Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 83

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pictures from User:Rainerhaufe

Sorry, only in German: User:Rainerhaufe macht folgendes Problem: er stellt ständig Fotos nach Commons, die er aus irgendwelchen Büchern kopiert. Diese Fotos versieht er mit der Lizenz PD-EU-no author disclosure. Dort steht, wenn ich den englischen Text korrekt interpretiere, dass a) das Foto vor mindestens 70 Jahren erstellt worden sein muss und b) dass die tatsächliche Identität des ursprünglichen Autors im Zusammenhang mit diesem Bild innerhalb von 70 Jahren nach seiner Veröffentlichung nicht öffentlich bekannt gegeben wurde. Ich habe eine Menge solcher Eisenbahnbücher, da gibt es in der Regel eine Seite "Bildnachweis" und da werden die Namen der Bildautoren mit den Seitenzahlen gesammelt aufgeführt. Dieses Thema mit dem Bildnachweis umgeht er erstmal geschickt, unter dem Motto, da steht nichts unter dem Bild. Allerdings sind eine Menge Bilder nicht mindestens 70 Jahre alt, sondern höchsten 50 Jahre. Für die, die ich aktuell gefunden habe, habe ich einen Löschantrag gestellt. Die Sammlung der Löschanträge und der gelöschten Bilder siehe hier User_talk:Rainerhaufe. Dort kann man erkennen, dass es kein Einzelfall ist. Dazu hat er das Bild File:KHD DG 2000 CCE.jpg, das am 28. Dez. 2019 gelöschte wurde, einfach wieder eingestellt. Unschlüssig bin ich bei mehreren Bildern wie File:HKB V30.png - fällt das unter Schöpfungshöhe? Dies geht nun schon jahrelang so, er wurde schon mehrfach informiert, auch in der de-WP, aber es ist immer das gleiche Schema, ich würde sagen "uneinsichtig". Was können wir denn da machen, dass das eingedämmt wird? --Mef.elolingen (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, only in English: The user is providing sources, and they are tagging with "PD-EU-no author disclosure" as someone told them to in 2016 User_talk:Rainerhaufe#Hochladen_von_alten_Bildern. Looks like user is just too lazy to find the correct tag.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Translation-Service Pechristener:
User Mef.ellingen wants to say:
User Rainerhaufe create problems because he constantly upload photos to Commons, which are scans from books. He provides these photos with the license PD-EU-no author disclosure. Accoridng to the license tag the licesne can only be usesd if a) the photo is older then 70 years and b) that the actual identity of the original author of the photo has not been made public within 70 years after its publication. In most of the railway books, there is usually a page picture credits where the names of the picutre authors and the origin of the picture are listed together with the page numbers. This page seems to be consitently ignored by Rainerhaufe because there is no hint to the credits near the picture itself. Most of the uploaded pictures are not eligable for the PD-EU-no author disclosure-license because they are not 70 years old. Mef.ellingen placed a deleation request for the pics found on Commons, which are not eligabel. The collection of the deletion requests can be seen on the talk page of Rainerhaufe. Some of the picutres like eg KHD DG 2000 CCE.jpg are after deletion recreated by the user. Furthermore, there are drawings like HKB V30.png which are claimed to be below threshold of originality, what is not ture. User Rainerhaufe has been informed over years several times, also in the German Wikipedia. What can be done against this unreasonable behviour ?
--Pechristener (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ducks?

Uploading same OOS file. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ngek-ngok

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

Per Category:Sockpuppets of Harling Mural, same reuploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Zerzuran

Zerzuran (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded a large number of what look like press shots claiming them as their own work. Some are posed, some a very old, some even have agency watermarks. All should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Zerzuran for a week. Now I'm going to delete all his/her obvious copyvios – seems like all Zerzuran's uploads are obvious copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected Kobe Bryant photo was kinda vandalized

Please revert at File:Kobe Bryant 2015.jpg. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done GMGtalk 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Solomon203

If you look carefully, you will see that he removed three categories (Category:Zen Buddhism, Category:Religion in New Taipei, Category:Buddhist schools in Taiwan) and he had not used an edit summary to explain why it was done. I've tried to discussed this with him (see:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), but he did not try to change his behavior, nor he wrote any edit summary to explain the move. And since his reply are garbled or dodge my question, I suspect he doesn't know what "classification tree" is, not to mention he will know this: "A is over-categorized as this is parent category of B".

That aside, however, this user has been editing this way for a long time, as evidenced by his previous cases here. Diffs of the user's edits:

When I realized he still didn't care about my warning, I didn't intend to report him for "subtle vandalism". But, as Zhuyifei1999 says, he suggest to me go to COM:AN/U. Solomon203 started doing the same thing again today, so it's starting to get to the point where I would have to report him. Although I think he does need to change his behavior, I can't make him change, and it isn't my place to try to make him change. I have already wasted too much time on him.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

我在User talk:Zhuyifei1999的回應：diff/372424804雖然EXIF數據顯示是2008年拍攝，但是Flickr同一相簿其他照片中的舞台帆布顯示實際年份是2012年。EXIF數據不能作為判定照片拍攝年份的唯一依據。例如我是2010年2月3日加入維基人行列，此時才開始拿起數位相機拍照上傳維基共享資源，剛開始不知道EXIF數據是什麼東西，所以當時上傳的照片會有EXIF數據顯示拍攝年份是2009年。像這張照片，2010年最初上傳的版本EXIF數據顯示拍攝年份是2009年，直到2019年12月12日再次修圖時才手動把拍攝年份修正為2010年。--Solomon203 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

special:diff/390519573，我在發現誤刪Category:Buddhist schools in Taiwan以後就已經補回。--Solomon203 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Deboraduarteb

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ralf Roletschek

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

User deliberately uploads a substantially altered version of a file that's in use on several projects: File:18-12-31-Elchbraten-RalfR-GFDL-1.2-RRK9791.jpg. The alteration appears to depict a veganism logo being thrown into the trash. While such content in itself would not be inappropriate on Commons, overwriting a file that's in use with a substantially altered version is against the policy COM:Overwrite.

The changes appear to be motivated by the preceding similar actions on File:Lecker veganes Sushi.jpg, where he repeatedly removed a veganism symbol applied as a garnish to the plate. He tried nominating the file for deletion, but his request was declined by Multichill and the file protected "against future vandalism". See also the conversation with Sänger on the file talk page, where he announced his apparent intention to modify further pictures in a similar way:

"Wenn das Sushi unbedingt die vegane Propaganda haben muß, dann habe ich ausreichend eigene Fotos, die schön weltweit verbreitet sind und Normalernährung-Propaganda haben werden."
(rough translation): "If the sushi absolutely has to have the vegan propaganda I have ample own photos that are in use world wide and will have propaganda for normal diets."

