Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:AN

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
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
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

  • 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|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


RfC – Global ban for Meister und MargaritaEdit

I have created a RfC at Meta for User:Meister und Margarita, a member of this community. The RfC can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita. All are invited to participate. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Meister’s Commons contributions look negligible – this ban is a Wikipedia business. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
With several thousand edits and ongoing contributions using one of his sockpuppets I felt Commons was a project in which the user had significant involvement. According to the rules for m:global bans I informed this community about the RfC. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly, could you eventuelly list all relevant related SPs (or link to the page where they are listed). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm...if they are continuing to edit via sockpuppets after being blocked for harassment that is indeed a problem. Even if it is only in their userspace as is the current situation for MichelidesPeralta. The data might be stale by now but if possible perhaps, Elcobbola or Magog the Ogre can take a peak and perhaps see how many other accounts we are dealing with? --Majora (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
From data available on the Commons, MichelidesPeralta is technically Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated to other accounts. MichelidesPeralta's de.wiki block was 17. Mai 2018 so data, if a CU was even done, would be Time2wait.svg Stale (Meister und Margarita is, of course, stale here as well). However, that two unrelated accounts would both know about and edit bizarre (and inappropriate) subpages in user space--User:MichelidesPeralta/Next Stolperstein shooting and User talk:MichelidesPeralta/future--seems a duck relationship. Quack. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
MichelidesPeralta’s contributions beyond the user space are virtually zero. Not practically “our” user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If they are indeed a sockpuppet they cannot edit at all except to request unblock from their original account on their original talk page which they still have access to. Allowing a sockpuppet to edit at all, even if it is just in user space, defeats the entire purpose of the block. Even more so considering this block was for repeated harassment (which the entire Wikimedia movement is trying, and somewhat failing, to stamp out). I'm not entirely comfortable with blocking simply because of another project's CU results which is why I'm asking for one of ours to take a look. Hopefully the data isn't too old. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: was Pinneberger Bote (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) a meatpuppet or Meister/Michelides himself? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, Incnis Mrsi, I never really gave the distinction much thought at the time. The Pinneberger Bote account harassed the same person (JD) on the same day while I was dealing with Meister. My gut feeling looking back at it was that it was probably a meatpuppet that supported Meister at dewiki and decided to join in on the harassment of JD here but I don't have anything other than my gut to go on. Their dewiki block does list "meatpuppet" as the reason so certainly possible they were two different people. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I don't think there is a definite list of all sockpuppets, but I tried collecting at least the ones from the various CUs on deWP, enWP and itWP:

There are probably more I missed that weren't blocked using CU. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There are quite more, blocked only after notice on administrator desk; the German Wikipedia has - unfortunately - no templates or categories like "... is a sock of ...", sometimes it is queite difficult to get knowledge about such block. -jkb- (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Christian Michelides (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has significant contributions, hence it’s indeed about Commons as well. By the way, Donna Gedenk uploads many photos attributed to one Christian Michelides. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

ℹ️ The sockpuppet MichelidesPeralta is still active on Commons. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete the former version of photosEdit

I uploaded some photos. For some reason, I edited and re-uploaded them as an updated verison for the file. Better not keeping the former one, can I delete the original version? Should not using the Speedydelete temp right? Hf9631 (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hf9631: If you uploaded them recently taken them as SD|G7 - Author or uploader request deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden:Thanks for your reply. Sorry, may you please explain what SD|G7 is. So I, as the author, can request deletion for the previous version of my uploads? Hf9631 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hf9631: Sorry. add the tag SD|F7 in curly brackets to the files you want to delete Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden:Got it. Acutually, I mean the both versions of the photo seems to be saved as one file. Specifically, like my File:June9protestTreefong01.jpg has 2 versions, and I just want to delete the former version rather than the whole file. Is it possible to be done? Anyway thanks for the conscideration Hf9631 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can somebody please help? This may afftect the secrity of hundred citizen due to political issue, or I just delete them all. Hf9631 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the original revision of File:June9protestTreefong01.jpg. If you'd requested deletion of the original image, that would be workable because it's new enough, and obviously the original revision of the file isn't currently in use anywhere, so the G7 requirements are satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Thank you so much! Chould you please do the same thing for File:June9protestTreefong02.jpg, 03.jpg, 08.jpg, 10.jpg, 11.jpg? Their condition are the same as the one you solved. That's all I ask. Love you 3000. Hf9631 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Hi mate, can you still make it? Or is it unsolvable? Please tell if any issue. Thank you. Hf9631 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Hf9631, but I guess I hadn't shown up at Commons in a couple of days: I just saw this. I've now deleted the old revisions of all of the files you linked. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Ohh, thank you so much! No need to apologize as you've helped hundreds of people in Hong Kong. You are awesome. *Problem Solved* Hf9631 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done.Hf9631 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to delete old versions of the following filesEdit

