM:DR does state "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle." (emphasis mine)
If Jcb won't undelete the files then the next best place is Commons:Undeletion requests,
I can understand the frustration with files being deleted and what appears to be a close ignoring all !votes however the files were deleted per Commons:Licensing - Not one !vote said why Commons:Licensing doesn't apply nor was there any policy backed reason, You had comments such as "Since the Stand News said that "any organization or person can freely use", obviously it means that we can republicate, distribute and use it in anyway" (no evidence was added that stated this) and "This DR will make many article lose a lot of images, I don't want to see that.",
IMHO I see nothing wrong with Jcb's actions here - As the quote above states "Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law". –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
If it were an isolated case, I would not care, but this is the last in a looong list of problems. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm completely wrong but it just feels like you're looking for an excuse to get Jcb desysopped or atleast blocked ....could be completely wrong on that (and if I am sorry). –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are completely wrong. But at some point, I don't see why Jcb's deletions should be evaluated with a different standard than others. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would've applied the same standards to whoever the admin was, –Davey2010Talk 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Perfectly reasonable outcome for that deletion "discussion." The first {{keep}} comment explicitly stated that they didn't get the point, which was obvious, and most of the others were just "+1" based on that. Admins can and should ignore comments that ignore policy. I say that as someone who once defended a "may be used freely" template and had to eat humble pie after clarification from the would-be licensor. Lesson learned. If the copyright holder really wants to allow modification and commercial use, getting them to state it explicitly shouldn't be a big deal. Blanking out talk page comments isn't exactly collegial, but neither was the tone of your comment. LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yann somehow thinks that they should complain at my talk page about every decission they disagree with, but without explaining why the decission would be wrong. "This is very well OK for Commons." is not really helpful if you are so convinced that you are always right and that all your colleagues should do exactly what you would have done. I try to act in accordance with our policies. If you think I misinterpret something and you want to have any chance to convince me, you will have to found your claims. Last week I came back from three weeks without internet (away from everything to construct (and drill) a source of drinking water for a small village without any water source, successfully, they now have plenty of water), and I was not amused at all to see that you kept adding those hostile comments to my user talk page during that whole period. I hope these behavioural issues are not signs that you are on your way to derail the way INC did. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
you are the only admin who is regularly mentioned on this page, I would ask myself two questions--UltimoGrimm (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly oppose any action against Jcb. He is a hard working, fair-minded administrator who has never abused his powers. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever. AshFriday (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Actions by YannEdit

Yann has had the habit of wheelwarring for a lot of time. The latest example is the above mentioned DR. Yann undeleted Template:The Stand News without waiting for the outcome of the UDR. It's also rather obvious, just by reading their own comments above, that Yann is way too involved to take a decission on such UDR. Jcb (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

LoL, just LoL. Yann (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
What’s to laugh about? You restored a template without closure of the discussion while in a dispute with Jcb about the closure. Seriously, let an uninvolved admin make the decisions. 1989 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You have it backwards: I didn't restore the template because I have a disagreement with Jcb. But I have a disagreement with Jcb because he deleted the template and the files without a valid reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

AdilanosEdit

Adilanos (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef blocked for repeated copyvios after numerous warnings and serial re-creator of previously deleted copyvios.  JGHowes  talk 21:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

จันทร์ธาดาEdit

จันทร์ธาดา (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ranna banna 24Edit

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I see you actually blocked the sock indef, which is obviously the correct thing to do. Cheers. -- Begoon 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Patrick RogelEdit

The file they reported has been deleted. No further comment needs to be made. 1989 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

I am being bullied and harassed by Patrick Rogel (talk · contribs), because I uploaded a Flickr picture with a perfectly fine licence. He accuses me of having uploaded an unfree image (which I haven't, since the licence is fine), and has started a deletion request, where he repeatedly blames me for "Flickrwashing", which I haven't done since the licence is fine. Could someone please step in? --Edelseider (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Edelseider: should take some fresh air (as he was advised to) then make what is entended to him to keep the image he has uploaded. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel is perfectly right here. This file is not OK: it was copied from Facebook, and it is not a selfie, so we need the permission from the photographer, not the subject. Flickrwashing may not be the right term, as there is probably no bad intent, but still not OK for us. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
But it says "Instagram" and not "Facebook" in the original Flickr file, so even acknowledging the fact that Instagram belongs to Facebook, it is false and misleading to say that the image came from Facebook (the support) as opposed to from Instagram (the support). Why would Patrick Rogel misstate that repeatedly? --Edelseider (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is not possible to distinguish Facebook from Instagram, just looking at the EXIF data, but it doesn't change anything. The Flickr account holder is not the photographer, and at best, has probably only a license to use the file, and she is not the copyright holder, and is not able to release it under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Yann: It's sometimes stated "Instagram" on the EXIF files but I don't know if it's always the case. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw files claimed to be from Instagram without that mention, and I don't want to create an account there just to test it. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann, Patrick Rogel: I believe that files that came directly from Instagram (taken with the in-app camera and saved to phone) without any edits to the file will show Instagram in the EXIF. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Katezz91Edit