The user's behavior in these matters is inappropriate in a collaborative project such as Commons. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Na dann diskutiert mal lustig auf Englisch herum, interessiert mich nicht, verstehe ich nicht. --Ralf Roletschek 00:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Der Text ist mit den üblichen Maschinenübersetzern auch für dich absolut problemlos zu lesen. Aber gerne den Kern für dich auch noch auf Deutsch: Eine in mehreren Projekten eingebundene Datei wesentlich zu verändern widerspricht der Regelung Commons:Existierende Dateien überschreiben. Deine vorhergehenden Änderungen des Sushibildes wurden als Vandalismus bezeichnet, dein Löschantrag abgelehnt. So ein Verhalten ist mit der Zusammenarbeit in Commons nicht vereinbar. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
IMO, this is straight-up vandalism, especially considering the context Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly mentions. Certainly, it is Ralf's own picture and he is entitled to modify it how he wishes, but this copy is in use in several places and so should not be modified in such a controversial way a year after the original upload. He can always upload a new copy with the desired changes. See COM:OVERWRITE#DO NOT overwrite. clpo13(talk) 00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done File reverted.
@Ralf Roletschek: Please read Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/de. According to COM:UPLOADWAR, changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename. Your version has been reverted, so you should consider uploading your version under a new name. If you continue this upload war, you may be blocked from editing the file. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sag mal Ralf, hast du zuviel Zeit? Das ist doch komplett absurdes Theater hier. Und, nein, das Entfernen dieses Veganer-Logos ist selbstverständlich keine Zensur, denn zensieren kann nur der Staat. Aber es ist ebenfalls implizit Propaganda. Nur halt Propaganda gegen Veganismus statt dafür. Und, ja, es ist glasklarer Vandalismus. --Smial (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Julijan Knezevic

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

Escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely and deleted his contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

NamestOT

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

Probable return of Namest 2003 (talk · contribs) and his ducks, same uploads related to es:Sara Fernández. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Namest indefinitely and will delete his contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sock accounts uploading copyvio images

Please see:

Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked them all indefinitely. Photo of president John Kennedy giving oath as own work? Photo of president Truman as own work? No. Now I'm going to delete their uploads claimed own work as copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: I agree. Thank you for your diligent work, the sock blocks, and the deletions. Best regards. Dr.K. (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Bibliotecario52

Bibliotecario52 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Endless return of Namest 2003 (talk · contribs) and his ducks, same uploads related to es:Sara Fernández, especially File:Sara Fernández Zaragoza.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely. Upload is deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ángel David O. A.

A.k.a. Category:Sockpuppets of Ángel Olivares Aray again, same Venezuele related stuff, especially pictures of Maduro et al. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This guy is at it again. Maybe a range block would be warranted? How come they've been evading recent blocks so easily. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ángel D. Oilvares Altagracia de Oco (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)> thanks in advance. Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Alek Savic

Continues copyvios after block. Probably duck of Goran671 (talk · contribs): same interest in Sasa Paunovic, same uploads (File:Драгиша Ђокић.png and File:Dragiša Đokić.jpg). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535 deleted files not using a real criteria

  • The sysop is not using the correct path to massive deletions here at Commons using a not valid arguments, as you can see most of the deletions are under the argument of "redundant and/or OOS from mass upload" or "uselessly blurry":

I already rise this issue that undeletion request, but his friend decided to also ignore the community and the issue and close the request

I can not see all the photos, but the ones I can see, are not passive for quick deletion, example:

Thousands of photos has being deleted in this recent months by this volunteer, ignoring the way that the community decide how to delete a photo.

And the most impressive for me is the type of photos that they upload:

How different they are from what the volunteer are deleting?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

On my phone til later so my reply will be brief. I came across these images while emptying Category:California and Category:San Francisco by categorizing images. Those that I speedily deleted were from mass uploads had no useful curation (filename, categories, description, and removal of OOS images) by the uploaders, and were either tourist shots with no educational value or of subjects with plenty of better photos already on Commons (ie, a responsible uploader would not have uploaded them); some of those images were from Rodrigo's script-assisted mass upload of 500px images. If an uploader cannot be bothered to provide any information that makes a file remotely useful, they are forcing others to do the curation for them. Rodrigo has done this with tens of thousands of photos, and makes a lot of noise on DRs of even blatantly out of scope (or in one case, clearly faked) photos.
This appears to be a result of Rodrigo's dislike of me (primarily related to my block of him last year) and his frustration that the UDR was closed with an consensus that the images were not useful to Commons, especially given that he has decided to insult my own photographs. He has not attempted to communicate with me on my talk page - nor to explain why he failed to provide any useful curation for his script-assisted mass uploads. The images of mine that he listed are not necessarily my best photos - but they have filenames, categories, and descriptions that indicate the subject of the photo (former railway stations, a ferry terminal, and construction of a subway station), and are not duplicating existing Commons images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Rodrigo has done this with tens of thousands of photos, and makes a lot of noise on DRs of even blatantly out of scope (or in one case, clearly faked) photos.
So, are you saying that you delete avoiding the DRs because I uploaded?
And there more than thousands of files, less than 10% was uploaded by me. So what are the reasons for the rest?
About the accusation: No, I'm reporting because I received a notification that you deleted files that I uploaded and you are misusing the sysop tool, as none of they pass trough DRs.
The Commons:500px licensing data was discussed at Village Pump and the community decided to save the files, I just took the task. And this is not scripted, I manually select the files.
This is a collaborative community that are more able in describe the photos than I am, simply because I do not know everything, and have daily volunteers helping at the description and better categorisation.
You deleting without the correct path is absurd and against the effort, rules and decisions of the community.
And about our photos, I just saying that is the same scope of the photos that you are deleting, all the rest, you are saying, not me.
.
So ad hominem aside, what is the arguments to delete the files without the DRs?
Why can you decide what we can keep here and do not request a deletion?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My concern is that if we suggested a generic CSD criteria based on SCOPE, without other problematic qualifiers (e.g., G10 out-of-scope advertisements), I suspect that the community would resoundingly reject the proposal. SCOPE arguments can be very subjective and especially contentious. I'm not saying that it's okay to carelessly mass upload unsorted poorly described images. It's not. But at the same time, we don't have a Commons:Ignore all rules. In fact, we deleted it in 2018.
Part of the reason that user actions, especially ones that involve advanced permissions, are bound by policy is because seemingly capricious actions can be demoralizing to other members of the community. Sending these to DR may not be the most expedient solution, but it is at least one that makes everyone involved feel that they've been treated fairly.
What would make me feel better about the whole thing is agreement on one side to be more careful with their batch uploads, and the other to agree to more carefully adhere to CSD. GMGtalk 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned with expediency; during my cleaning of those categories, I filed numerous DRs for scope, questionable copyright, etc. However, Rodrigo reacts to DRs of his uploads with personal attacks and rants, seemingly with the intention of derailing the DR into a keep. See this DR I filed about blatant photomanipulations, and this DR where he made sock/meatpuppet accusations, and his multiple blocks for conduct issues (three of them for abusing AN/U).
Of ~1,300 files I've deleted under the redundant/OOS rationale, about 1,100 were uploaded by a block-evading LTA, and most of the rest were from cleanup-specific categories. I'm happy to undelete any of the small number of 500px files that I've deleted if Rodrigo requests them - a request that he could have made on my talk page, but chose not to. But in return I ask that he gives them proper filenames, categories, and descriptions (as he explicitly promised during the 500px upload) - or at least puts them into a cleanup category so that others can help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So ad hominem again and no valid reason.