I am the uploader of the following files. I decided to re-upload them because they contained some private information in the EXIF. Therefore, I would like to request the old versions of these files to be deleted. If possible, I would also like old versions of the pages' history to be deleted if they previously contained the location template.

Thanks! --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

FramEdit

Copyright issues for Guido den Broeder uploadsEdit

As Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has raised this odd thread, I could not help but take a brief look at their handful of uploads. The files in Category:Photographs by Guido den Broeder appear to be blatant copyright violations. Unfortunately this is not an accident as the EXIF data appears to my eyes to have been deliberately hacked to make the files look like own works, with EXIF data cloned and slightly adapted between images. Something that could easily be done with conventional EXIF editing tools.

I find this data completely convincing and consequently grounds for an indefinite block. Could a knowledgeable administrator take a careful look at those files, paying attention to the GPS data and unique image numbers in the EXIFs, and provide a second opinion?

P.S. the files are in very wide cross-wiki usage.

Thanks!

Additional: Commons:Deletion requests/File:20170314 155712 Kristina Pimenova 384x512.jpg, multiple DRs for this image, however none discussed the EXIF data.
Additional: File:20170315 003801 Kristina Pimenova 576x768.jpg was overwritten, with the original version having virtually no EXIF data.
-- (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. This has been discussed before, with the conclusion that these photographs are obviously made by me. You can find them on my Instagram and my Facebook, for instance, as well as on Wikisage, of an earlier date. You can also ask the peope that are displayed. And of course I have the originals, which are of higher resolution, and the mobile phone that I used to take the pictures. Or if you bother to look at IMdB or the Reigningent website, you will notice that I am executive producer of 'The Russian Bride'. You can also check the movie itself for that matter, it was released March 2019. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
How do you explain "Unique image ID C12LSII00VM C12LSJI01GM" on more than one upload, when this should be impossible? -- (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Which uploads would that be? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. They all have the same image ID. I have no idea why that would be. Maybe someone who is more into technical matters could explain it to you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. File:Комуз_.jpg (own work claim for User:Амальгама)
  2. File:20170315 003801 Kristina Pimenova 576x768.jpg
  3. File:20170313 165526 The Russian Bride 768x1024.jpg
  4. File:20170316 171306 The Russian Bride Corbin Bernsen 768x1024.jpg
  5. File:Sebastián Torrico.jpg (own work claim for User:Rodrigo768)
  6. File:Wat Suwan Dararam wihan - inside - 2017-02-13 (061).jpg (own work claim by User:Iudexvivorum)
There may be more, running a database search in parallel to writing this.
Please note that identical and very nearly identical GPS locations on files with different GPS timestamps is bizarre to see when from visibly different locations. These images were taken a few meters apart if the GPS data is correct and the EXIF data has not been edited. -- (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I just checked and every photo ever made with my mobile phone has the same image ID. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on the same image ID appearing for the same mobile phone by other uploaders who appear unconnected apart from date and camera type, I agree this does appear a glitch in the phone software. Possibly limited to phones sold (perhaps adapted) in Russia.
The GPS data, along with the very low resolutions, still make these uploads worth an independent pair of eyes to examine the EXIF data. -- (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that what is extracted here is the assembly batch number. The phone is Korean make, sold over the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@: I am 95% certain Lyrda (who participated in the DRs) is an undetected Roadcreature/Guido den Broeder sock. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Then create a SPI case. However I believe checkuser privileges will be useless for old cases. -- (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Correct, checkuser is not possible. Confirming DUCK is harder. Just letting you know in case you want to investigate yourself. Maybe you'd see something obvious that I missed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: I will just ask you outright: is Lyrda a sock of yours? If you admit it now, there's a chance you won't find yourself indefblocked. (but this is up to the admins) If you deny it and Lyrda is truly unrelated, no problem. If you deny it but I (or anyone else) manage to fill in the last 5%, you may find your accounts globally locked. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, no missing CU match nor anything I say makes a difference, so I've long stopped bothering. On en:wikipedia, dozens of users have been blocked in my name. Arbcom always found that questionable, but has no teeth. Most of them I'd never heard of, some I've met later. But I haven't been around much. What is Lyrda supposed to have done wrong? Have you notified her at all? Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In case some readers are wondering what this has to do with anything, the accusation that I've been using ranges of sockpuppets originates from Fram. As you can see he has more wikifriends (most of mine have left), so he usually wins. Commons used to have more backbone, but things may have changed. In fact, I remember Fram mentioning Lyrda, so I'm sure that Alexis Jazz who I've never encountered before got canvassed to take revenge, since that is Fram's way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: I haven't been canvassed. Let me ask you again: is Lyrda a sock of yours? A simple yes or no will suffice. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Just because you're asking doesn't mean you deserve an answer. Learn some manners first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: refusing to answer a simple question tells me enough, and it won't save you. Admitting it would be better for you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not in any need of saving, thanks. Goodbye. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fæ's accusationsEdit