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

AnfproductionEdit

Everything seems to be copyvio. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Final warning given at 14:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC), user had stopped contributing by 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC). Blocks should be preventive, not punitive. Any more copyvios by the user will result in a block. Files may be deleted, though. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion Максим Огородник - 5Edit

New account — Shmankivtsi2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See preceding:

--Микола Василечко (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indefinitely. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CEFICEFIEdit

User has not contributed to Commons for over a month. According to COM:BP, blocks should be preventive, not punitive. If you think there is something wrong with the files, you may nominate them for deletion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

CEFICEFI (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has repeatedly uploaded images stolen from website. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Does not appear to have uploaded any copyvios since April. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
May I warn this user? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"Recent" uploads are dubious claim of own work. No metadata. Low res. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To admins. As you can see from CEFICEFI's talk page, CEFICEFI has repeated obvious copyright violations. Do admins do nothing for this user? "Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." (This sentence is in Copyvionote) Is this not true? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


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

Multiple accounts (Wasilsaly)Edit

User:Wasilsaly is clearly the same as User:Wasilan. Similar username, both's history is uploading tons of license-violating images of artwork by en:Draft:Sabri al-Haiki (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasilan and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasilsaly. I'm pretty sure User:الحيقي is also the same: at that bulk-DR of Wasilsaly, some of the deleted images are now bluelinks as uploads by الحيقي. That user has uploaded a ton of other pictures of artwork as well (behavioral pattern in addition to some specific file overlaps) and was created and became active the same day that Wasilsaly went dormant. DMacks (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Socks blocked, images nominated for deletion, main account warned. Yann (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: From the look of it the main account uploaded images from the same source as the other accounts. Should I nom them for deletion too and/or undue its edits? Don Spencertalk-to-me 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@DonSpencer1: Sockpuppetry alone is not a valid reason for deletion. So if the images are copyright violations, or are not in scope, then yes, you can nominate them for deletion. Actually I blocked the account for uploading again images without a valid permission. All files are tagged. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As I thought, okay, thank you! Don Spencertalk-to-me 06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

AviationNCEdit

Upload unfree files even after block expires. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Third blocked, no useful edit, indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

IBionicBoyEdit

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Third blocked, no useful edit, indef., all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sheetal parmarEdit

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Madhar Nabil AhmedEdit

Uploads and reuploads out of scope images. Seems he doens't (want to) get it despite explainations. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

hello Patrick , my english is not good but i tell you is about the picture i change more picture because i take all picture with my phone i am the authors. can you please give the good reason why is deleted. --Madhar Nabil Ahmed (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Les messages qui vous ont été laissé sur votre page de discussion l'ont été dans la langue que vous avez choisi, soit le Français. Ils sont suffisamment éloquents. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Dya-Eddine Saïd Bamakhrama is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia [4]. This is clearly not a personal file. Most files uploaded by this user have probably been deleted wrongly. I will review them all. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Absolutely not. fr:Utilisateur:Madhar Nabil Ahmed has been deleted July 4 so CSD F10 is valid. Since July 4 and for a month and a half Administrators @Gbawden: and @Jcb: have repeatetly deleted these files for the same reason, said user to stop uploading such images without sucess to date, hence this report. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: What does this have to do with a user page on the French Wikipedia?
Madhar Nabil Ahmed is a Wikimedia user, whereas Dya-Eddin Said Bamakhrama is a notable person in the real world. He is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia. His photos are within the scope of Wikimedia Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Your rationale for him for being in scope is an Instagram account, are you kidding? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC) P. S. In the meantime your fellow Administrators have closed this discussion please revert that sentence, thanks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any reason to doubt that Dya-Eddin Said Bamakhrama is the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia. As such his pictures are in scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding, Patrick Rogel. Category:Ambassadors of Djibouti are within the scope of Commons and are not qualified for COM:CSD#F10. If you think otherwise, feel free to open a DR. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I've mistaken Madhar Nabil Ahmed images with the ones of Dya-Eddine Saïd Bamakhrama, my bad. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeff988Edit

User have same interest as AviationNC (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), uploading fair use logos (Qantas). (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandrine Mégret (again)Edit

Probable escape block by Postaire (talk · contribs). Continues copyvios or reuploads previously deleted files. Please note Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Postaire. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Sandrine indefinitely. All her uploads are nominated for deletion and some of them I deleted speedily. Taivo (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like two early files were missed and also lacked permission; I tagged them too. Don Spencertalk-to-me 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Bacem1Edit

Keeps reuploading the same file. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I blocked Bacem for a week. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk:2408:8214:1C00:9809:2410:F7C0:82CB:ED09Edit

This user is tampering with file description pages. The person has already been warned and still continues. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

JuliaMankovskayaEdit

Uploading similar files. Should some of their uploads be deleted? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

צלם חובבEdit

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)