"a request that he could have made on my talk page"
I did on the proper location, undeletion request page, your talk page is not the proper location. You did not even manifest yourself there, imagene on your talk page, a talk page of a person that in every massage of discussion about their issue insist on attack me instead of argument. And why you did not reverted already, if you would take an action if I've have requested at your talk page?
Do not came with that, no one will buy.

"Of ~1,300 files I've deleted under the redundant/OOS rationale, about 1,100 were uploaded by a block-evading LTA, and most of the rest were from cleanup-specific categories."
If this was a "block-evading LTA" you should point it to page of the block and the normal text is "reinsert of already delete..." or something like, but seems not the case.

Most of the files that I'm looking at are this 11 digits that are normal from Flickr imports, almost all of they do not have previous deletion, i.e. File:Interesting Tree (15106954574).jpg, that is actually an interesting photo [6], that I did not uploaded. Why a person would violate this status of blocked to reinsert valuable content, and if this is the content that the person inserts, why they should be blocked? And even if the person is blocked, why this files should be removed from your core?

But what you mean by: "cleanup-specific categories"?
That you delete files that you believe that was out of the scope without consulting the community, right? Instead of relocate to a better category.

For me you should revert all of deletions that did not follow the correct path, DR or valid SD;
And open a DR for every file that you want to delete because they are, in your view, out of the scope.
I can not see if you are right or not on this allegations, as I can not see all of they, and I do not have time to try to find all that I can see, but I pick up random files, as the Flickr sample, and do not look to me real cases.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PS:I did not "explicitly promised" anything, this is normal tasks of importing project and a funny fact, I do not use Flickr2commons, so almost none of this deletions are files that I uploaded.
 Comment "and his multiple blocks for conduct issues (three of them for abusing AN/U)." @Pi.1415926535: Misleading, I see only one. (20 January 2016) That block by Jcb was a complete farce. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore the files.  Delete the drama. Creating a category for images that need some attention would be a good approach. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I've restored the seven photos mentioned here. I'll be more careful about edit summaries for uncontroversial speedy deletions, and to use DRs for those that may be controversial. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore hundreds of files From images of San Francisco in the 1900´s taken from books digitized by the Internet Archive and uploaded to flickr, several usefull and in scope flickr images such as events by the US Army Corps of Engineers, several images of buildings, landscapes, etc, this administrator has an happy trigger, bypass any policies and guidelines and it at least a case deleted images of an fishery wharf that had the filename corrected from the original flickr undescriptive. Totally unenviable!!! If an user thinks an image is out of scope, open an deletion request, even if they are administrators. Justifing this deletions because they are part of an mass upload is not an justification, be it based in policy or good judgement. And at least this administrator should be the one to undo this mess, instead of waiting for others to take the mop, and possibly put give his administrator bit to the consideration of its user peers. Tm (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pi.1415926535, seven do not solve the problem. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore the files - Some are crap sure but IMHO some here are actually worth keeping, That being said we all see value differently and I understand where Pi's coming from but I still can't really support deletion, Maybe restore the images and enforce a DR topic ban against Rodrigo so that further DRs cannot be derailed. –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore the files. There is not such thing as "redundant images" on Commons, unless they are duplicates. As for the curation, that's what we do here, every day. If everything is fine with the images, and all they need is proper curation, just throw them into a category of images needing curation, and get done with it. Me and other editors will eventually sort them out, even if 10, 20 years from now - cause that's just what we do here. Please don't destroy valuable knowledge just because you are unable to sort it out, this is a collaborative project, not a minimalist house which needs to be constantly "clean".-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I restored all files by non-sockpuppets (save for several older batch uploads that I previously discussed with the uploaders) two days ago - you've already commented on a DR for some of them. Is it not your responsibility as the uploader to place files into a cleanup category if you do not have the time or local knowledge to properly categorize and describe them? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment of uninvolved - If Rodrigo took more care, such as not uploading files with bad files names, no categories or completely incorrect categories, I suspect Pi is less likely to delete them.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Davey2010 and BevinKacon, but I'm far from be the problem.
First, with all this deletions, I had only 67 of ~1000 that was delete by Pi, ~1000 files deleted without proper justification in the last months. And he requested 5 to be deleted.
Second, I do not, again, I do not make bath uploads, I have to select one by one, and I'm very careful in what I upload. And a remember, this is a community initiative to save those files, I just did my part, and every day I receive notifications of better categorisation, better names... because we are a collaborative community.

And now see this request for deletion made by Pi:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:San Francisco
A bunch of different pictures, under the same justification:
"non-notable people. Unlikely to have any educational or historical value. ", my only image uploaded at this list is not even a person:
the file
As DarwIn point it out:
"St. Mary statue at the facade of the 170 year old former Roman Catholic Cathedral of San Francisco, a Designated San Francisco Landmark"
Not "non-notable people"
Have "educational" and "historical value"
Pi is derailing your attention to things that are not important.
Focus in their deletions without consulting the community and deletions requests.
Look deeper in the DRs that they used to talk about me, the request is a request to delete files because of photo manipulation (that is allowed here), and a suspect of copyvio that they couldn't confirm, and a volunteer that had never ever edit before, came just for that.
Someone that request this deletions should be ban from DRs, not me. A sysop that do this deletions...
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment if Pi.1415926535 is overworked they should take a break. Don't become Jcb 2. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment We cannot restore files if we do not have a list of files that need restored. Pi.1415926535 has restored the identified photos, and has agreed to take the feedback from the community on board going forward. I suggest we close this, and if a list of files to be undeleted can be compiled, post at UDR and link to this discussion. We're not going to block or desysop a user who is receptive to community feedback, as we are all expected to be regardless of what userrights we hold. GMGtalk 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files deleted by Pi.1415926535 - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Good then. Any objections to closing this? GMGtalk 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Experimentsxxx

It's a little light, but thinking I was on Wikisource, I went to block him. Since I don't hold the mop here, I'll leave it to you. There's only a few edits, but they all hit amazing levels of w:WP:NOTHERE. The postings are so disconnected from anything that I partially think it's a bot designed to post randomly produced text. (Which doesn't explain why someone would do that in this way.) The "Experiments" in the user name and lack of response to anything lead me to think there's absolutely no hope of getting useful edits out of the editor, and absolutely nothing lost by blocking them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And he thanked me for undoing his this edit, which is a clear sign that they're not here to do anything productive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

merge Nikolaos_Tsafouris and Nikolaos_Zafouris

Hi! I'm working with some icon data and trying to clean up iconographer data. Could someone please merge these:

Really sorry if this is the wrong section and if there is a predefined "request to merge" process... I mostly work in Wikidata that has an end-user function "merge" so I don't know the procedures here at Commons.