Fæ, above you posted some serious accusations where you accuse me of 'blatant copyright violations' and 'hacking' without cause. This is unacceptable behaviour. Please withdraw these accusations, choose your friends wiser in the future, and so forth. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

They are more assertions, and you'll note I have previously struck some of the original text in relation to requesting a block.
For anyone following the analysis, the Commons database shows 1048 files with the same "unique" image ID in the EXIF data (BTW, the report took nearly 4 hours to run), so presumably a firmware bug for photographs taken with a Samsung's Galaxy S7 edge SM-G935F as the image ID is supposed to get incremented or randomized for every photograph. A useful comparison user is Iudexvivorum who was active 2015-2017. Much of the EXIF is similar for these other uploads though not necessarily with GPS data embedded. It may be that the bug was limited to S7's using firmware PDA G930FXXU1BPLB, but (disproved that hypothesis to myself) not all photographs have the firmware stated in the EXIF, possibly this varied by which app was used for photography.
Clearly the images were edited, despite retaining a full set of EXIF data, presumably subject to crops as well as potentially reducing resolution from the original. For these reasons an OTRS request makes sense in the light of the claim that the photographer has retained the original files at full resolution.
I would like independent eyes on the EXIF data in the photographs to check through any other inconsistencies, especially the location data. -- (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe we are done here. Notify me when this grand investigation of my 4 photographs will take place. There is a backlog of more than a year now, it seems. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have briefly examined your blocks on other projects. As you are blocked on 4 different projects you already surpass the minimum for a global block, though I don't see any reason for anyone to kick that off. You should be careful to avoid any socking, including IP editing. Examining past SPI cases I do not see an obvious "smoking gun", but that may only be the fact that I only spent a few minutes looking through the archives and they are messy. The administrators involved were experienced an respected, so I see no reason to second guess their conclusions. I do note that you have not requested an unblock on any of the major projects you have previously contributed to. After such a long time being blocked, you probably should consider a unblock request, even if you were using sockpuppets or meatpuppets in the past, if you are motivated to contribute in good faith.
If you want to contribute to Wikimedia Commons and put past problems behind you, that's fine by me, though I am not the speaking for the community should any issues arise.
Please consider uploading some full size images that don't look odd for being resized, and please consider emailing in to COM:OTRS with evidence that you are the original photographer for your small number of current uploads, unless you want to overwrite them now with full size versions. BTW, yes the backlog is ridiculously long, but you do get an OTRS reference number immediately, which can help with discussions like this, where you may be unwilling to publish the original photograph at full resolution.
Should others raise questions about the photographs and any oddities in the EXIF data, try to take them in good faith by keeping in mind we see *a lot* of copyright violations, including faked EXIF data and other types of embedded data. -- (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Questions are fine, unfounded accusations are not. It does get tedious though when the same questions get asked multiple times. I have no history of problems on Commons, but neither am I interested in contributing to any WMF project until users like Fram and your respected admins are dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am happy to apologise for presuming that the matching unique image IDs were evidence of copyvios, I have never noticed this problem before with reused "unique" image IDs. As said it is worth a second pair of eyes taking a technical look, though without an OTRS reference, the same questions based on odd EXIF data might well be asked again in a year's time. -- (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not accepted, because of this[2]. You are clearly out to discomfort me one way or another. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that Wikipedia Commons is not used for spam or fakenews. Having a Wikipedia article to demonstrate that this is an interesting legal case, or a potential microstate, would set aside those concerns. It's nothing to do with your discomfort, just the scope of this project. -- (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This is Commons, Wikipedia has no added value here over other projects like Wikisage or the micronations wiki. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Unlike projects like Wikisage or something for micronations, Wikipedia does have special status when it comes to COM:SCOPE — anything being used on any Wikipedia page (except userspace) is automatically in scope as far as "useful for an educational purpose" is concerned. The same is true with all other WMF wikis, but not true with other sites. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really, because a file that is in fact out of scope is likely to get removed from that Wikipedia page, or the page is deleted altogether. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Gallery nameEdit