Thanks in advance for your help! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thylacinus cynocephalus

Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) and Myrhonon (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is busy in doing nonsense edits like this or this and now even more annoying with such or such a ridiculous renaming request. The name is neither "meaningless" nor "ambiguous" but the usual name for an usual location map. There is no "with borders" in the file name? Yes, and there is no "with lakes and rivers and ice shields and oceanic trenches", either. This has to stop. NNW 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

In the cases where I performed the requests I saw that there were similar maps, 1 with borders and 1 without borders. Thus the request appeared sensible to me. --Gereon K. (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Almost all location maps show borders. It is part of the concept of location maps, so usually a "without borders/no borders" is added to the file names of those few maps which don't show them. NNW 14:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the sockmaster for a period of three months for creating an illusion of support (if sockmaster is reverted, reverts using sock to defend sockmaster), contributing to the same page/discussion with multiple accounts, and other inappropriate use of alternative accounts. It looks like I blocked the socks already (before they were locked), but didn't get around to taking action on the master so this block is about a week later than intended.. No comment in relation to file renames, but NOTHERE edits were a contributing factor to the block length (3 months rather than 1 month) per edits to User talk:Seb az86556 and User talk:Canterbury Tail. No justification/consensus at this point in time for an indef block hence temp-block. ~riley (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It’s sad it needs to come to a sockpuppet farm for some attention to be drawn to this matter of frivolous renaming requests, granted with minimal effort by users whom the community granted file mover rights. In this case, user:Gereon_K. and user:Michael.Kramer dully approved and enacted the renaming request, ignoring not only its (flimsy) substance but also that these are images heavily transcluded across many projects and ignoring also the requester’s proclivities. Please understand that there is nothing trivial about file renaming and that any time it is done there must be a clear advantage in the new name to compensate for the disruption caused. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for the file moving. I often decline file moving requests. In this case I only saw 2 files, I think, 1 with borders and 1 without, so the request sounded reasonable to me. I don't check all requesters editing and block history and I think nobody does. This said I will look more than twice in the future when I see that a file is used in many Wikimedia projects. --Gereon K. (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody mind to move these two files back to their original names? I know they are heavily transcluded but, to be honest, I would dislike that Thylacinus cynocephalus reached his aim. NNW 09:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am also sorry that this discussion has come up here. But I have to say that the new name is no worse than the old one. that was the crucial point for me at that moment. again: I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Kramer (talk • contribs) 2020-01-28 13:18:59 (UTC)
"With borders" for location maps is as sensible as "with nose" for photos of a person's face. Borders are standard. NNW 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would not mind moving the files back. What is your position on NNW's question, Tuválkin? --Gereon K. (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • NNW didn’t pose a question, and anyway my position, as clearly stated, does not hinge on the specific improvements apported by the new name, but rather on an old name’s utter unsuitability — if the old name is good enough it should not be changed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
NNW asked "Does anybody mind to move these two files back to their original names?" I asked about your opinion on that. I interpret your answer as a "no". --Gereon K. (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear NNW, feel free to propose moving the files back to their old names and please let me know about it. I will move them all back then. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is this even being discussed? It is clearly an advantageto know whether the map shows borders or not. Personally I am of an opinion that the original file name should remain, unless there is a reason why it is bad (not that the new one is better), so the renaming should not have been done. But where is anything negative done by the user in question? A few pedantic edits is not a reason for blocking somebody's account. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's see how patient you will be with some pedantic edits by a man on a mission. I will start with Stamp-russia2009-observatory-block.png and move it to Stamp-russia2009-observatory-with-Ursa-Major-block.png and after a while I will move it to Stamp-russia2009-observatory-with-Ursa-Major-and-comet-block.png and after some further weeks to Stamp-russia2009-observatory-with-Ursa-Major-and-comet-and-mountain-range-block.png. And I will do this not only to this file but to all of your files. You definitely will love it, every day lots of very helpful edits on your watchlist. NNW 11:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@NordNordWest: Commons:Ownership of pages and files disagrees with you. I personally have problems with current renaming scheme, so I would prefer to obstain from having most of the files I upload moved, but I recognise that these files are "mine" in the sense that I have contributed them to the project, not in the sense that I control how they are present here. So yes, the moves you describe may appear annoying if they are done across the board, but here I did not see evidence of such, only a few files were presented. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ownership? I think you missed the topic. Have a look at his edits, here or at en:wp. NNW 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Did you read COM:OWN before writing your last message? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Solomon203

Solomon203 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Solomon203 keeps uploading non-free content (derivative work of copyrighted anime artwork) after having been warned (see here). Taking a picture of a copyrighted artwork is a derivative work. Solomon203 is a very hardworking editor who has been here over 10 years, but surprisingly, he has accumulated over 200 non-free files, and has never been blocked, prior to this discussion.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I would recommend not blocking, Not everyone fully understands DW and admittedly I'm one of those people, See for instance this DR where my images are nominated virtually every year .... so should I be blocked ?,
Warning the user achieves nothing because like myself they probably don't have a great knowledge of it, I recommend closing. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment "They do not understand a rule" is not an excuse for a user with 140+k edits (250+k in all projects). BTW, actually it is not an excuse for anyone. Commons is not a kindergarten. --jdx Re: 04:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jdx: That LED display was in the background. Solomon203 didn't "take a picture of a copyrighted artwork", they took a photo of a show with real people and there was an LED display in the background. The anime character is not the primary subject. We even have admins who upload this sort of thing, this isn't block-worthy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Not to sound funny but DW isn't the easiest of things to grasp and understand, Then again Solomon may well understand it perfectly fine and chooses to ignore it, True we're not kindergarten however we cannot expect users to fully understand every single policy here, We can learn and try not to repeat mistakes as after all we're only human. –Davey2010Talk 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Only needs a little background blur, not a block.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Jdx. Nobody should *babysit* other users. Uploading such files immediately after a warning is a demonstration of poor behaviour. But since these are not obvious and outright copyright violations (which would need speedy deletions), let's just give them a final and clear warning this time. If they continue to make extra works for other volunteers, their account should be blocked because of both disruption and knowingly violating copyright law. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010, I see you say "if people have issues with his images they're more than welcome to nominate them". Yes, I have nominated about 200 of his files for deletion. See:

I also noticed that a few that haven't been nominated yet (e.g.,File:Mirai Suenaga mousepad 20120316.jpg, File:Uni-President Vender 2813-GJ 20190518.jpg, File:Maokong Gondola regular cabin No.71 20151108.jpg).--Kai3952 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jdx: I have attempted to discuss this issue on Solomon203's talk page, but he insists on his point: "大部分是原始照片只提供公共網域作品（PD 1.0）授權，而現在的Wikipedia Commons不接受PD，但是和DW沒有關係". Solomon203 also underscored that his files has nothing to do with COM:DW. This means that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Commons policies, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block him from editing until such time as he agrees to abide by COM:DW.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith deletion requests by User:Fæ

Fae has recently nominated a number of maps for deletion.

These deletion requests appear to be a continuation of a discussion he started expressing concern that historical images might be used to spread discredited theories about race. Fae frequently relies on COM:INUSE in deletion discussions, even to the point of including charts showing how many Wikipedia projects use a particular file. Despite being fully aware of COM:INUSE, Fae has nominated several images which are in use on multiple projects. Fae knows very well that being in use on other projects (excluding talk and user pages) means that an image is considered to be in scope.

In addition to this, Fae is arguing that the maps lack proper sourcing. For example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with intitle:"I Distribution", he states "No sources are provided for the map creation data. The maps are either user fantasy or are derived works of undeclared copyrighted publications". Fae is a long-time Commons contributor and is surely aware of the COM:NPOV policy. It points out that "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites". While it would be preferable to have sources for the underlying information, it is up to individual projects to decide if they want to use these files despite their shortcomings.