To anyone that can enlighten me on this issue. Why is that the page for the element, Tantalum, exists as Category:Tantalum while the pages for other element exist with their respective names? i.e. Oxygen, Curium, etc. Can an admin move Category:Tantalum to Tantalum? Thank you. 大诺史 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Same issue with Category:Thorium. 大诺史 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @大诺史: We still need Category:Tantalum and Category:Thorium, as well as Category:Oxygen, Category:Curium, etc.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jeff G.: Sorry for the miscommunication above. My point is that where should we create a new gallery page for Tantalum & Thorium which currently redirects to Category:Tantalum & Category:Thorium respectively.
        — Preceding unsigned comment added by 大诺史 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 June 2019‎ (UTC)
        • 大诺史, for future reference, no, administrators cannot move a category page to another namespace or vice versa, because the software won't let us. We'll have to do a copy/paste move instead. See en:WP:CWW; it's on Wikipedia, but since the issues involved (licensing and MediaWiki software) are the same there and here, the process is the same. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • 大诺史, it turns out that the category page is being used properly as a category: aside from the big boxes at top and right, it had no gallery-type content. I've restored the redirect and added the boxes, but otherwise you or someone else will need to decide what content belongs on the gallery. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        @大诺史: If you develop content which includes at least two files but is not encyclopedic for a gallery that is a redirect to the same-name category at the time, you can use that content to replace the redirect, and categorize it. I did not get your ping because you did not sign your post.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in file historyEdit

Could an admin please selectively delete the versions of File:Flag of Denmark.svg which have been replaced by the Nazi swastika? It is being used for vandalism by a user on the Dutch Wikipedia, but it is affecting all wikis. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Could you please name the user who had abused the image on the Dutch Wikipedia. I am somehow confused as User:Vangelis (who had reverted the file to the Nazi swastika) is an admin and bureaucrat on the Dutch Wikibooks. Most probably that was just a mistake. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have upload-protected the file, as there have been several bad overwrites and it's unlikely that the file will need changing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It was Vangelis who I was referring to, but perhaps you're right about it being a mistake. I can't see the deleted revisions now so I can't say who the original uploader was nor what their home wiki is, but they had the appearance of a throwaway vandal account. With those revisions hidden that's good enough for me, and my sincere apologies to User:Vangelis. Ivanvector (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, two of the three deleted revisions were throwaway vandal accounts, and the third appears to have been an accident by Vangelis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It was a mistake. Is was trying to delete it. --Vangelis (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Help moving pageEdit

Hello. I made the mistake of creating a page without adding "Category:" in front. Here it is. Should read "Category:Parish of San Pedro Cholula". Thank you. MX (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done I've created the category and deleted the gallery. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
MX, unfortunately nobody would have been able to move that page for you, for our software doesn't allow categories to be moved to a different namespace or vice versa. In other words, we can't put "Category:" at the start of a name that's missing it, and we can't take it away. If this ever happens again and you want to handle it yourself, you'll need to request speedy deletion for the page at the wrong place (just add {{SD |1=G1 }} and an administrator will find and delete it) and create the category at the right place. Of course, if you don't want to handle it yourself, or you don't remember what to do, coming here and requesting help is perfectly fine :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible licensing issues from User:SNAAAAKE!!Edit

This was pointed out at the English Wikipedia Video Game Project. User:SNAAAAKE!! asked other users to help categorize the images he uploaded. Looking through the File list however has me concerned that there is a bunch of licensing issues from these images. Most notably, there are images that have watermarks for Wikia on this. Here are some examples.

File:Gamescom_2014_(14932150371).jpg, File:Gamescom_2014_(14748672967).jpg, File:Wikia-Gamescom-2015-376 (20216928150).jpg

GamerPro64 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Please open a deletion request with all relevant details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikia (Fandom) literally belongs to Wikimedia. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent a last warning, and nominated some files for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@SNAAAAKE!!: extremely false. Wikia/Fandom is not owned by Wikipedia, let's get that straight. It was co-founded by the same man who co-founded Wikipedia, yes, and uses the same software (MediaWiki) as Wikipedia. That is essentially as far as the relation between the sites goes. They are separate entities. Wikipedia is a nonprofit, while Wikia/Fandom is a for-profit company. Content owned by Wikia is owned by Wikia. Unless they release content they own the copyright for into the public domain, such content is not appropriately suited to commons. SecretName101 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Threathening / disruptive behaviour by adminEdit