I understand Fae's desire to avoid spreading out-dated and discredited racial theories, but he seems to be taking things too far, both by making bad faith deletion requests and by mistakenly targeting unrelated things as in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Y-DNA. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The deletion requests are raised due to the absence of verifiable sources, making them all likely copyright violations. This is part of follow-on housekeeping after the "racial" categories discussion, in particular as in some cases these maps were the only content for some of the "racial" categories". Being in use is not a rationale to host copyright violations on this project.
Commons is not a host for user-created fantasies, for this reason, creations which are effectively fake news and therefore have negative educational value are out of scope.
The shortcut INUSE is a redirect to Scope, in no way is that subsection intended to override precautionary principle and Scope itself includes the counterexamples for copyvios of:
  • "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."
  • "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."
Where sources are being provided for some of the files, these are immediate issues of being copyvios due to being derivative works, having proper deletion discussions is exactly what is needed.
Lastly, it is correct that these maps are being used to spread "racial" theories and were used as an excuse to create "racial" categories. In this context, it is even more important that source material is verifiable and if instead, they are a user fantasy of racial theories, is either deleted or marked up with an explanation of why it is of educational value.
If folks want to review the facts, they should examine the deletion requests, not have a second rehash of the deletion requests on this noticeboard.
If anyone wishes to examine example "racial" categories, and perhaps help with the necessary housekeeping, there is a partial list at User:Faebot/SandboxS. Many have now been deleted since the original discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Commons does not require that the source material is verifiable or even known. That isn't great for a lot of reasons, but that is the way it is and you know that. Commons is a repository for images which projects can choose to use or not use as they wish. If one of the projects decided that they wanted to promote overtly racist or homophobic viewpoints, there is little Commons could do about it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons is repository of files for Wikimedia projects (and also free media for using outside Wikimedia projects, but this isn't important here). Fæ should know: every file used in a Wikimedia project is automatically in scope. It does not matter, how erroneous and misleading it is. Let's imagine, that somebody starts to write an article about Nazi racial theory. Inevitably an article about such fringe theory must consist incorrect map(s). If some of the nominated maps is really incorrect, then it should be discussed and replaced/deleted in projects, which use it, but some of the nominated files are widely used. Taivo (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I used too many words. The above DRs are COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS. Whether they are in use or not is therefore irrelevant. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The deletion requests are error. However, they do not appear to be done in bad faith, it is a simple misunderstanding of copyright. I have heard even some people with legal education make arguments about copyright being extended to simple data, and beyond representation of that data. There may also be some misunderstanding of the science of genetic testing here, but clearly no harm done. Deletion Requests is the place for community to develop our standards, and nobody should be faulted for making a DR that is not an obvious decision one way or another. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The source maps I have seen so far are all rights reserved.
Copyright maps are copyrighted. There's no debate about simple copyright violations. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
"The source maps I have seen so far are all rights reserved." "Copyright maps are copyrighted." You are making a very disingenuous connection here. What we are talking about are maps made by the users who uploaded them. The sources they used may well have been "all rights reserved" but that does not been that maps made using those sources are copyright violations. Take File:Eurasia R1a M458.jpg as an example. The source of the information is provided and the map image (also identified) came from Commons). You say in the deletion request "Maps are copyrighted. This work has been directly copied from an all rights reserved map", The two maps look nothing alike. They even use different projections. This is not a copyright question. You have been around long enough to know this, but you want to delete these maps one way or another. These are bad faith nominations. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Though the satellite map may be free to reuse, the Nature (European Journal of Genetic Studies) source is all rights reserved by Springer Nature and the zones are from Map d. It is unclear what has been copied from "Underhill et al., 2015."
Zones on a map are copyrightable, and pasting those zones on a different underlying map, does not stop this being a derived work.
Creating this thread about me, rather than about the problematic maps which, like File:Map of Y DNA mutation M438.png hosted here for the last 5 years, are still popping out of the woodwork, is unhelpful. None of these copyright concerns is about the uploaders, neither are they about me.
The smoking gun is that in not one of these examples has an actual dataset been linked to that could have generated the maps that are in the image. Maps like this which either have zero sources, completely unverifiable source comments like "own work" or "Underhill 2015" rather than links to datasets or correctly licensed original maps, should be deleted per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
"Zones on a map are copyrightable" No they aren't. The actual image of those zones is copyrightable, but if someone recreates the map it is not a copyright violation. "pasting those zones" Again you are using deliberately misleading language. nothing was cut and pasted. The maps are different projections so this would not have been possible even if the zones could have been separated from the original map. This isn't a derivative work. "Maps like this which either have zero sources, completely unverifiable source comments like 'own work' or 'Underhill 2015' rather than links to datasets" This is not a requirement and never has been. If this is really a concern of yours, you need to suggest a change to COM:SCOPE. You know all of this and yet you created the deletion requests because you don't like the subject matter. Your actions are the problem here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Please actually read COM:DW. Tracing lines from a copyrighted map and changing the projection, does not stop the resulting map being a derived work.
Your continued extended personal rant against me, rather than focusing on the facts of what these maps are, is not helping anyone. --Fæ (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have read COM:DW. There's a section specifically about maps which might help you. Perhaps an analogy might be useful here. Let's say there is a graph in a copyrighted scientific article. If someone used the numbers from the article's illustration to make their own graph, it wouldn't be a "derivative image", would it? It would be the same information expressed in a graph, but not the same image. A map is a way to convey information that relates to geographic areas. This is information, not artwork. Does that help? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
An element, like the geoposition of a church, is not the same as sets of curved lines. If it were, then no map made of drawn lines would ever be copyrightable. These maps or overlay maps are zones bounded by continuous lines, not a limited set of numbers. Further, as stated before, the smoking gun is that in not one of these examples has an actual dataset been linked that can validate the zones as being copyright free.
If you want to fix this, rather than grandstanding, find the datasets that can regenerate these maps. The data could even be uploaded to Commons as CC0. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
No one has proposed an indefinite ban (or any kind of ban). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@AshFriday: Such a statement is uncalled for, and should be withdrawn. As World's Lamest Critic stated, no one has brought up such a proposition. If you have a personal problem with Fæ, this is certainly not the forum to hash it out nor is it the manner in which to conduct oneself. Don't escalate it. If you need a wikibreak, I would suggest taking one. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • AshFriday This "support an indefinite ban for Fæ." is casting aspersion and the only action I deem necessary here is a boomerang against you. If you have a problem with a specific nomination, please discuss it on the DR without having to make personal attacks. I'd suggest that this thread be closed by any passing admin or another experienced editor with a strong message that COM:AU is not a venue for discussing file DR. Regards. T CellsTalk 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is about a pattern of false claims and not about a specific DR. Maybe you should read it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
This "Bad faith deletion requests by User:Fæ" does not implies "a pattern of false claims". Regards. T CellsTalk 18:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear @World's Lamest Critic:

This thread has reached more than 2,000 words. At this point, you are changing your complaint about 'bad faith' deletions to instead be a complaint about a "Pattern of false claims". Please precisely list the diffs for the pattern of false claims, to use plain English, this reads as an allegation of lying against me. If you expect meaningful and policy-based responses, be clear and unambiguous by spelling out the evidence, so that I can address it. Please avoid repeating bizarre and simply wrong tangents such as in the context above of copyright, your statement "Commons does not require that the source material is verifiable or even known" which directly contradicts COM:L The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fae, ignoring everything but your last point, it is a twisted misreading if you think that COM:L implies that data sources are required for maps. What is required is who made it and the license used. If it is a self-made map showing concentrations of Pastafarians in Europe, and the license is CC-by-SA, that's sufficient. There is no requirement to supply the source data or even to affirm that the map is anything more than a product of the uploader's imagination. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kyle The SpongeBob Guy

Copyrighted photo uploaded over File:Animhorse.gif with edit message "DO NOT TAKE THIS DOWN n i g g a". Given that and the user page saying "Also... No blocking me okay? :)", I'm disinclined to spend more time on warnings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done GMGtalk 01:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Same person

Suggest blocking the newer accounts and warn the main. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Bliseiwaliu

User:Bliseiwaliu removed deletion requests after he had been warned not to do so. His only activity relates to User:Yobeemolt's files, so double account is suspected.--Iphoneuser88 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done; blocked the sock (Bliseiwaliu) indefinitely and the main account (Yobeemolt) for one month. Thanks for the report. Ahmadtalk 14:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
On a side note, Yobeemolt has been blocked indefinitely at the English Wikipedia based on CheckUser evidence. I think I know when it dates back to; but I'll wait for the blocking CU on enwiki to reply to my message. Ahmadtalk 15:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as Rowingasia's confirmed sock. This LTA has been active on Commons as well; see Special:Contribs/Rowingasia2 for example. Ahmadtalk 16:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Mitte27

Mitte27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  uses a single template {{No permission}} for all files that seem doubtful to him, including clearly inappropriate cases that require a regular DR. He was asked several times not to do so, and got an unequivocal recommendation from Christian Ferrer to file regular deletion requests in such cases, but ignored all these, arguing that 99% of files marked so by him were deleted anyway. Please comment. --VLu (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Although I still thinks that regular DRs are more appropriate for the historical images wrongly tagged as own works, I do not see myself to warn or to take administrative actions against users who do administrative maintenances in good faith. Furthermore there are no, as far I know, very specific rules for very strict usage of this kind of tags in our policies and guidelines. The interest of all being that the files wrongly tagged as own work and wrongly licensed, be detected. The administrators are supposed to be trustworthy and are the ones who have the final say on whether to delete the files. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That being said, maybe other administrators have different opinions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edits for Chevron Renaissance

We have noticed that the Chevron Renaissance wikipedia page is talking about the Chevron Renaissance Shopping Centre, which already has its own Wikipedia page.

 Not done. You must talk about that in the Wikipedia. Commons is not responsible for Wikipedia articles. Taivo (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Alek Savic (2)

Reposting my February, 2 request.

Continues copyvios after block. Probably duck of Goran671 (talk · contribs): same interest in Sasa Paunovic, same uploads (File:Драгиша Ђокић.png and File:Dragiša Đokić.jpg). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked master account Alek Savic for a month and sock Goran indefinitely. Now I'm going to delete speedily some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

User:JosephC5 has received a final warning for uploading copyrighted content, in English and Spanish, back in 2017. However, this user has continued to upload copyrighted images: example 1, example 2, example 3. Many recent uploads have a watermark asserting copyright and showing that they were downloaded from CTBUH. Citobun (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked the user for 2 weeks. www.skyscrapercity.com is not an acceptable source. In addition, multiple images should be deleted due to lack of freedom of panorama in source country. Taivo (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Citobun (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Chenspec keeps overruling other reviewers on COM:QIC

For some time now, the user Chenspec has ignored the input of other reviewers on QIC. When a user makes a comment on a nomination, Chenspec overrides this comment and promotes the image directly instead of sending the nomination to Consensual Review, or adding a comment of his own. If this goes unnoticed, the image in question will be promoted despite having obvious issues on which other reviewers have commented. Several images currently active in CR are a result of this behaviour. As the user seems not to respond to several comments made on this issue, despite earlier discussions I feel it's time to bring up the discussion here.--Peulle (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the first time I see a message on the subject. I didn't know that my supplement could erase what other people wrote and I had no such intention. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for the resulting mess - now I know to pay attention to existing comments and make sure it doesn't happen again. Chenspec (talk)
Not the first time. But it may well be that the attempt to explain it was not clear and unambiguous enough at the time. --Smial (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That was for image that is already promoted - With a green frame. I haven't promoted this kind of pictures since. I only promote blue images that I like. I know the yellow pictures are with the discussion - so I didn't touch them. I use the auto tool, I don't know it deletes comments that other people have written in the blue pictures. I think it should be a separate color for pictures that have comments, but not controversy or discussion. It will help me (and probably other people) to avoid such mistakes in the future. Chenspec (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Chenspec, this is the first time I can ever remember you making substantive comments, and the problem is that you are never responsive to the reasons given to either oppose or ask for edits to a picture. If using the auto tool is causing you to ignore others' comments, stop using the auto tool. And meanwhile, I haven't ever seen any opposing votes from you. "Promote everything" is no kind of judging. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Wir basteln uns ein QIC, das genau so funktioniert, wie wir es wollen. Schon typisch, daß du hier auch aufschlägst. Jeder, der auf QIC nicht handelt wie du, muß gemaßregelt werden, bis er horcht. --Ralf Roletschek 11:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not "Promoteing everything" - Only the pictures I think are worthy of promotion. I think you can see in history that I didn't promote all the blue pictures every time, and that I do exercise judgment. I am less likely to take part in discussions for the technical reason that English is not my native language and it takes me a lot of time and effort to formulate each response. So of course if I see there's a problem - like now, I'll put in the effort. But I will not enter into discussions on my own, if it is not something that is related to my activities. In the context of the pictures - if I see something that I think is not suitable, I just don't promote it. For the current problem, I responded as soon as I saw the message on my talk page. For the rest, I did not respond because I did not see them, not because I avoided nor because I ignored it. With regard to the automated tool, in light of the new information, I am in fact examining its continued use. However, I still propose to consider the change of frame color for a commented image. This can prevent confusion. Chenspec (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to respond in German; we can use Google Translate if necessary, too. But don't override others' comments or votes without a substantive comment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
O.K And again - sorry for the mess, there were no bad intentions. Chenspec (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing, understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

VERCEIL

Two months of useless edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. due to large number of copyvios and out-of-scope uploads I blocked him for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Gindomarlo

Situation

Gindomarlo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (whose record here is sketchy at best, already blocked once) is a user already permanently banned from es:wiki (just like several of their socks, including TrícolorG (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)). He/she is in the path of becoming a similar troll in Commons if he/she is not allowed to editorialise here a project from which he is permanently banned (es:wikipedia)... and he shouldn't be, of course. See overwrite fixation just because the file is the heading image used in es:wikipedia. May some administrator warn him before it's too late?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  •  Comment I will add to @Asqueladd: comments that considering his/her long non-understanding how to recognize a bad Flickr account and his/her non-willingness to let the deletions templates intact user needs more than a week off to familiarize with the project. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

AVRTM2

User [7] has been warned and blocked for week before for edit warring in the file [8]. A month after his block ends he comes back and reverts the map to a 6 month old version. Remind you this file is an extremely popular file viewed by at least 10 thousand viewers a day and user reverted a daily updated map to a 6 month old version. Here's the report and block for edit warring on the same time before [9]. I hope its a perma this time because the user was warned before all these as well and this is the 3rd time he repeated. Bill497 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version published in December, the last version uploaded by Bill497 which is referenced. The user had made a lot of changes in the file without referencing them and without reflecting them in the module the image is supposed to be based. There aren't any changes made by other users which could be affected by my reversion because since December, only Bill497 unreferenced editions and some reversions by other users to those editions have been made. --AVRTM2 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious behaviour from "two" entirely new users contributing to Quality Images Candidates

I'm not sure whether what's going on here is legitimate, but I suspect it isn't.