Please see this post by Magog the Ogre. There is no way such behaviour could be acceptable by any user, even worse if this is uttered by an administrator. Magog is explicitly inviting Alexis Jazz to start stalking me again and also blindly copying the false accusations posted by Alexis Jazz, apparently even without checking. This behaviour by Magog is an administrator unworthy. If we have to consider our fellow admins as an enemy, we have a huge problem. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Again? Sorry, you have uttered so in many spurious stalking allegations I've lost track. Also, why am I not surprised? First Guanaco, now Magog. And what "false accusations" are you talking about anyway? What did I say? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, again, Jcb couldn't be bothered to notify me of this thread. Because Jcb is Jcb and Jcb doesn't have to. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, this thread is evidently directed against the "instruction" by Magog the Ogre, not against you, even though you are mentioned in it.--Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Jcb is repeating his stalking allegations again and accusing me of making false accusations. Yes, I think this thread doesn't just concern Magog the Ogre. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I have read the linked discussion and "inviting Alexis Jazz to start stalking me again" is an incorrect description of what was said. Stalking is a crime that involves following someone in a way that causes "significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim". Even when people use that word casually (which I don't think we should) it is generally considered to be undesirable behaviour with an effect that makes the victim uncomfortable. If, and indeed if, Alexis follows Magog's instructions, I don't see that as anything more than tidying up after someone. Perhaps it would be more important to discuss the claims made by Magog that you are "directly acting against the community's stated wishes", or why someone should have to tidy up after you? -- Colin (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's break this down:
  1. Jcb is tagging all pages without something in the source field as no source, even if the source is plainly visible in the description field or elsewhere.
  2. The community has asked Jcb to stop this on multiple occasions, and he has always refused.
  3. Jcb's position is that someone going behind him and adding the correct source is stalking, despite the fact that is exactly what the no source indicates should happen. In other words, he can use the tools to mass tag the images, but anyone who even attempts to fix his changes by hand is violating policy.
  4. Jcb has threatened users who have called him out and tried to remedy the issue.
  5. Jcb refused the entirely reasonable suggestion I provided that AJ be allowed to fix the sources.
  6. As such, I told Jcb that if he continued to try to get files deleted which are clearly allowed under Commons policy, I would block his account. I wasn't even referring to the mass tagging. I was referring only to the attempts to stop users from adding legitimate sources. (!)
  7. Jcb's response to this plea, as with all the other pleas from Commons users, rather than introspection, was to attack the person making the plea.
In summary, I am drawing a line in the sand. Jcb, under my watch you will not continue to disrupt our project by trying to get entirely legal content deleted, and bullying and attacking anyone who tries to clean up after your sloppy actions.
Now you tell me, who is the community going to side with, the administrator who tries to get legitimate content deleted in mass, or the administrator who who is willing to stick his neck out and put his credentials at risk in order to stop the disruption?
The community has had more than enough patience, and provided you with more than enough warning. It stops now. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 1: False. I think there are hardly files in the no source since categories tagged by me. Instead, I have fixed the source fields of 10.000s (probably over 50.000) of files over the past years, e.g. this batch of 80 files yesterday. Only a small part of the files I process from Category:Images without source are nominated for deletion, most of them via regular DR.
  • 2: False. A few years ago the community has asked to use no source since tags only for recent uploads and to use a regular DR instead for old uploads. I have since complied.
  • 3: False. Never have I stated that any user would not be allowed to fix errors detected by me. But this should of course happen from the daily problem categories rather than from my contributions. Alexis Jazz is very eager to follow my every move and to target my edits as much as possible. It's not without a reason that they were requested recently to remove my talkpage from their watchlist. If you are honestly unaware of how Alexis Jazz has been targetting me over and over again over the past year, you are probably the only active admin at this project who has missed this.
  • 4: Vague claim, impossible to comment on without more information.
  • 5: You should have been well aware that sending this specific user after me has nothing to do with 'reasonable'.
  • 6: Please add diffs to "attempts to stop users from adding legitimate sources", I am unaware of such attempts.
  • 7: I think there is more than enough reason to critisize your threatenings and false accusations.
You are creating a hostile environment, this is an admin unworthy. Please refrain from any next step in this abusive behaviour. Jcb (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre, IMO your current approach is unnecessarily aggressive towards Jcb. Per the initiating OgreBot 2-thread we obviously have a general and ongoing problem with „lazily transferred files“. As from the 3 examples presented in the OgreBot 2-thread, the uploader-notification coming with Jcb‘s no-source-tagging evidently brought the uploader to complete the source-entry; so, it did work. On the other hand it’s also clear that this wouldn’t work in cases of careless or long-gone uploaders.
To solve this problem, wouldn’t it be more purposeful to develop a feasible SOP either to avoid getting large numbers of transferred files with incomplete data set or, at least, to have the garbled/incomplete source/license data set corrected, without putting additional burden on the admins already doing maintenance and recent-upload patrol? Of course, if we finally can agree about such a SOP, I would also expect Jcb complying with it. ‒Túrelio (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: "the uploader-notification coming with Jcb‘s no-source-tagging evidently brought the uploader to complete the source-entry; so, it did work."
No it didn't. [3] was just partially undoing OgreBot 2. [4] also just partially undid OgreBot 2. File:Lyell 1840.jpg wasn't fixed by the uploader, and really, should files with {{transferred from|en.wikipedia}} be deleted but files with {{unknown|source}} kept? In Wut there were ultimately 280+ files involved. I don't think SecretName101 would have fixed all of them. And the files SecretName101 did fix were only partially fixed, author and date were not consistently fixed. This also can't be expected, fixing is often a lot of time-consuming labour but no-source tagging all files with an empty "source" field can be done by an untiring bot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: with all due respect, I don't think you've read the thread properly. I didn't warn Jcb for mass tagging; I warned him for disallowing and threatening users who try to clean up after his mass tagging. Please go back and read what I wrote before commenting anymore. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: I have the same feeling than Túrelio. I have not read the details of the underlaying issue, but whatever it is, please consider that you may be or have been not mellow with you statements here. Personal accusations are unlikely going to settle this conflict. --Krd 05:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Magog the Ogre has a valid point. There has been several cases of files tagged with "no source" by Jcb while the source is present in the description. Now the tone may not be friendly, what do we do when Jcb continues such tagging? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss the issue it in a mellow way without personal attacks. (Hope that was not a trick question.) --Krd 06:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krd: I don't see Magog the Ogre's message as a personal attack. Do you? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I do. --Krd 06:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Krd: I was quite cordial with Jcb for some time. Jcb made it clear he would not be reasonable, so I made a threat, and I do not regret it, nor do I rescind it. I once again challenge you to read the threads on this issue, including the entire thread in question. I can tell that no one here is actually doing so because you're all still arguing about whether Jcb should be warned for tagging images, which I have several times said is not the reason I warned him. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
As I proposed in my 2nd paragraph, "develop" (and consent over) a small SOP for this kind of files, which is then binding for all of us. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings all. I think the best thing we could do when we find things with a source but tagged no source (and JCB is not the only one who does that), is to just fix it and move on. Obviously, it's summer again, and folks have to have the annual drama due to the heat and humidity - or whatever. Check out the recent history on my talk page for more of the summer fun. So please folks, remember it's a process not a series of judgements. Whoever is "the most active admin" gets this kind of stuff tossed at them - and then we lose them. We don't need less people doing the work. We need civility, patience and good will for all. And Jcb, love you and cherish you, but please check for sources before tagging "no source" whenever possible? Stay super cool, ktxbai! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Full agreement with Ellin Beltz. We are all human, all make mistakes, even admins can make mistakes. On the other side, when we do make mistakes, should be able to not shoot the messenger, but accept the warning, apologize, and try not to do it again. We're all on the same side here, I don't think anyone here is out to destroy the Commons. As Ellin writes, we have a limited number of active users, and we need to appreciate and cherish them. This includes Jcb and Magog and Alexis. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If it was an occasional incorrect tag, no problem, but the problem is that Jcb is working like he robot: He just tags tons of files with {{No source}} without properly checking. This sets a destruction time of 7 days of all these files. The category gets so flooded with all sorts of files, it's impossible to find the incorrectly tagged files in the big mess. The same user (Jcb) mass deletes his own nominations 7 days later. We lost a couple of files that shouldn't be deleted and we loose some more users.
The {{No source}}, {{No permission}} & {{No permission}} were always intended to only be used on recent uploads (semi-speedy deletion). Maybe we can set a simple rule: You're only allowed to use these semi-speedy deletion templates on files with a first upload no longer than one year ago. Everything else should go to the regular deletion process. So for today anything uploaded before 18 June 2018 is off limits when it comes to semi-speedy deletion templates. Is that a good compromise to prevent us from having the same discussion over and over again? Multichill (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: - I am not mass-tagging files with these tags, that's the fantasy of Alexis Jazz. There are hardly files (if any) in the 'no source since' categories tagged by me. In general, I only use this tag for very recent uploads, from a few days ago, rather than from a year ago. The older uploads of which Ogrebot is blanking the source files, if I handle them most of the times I fix the source-field. Only if the copyright situation cannot be determined, I nominate them for regular DR. A one year rule is fine with me, I don't think I have used these tags for anything older than a year of the past two years. You did not try to verify your claims on how you think that I am working, did you? Otherwise you would not have written what you wrote, Jcb (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with a one-year rule, as mentioned by Multichill. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This would do nothing about the practice where OgreBot 2 blanks fields, Jcb tags the file for deletion in what would appear to be an automated process and the uploader resolves this (IF the uploader resolves it) by reverting OgreBot 2. Going around in circles like that is nothing but a waste of everyone's time. And if the uploader doesn't respond the files get deleted, which is destructive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The behavior is definitely detrimental to the project if it results in the deletion of files which are not improper for inclusion on this site. SecretName101 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