Two obviously related user accounts have been newly-created and used solely to vote at QIC; here and here. It's not clear whether or not these votes are being cast in good faith or as trolling/vandalism, but the account behaviour looks pretty dodgy regardless.

Ubcule (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia sock turning to Commons

For a few years Wikipedia has had a sockpuppeteer causing problems with the location of east London articles (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopeful2014/Archive), recategorising and rewriting articles to put them into smaller localities they feel are more accurate, focusing particularly on the "Globe Town" region of Bethnal Green in London. They were blocked in part for making these kinds of edits without consensus or discussion, but have socked on an ongoing basic to restore them.

This morning I've seen some "image has been renamed" and "updating commons category" bot alerts pop up across my Wikipedia watchlist, and it looks like the user has (possibly in reaction to being advised to stop editing Wikipedia for six months and take the standard offer earlier the same day) turned their attention to making the same regional alterations on Commons instead, as the IP 86.152.126.100 and under the username "Globetowner1". (Examples: this commons move is the same as this 2019 Wikipedia move; this commons category creation repeats this Wikipedia location.)

I don't know how commons handles cross-site sockpuppetry, but can somebody take a look at this? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

IP reverted (by me and others) and blocked by me for a short period. I'll look at the user some more as soon as I can and if others don't beat me to it. --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. And I now see that 185.49.74.145 (talk · contribs) has been making similar edits across east London pages this morning. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done IP blocked and reverted. This goes past coincidence so I'll block the user next. That's for the reports. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Checking affected categories there's also 185.49.75.145 (talk · contribs), who was active for a few days and stopped the minute that Globetowner's block landed, so I guess they're autoblocked in some way for sharing an IP, but should still be reverted before any inappropriate changes to categories and descriptions are bedded down by later editors. (The exact same IP has been long-term checkuser/proxy blocked on Wikipedia since last year, for belonging to this user.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

BibliotecarioOT

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

Probable return of Namest 2003 (talk · contribs) and his ducks, same uploads related to es:Sara Fernández. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely and will delete the upload. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Surendra Kohli

same as Surendra Singh Kohli. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 14:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

رسول علي

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Same person

Same person. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done; blocked Pepe el gallaso (sock) indefinitely and Cienllamas1772 for one month. Also warned them about the project scope. If they continue to upload out of scope files after their block expires, another block may be needed. Thanks for the report. Ahmadtalk 09:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Waterborough

Repeatedly empties (blanks) a talk page, instead of writing a reply: first and second deletion. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Waterborough: Please do not remove other's comments. GMGtalk 21:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this user blames this picture to be a fake. He doesn't understand, that it is allowed to make derivate works of uploaded files. He mentions not an opinion, but he is claiming a fact, that this picture is a fake and that is not true. Please remove this comment, otherwise many other wikimedia files could be called fakes. -- Waterborough (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Fake" is not the precisely best word, but he is correct. The photo has been blown up from another file, and the file page is misleading in that it never clearly says this. Other Wikimedia files could be called fakes; so what? Respond on the talk page instead of deleting the talk page message. If someone called File:Teleoceras Harvard combined.jpg a fake, I'd happily explain to them why and how it was digitally manipulated, but as I call it up, I note that there's a large box on the page explaining that it's a combined image.
I don't see any reason to keep this new image. It is a duplicate, of visually worse quality at the same sizes. One can make derivatives of uploaded files, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're of use to us or not misleading.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is nonsense. A fake is an object that is made to look real or valuable in order to deceive people. The description says that this file has been extracted from another file. That means undoubtedly, that this file is not the original. After this is made clear, i´m of course allowed to resize or remix it. So where is the scram? This file is also not a duplicate. It is cropped, so that the proportion is better. Keith Richrds is more in the center. And it is brighter for better use as a thumb. -- Waterborough (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Mlang.Finn führt einen Privatkrieg gegen Bildvergrößerungen. Siehe auch die Versionsgeschichte bei diesem Bild. Vergrößerungen sind kein Fake und keine Fälschung, Vergrößerungen können eine Verbesserung sein. Es existiert nicht umsonst Spezialsoftware, die u. a. von der Polizei benutzt wird, um bei unscharfen Überwachungsbildern mehr Details erkennen zu können. Genau diese Software benutze ich, mußte mir aber auch von ihm anhören, das Bild zu fälschen. --Ralf Roletschek 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of image enlargement; is that a crime? It's hardly valuable on the type of images we're working with. Police enlargement software is probably better for its core use, lousy security cam footage and weird angles. I suspect that the automated part takes into account the models of camera used and their specific limitations. For license plates, I'm sure the limited choice of symbols and font used on license plates makes doing "magic" possible. If the software used here had shown some knowledge of human hair or something where detail could actually be added by intelligent software, I'd have less problem using it on this image, but stuff like simple cubic interpolation can and should be done on server if necessary.
Maybe we could talk about it, maybe we could start making good notes on the image pages about exactly what was done, maybe we can stop extracting images from files named File:Keith-Richards-1965.jpg and uploading them to File:Keith Richards (1965).jpg, instead of names like File:Keith-Richards-1965 (cropped, enlarged).jpg or File:Keith Richards (1965) (edited version).jpg? Deleting comments is no way to get a compromise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Waterborough: should I delete your comment because I don't think it's nonsense, and I'm worried about many other Wikimedia comments being called nonsense? Stop deleting comments and engage with the discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ich kann nur für meine Bildbearbeitung sprechen, wie die anderen Fotos bearbeitet wurden, weiß ich nicht. Man erkennt an der unteren Version deutlich, daß Artefakte im Auge und Treppen an der Brille minimiert wurden. Das ist keine einfache Vergrößerung, die auf dem Server gemacht werden könnte, das kann Photoshop auch nicht. --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really not relevant to this discussion board. If you want to gauge community acceptance, take it to COM:VP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Das ist genau hier relevant denn hier wurde über Vergrößerungen gemeckert. --Ralf Roletschek 15:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Heeheemalu

User:Heeheemalu continues abuse the "Skylines" category after being warned sufficiently. His problem was that the photo had "no horizon", but he mistakenly thought it was the horizon. Please see below for photos:

A1.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
B6.
B7.
B8.