adornment with borrowed plumes! Could an admin have a look at the file-histories?Edit

Hi, i found some mistakes and need help of an admin who can see a little more of the file-histories.

The following files are in the lists of "Picture of the day", BUT are actually younger as the dates they were supposedly on the front page.

  1. What most likely happen is that the original POTD-files got deleted. Later other files got uploaded under the same name, falsely taking their honors. In this case, the POTD-pages should get “No image.svg” link.
  2. Alternatively the originals got renamed. Then we should update the links.
  3. Or I am completely off...

Could someone have a look at the histories? Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I looked histories of all these files. Your version 1 is correct. What else should be done? Case closed? You can add "No image.svg" if you want, by I do not want, this isn't important for me. Taivo (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If we do not have these files anymore setting the links to "No image.svg" is the only option. I will take care of it. Case closed. --Jahobr (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Side-note, that "sailing" photo shows boating, but not sailing. There are no sails. Should not be under that name. SecretName101 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jahobr: 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th file were deleted. However 6th was deleted as duplicate of File:Piero Pollaiuolo Portrait of Galeazzo Maria Sforza.jpg. But IMO it wasn't a duplicate – it was slightly cropped and had different colours/white balance. I can undelete it if you wish. The 3rd and 4th POTD were just messed up – look closely at their histories. --jdx Re: 04:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Admin role on Commons (inventing or changing unilaterally the community policies)Edit

Is anyone aware of this? T CellsTalk 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Meh. -- (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Schablone Logarex 25525-S, Chemie III.jpgEdit

Could an admin explain Commons:Overwriting existing files to the edit-warring parties? Habitator terrae 🌍 10:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified the overwriter. However, it's a borderline-case wrt the changes. --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Discussed on de:Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt: Is it to be treated as a minor change or not? --Achim (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

I stumbled upon

Is anyone familiar with that case? --Achim (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I happen to be familiar, along with Fullerhouseguy (talk · contribs). This is a persistent troll from enwiki, and almost everything they say is disinformation - joe jobbing. I don't think any of it is particularly relevant to commons (apart from periodically picking commons talk pages as a place to continue their disinformation). RBI, as they say. Drop me a note if you need any more info. zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Indef-blocked by Yann. --Túrelio (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A request to see deleted edits of filesEdit

I need to see "Deleted version and deleted content" of 10 files,see below,

  1. User talk:S465499642
  2. File talk:Lo-YunShui.png
  3. User:Advogato2
  4. Category talk:Zhu Ming (thinker)
  5. User:Lzhwp
  6. Category talk:User 和平奮鬥救地球
  7. User talk:Shizhao/luxun
  8. File talk:UpRising-zh.png
  9. File talk:William Browder.jpg
  10. File talk:YeDaDa.tiff

Can some admin help me?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@MCC214: Why do you need to see them?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Cross-wiki abuse and LTA Allthingsgo[5](zh.wiki and en wiki have been blocked a new sock of Allthingsgo (User:得一忘二) indefinitely (zh.wiki,[6][7],en.wiki,[8][9])(There have not this user account in here),there have some evidence (See above) can prove Allthingsgo use the sock to do the vandalism of sock.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

filter 69Edit

Guys, @Whym, -revi: I propose that User:ArchiverBot be exempted from Special:AbuseFilter/69. See Special:AbuseLog/5560406.--Roy17 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/ProposalsEdit

Could an admin, maybe once a week, go over the proposals at Commons:Village pump/Proposals and make a statement (if it's already clear) if they've been accepted or rejected? This would help to allow us to move on and start implementing accepted proposals.

At the same time, if appropriate, the proposal could be marked for archiving. May not be appropriate if the discussion is ongoing.

Thank you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)