A8 is a skyline and B8 is a night skyline, but he mistakenly viewed all of photos as skyline or night skyline. The result of this is that many photos are over categorized (which means that Category:Cityscapes is parent category of Category:Skylines, and the page has added Category:Cityscapes but he added Category:Skylines). Per this article on en.wikipedia.org, "Skyline" means that the horizon created by a city's overall structure, or by human intervention in a non-urban setting or in nature. I have clearly explained on his talk page why cityscape is not a skyline. We shouldn't tar them all with the same brush. Besides this, he also removed all my edits:

User:Heeheemalu removed 65 edits

--Kai3952 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kai3952: I am not intentionally abusing the skylines category. There is no clear and universally acknowledged distinction between a cityscape and skyline and there are often grey areas that are subjective to opinions, as long as there is a clear view of the sky in the picture with a view of the horizon, it should be counted as a skyline. In the page Kai3952 has pointed out, there are plenty of pictures that do not fit the user's "strict" definition of the buildings appearing on the horizon, such as

both of which do not show the buildings themselves being situated on the horizon, but a horizon is present. Nevertheless, these images are still allowed to be used as examples under the "modern skylines" subsection without anyone complaining about it. This is a similar case with the pictures which I have categorised as "skylines", of which the definition is not as specific as Kai3952 has made it. The only non-debatable point here is that an aerial photo can't be a skyline as the angle is too high to show buildings against a sky with a visible horizon. Please may I ask Kai3952 to not impose their self-assumed definition without first checking its validity with other users. If one looks at other subcategories in the skyline group (categories with other countries/cities), there are more variety in terms of the angle, etc. It seems like Kai3952 is only focusing on the Skylines in Taiwan categories and setting a different standard for these categories compared to other categories. E.g. the subcategory: Category:Night views from Victoria Peak (Victoria Harbour) should not be a sub-category of Category:Hong Kong night skylines (Hong Kong Island) according to Kai3952's "strict definition" as it would not count as a "skyline". So, it seems like Kai3952's interpretations of the definition of "skyline" is not broad enough and differs to what other people think generally, as no one else except for Kai3952 has complained about me putting the above images in the "skylines" category. May I ask here that Kai3952 to not continuously change other people's edits based solely on their own interpretation of something without first consulting other users - this is disruptive editing and harassment and shows absolutely no respect for other users' opinions. This is why I have removed Kai3952's edits. From Kai3952's past records from their talk page, it clearly seems like it is not the first time Kai3952 has forcefully imposed their assumedly "unique" way of understanding onto other people, just like how Kai3952 has assumed my gender to be a male by referring to me as a "he", when a gender neutral term should be used in this case due to uncertainty. The fact that Kai3952 has assumed my gender is an evidence that Kai3952 has a tendency to impose their assumptions, interpretations and personal opinions of many things on other people, which should not be allowed in Wikipedia, as this is a page that should be presenting facts, not debatable opinions. --Heeheemalu

@Gone Postal: Thank you very much for your reminder. I am fully aware that this page is not suited for such discussions, hence this is not at all my intention. My point is that if a community discussion is required (i.e. there is no clear, undisputed/unsubjective definition), there is no point in Kai3952 reporting my edits here on this page before a final conclusion has been established. But currently, there appears to be only one person - Kai3952 complaining and trying to change my edits. Thus, it is harassment, bullying and disruptive editing to change the categories in which I have originally placed the images that I have uploaded by claiming them to be incorrect when there is not (yet) an established definition of a "skyline". This is very discouraging towards a relatively new user like myself when all I wanted to do was to make some contributions towards Wikimedia Commons and the last thing that can possibly encourage me is having an experienced user like Kai3952 imposing their own subjective opinions on me and reporting me without first consulting on the opinions of other members in the community. If anyone thinks that it is unsuitable to categorise an image as both a "cityscape" and "skyline", perhaps it would be a better course of action to establish a clear definition to distinguish between these two words and/or even reconsider how the categories are categorised (e.g. Should "skyline" be a subcategory of "cityscape" or should they be two distinct categories if they are distinctly different?) I will be more than happy to re-categorise my images when I have been informed by the community to do so under clear instructions of which images should/shouldn't be placed into which categories.

--Heeheemalu 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Same person

Same person. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked by Fitindia. Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
+1. --Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. Ahmadtalk 13:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Swastik Mridha

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

Making legal threats at User talk:Brown Chocolate (Special:Diff/395130002). Ahmadtalk 14:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Herbythyme for edit warring. Ahmadtalk 14:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The block is for numerious reasons. Copyright violation, removing tags and saying some unacceptable things. Personally I think the block should be a longer one but I have a feeling we will hear of this user again. --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Herbythyme, not because he made legal threats but because of repeated copyright violation. I was about to report this user. User: Swastik Mridha appears to upload images from Google stating own work. Almost all images which user upload related to weapons has been deleted. Probably he is unaware of copyright policy. Brown Chocolate (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely. The copyvios and removing tags was the main issue. It's only a week and they get a chance to look at how things work. I am concerned by the repeat unblock request though - the attitude lacks something. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Adrianas.ec

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Next time indef. All uploads deleted Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

User:Paul venter and plantillustrations.org

Rather than repeat a lengthy discussion here; please could an admin take a look at the user-issue described at Commons:Village pump#Is plantillustrations.org a source of Public Domain images? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Postaire

Continues copyvio just out of one year block. Doesn't get it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You've sort of have to admire the persistence and determination. And reblock them, of course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Heavy dock

Heavy dock (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Single-purpose account focused on nudity. Two problematic CfDs created on nudity within 25 minutes of account creation. Use of cations like "Hot nude girls hot chick touch her bare breast naked girls" seems disruptive, and are unlikely to be flagged as vandalism. Appears disruptive, asking that an admin considers the account. --Fæ (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this is a LTA, judging by their behavior. Newbies usually don't know about CfD. Masum Reza📞 22:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they may already have abandoned this account. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Block request

Only one post made by this account so far, but the user name seems to be a violation of bullet points #2 and #4 of COM:IU. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done It's an LTA, the account has been already globally locked. --jdx Re: 04:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 Info I changed the title and hid the username to avoid attracting attention. Ahmadtalk 15:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Araz Yaquboglu

Araz Yaquboglu (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Seems we have a mass copyvio problem with this user. Please read the ongoing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Araz Yaquboglu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits through Commons are much more than uploaded files. Starting from today I will ensure you that above-mentioned problems do not happen once more. You may delete the files indicated by you in my Talk Page, if appropriate. I do not see any problem in such deletion. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Request administrator intervention with User:KrakauKrakau

User:KrakauKrakau does not understand Commons licensing policy. I have tried to gently explain it a plethora of times, but he becomes very hostile in the deletion nominations. He removed the deletion nominations from two of his uploads with edit summaries saying "just some troll" or things to that effect. On another deletion nomination, he is persistently using ad hominen instead of dealing with the issue appropriately. The original version of the photo of Nikolai Bykov he uploaded contained no indication is was published early enough to be PD, so I had to nominate it for deletion. He immediately accused me of vandalism, trying to destroy Wikimedia, etc (instead of providing the newspaper that he now claims it was published in). On Russian Wikipedia, where I uploaded a fair-use version of the photo that is pending deletion, he has gone further - declaring my edits to keep the fair-use version "vandalism" and even using a blatant sockpuppet while editing (the IP left an edit summary saying "ban her already" when reverting my edit, just like he did on Commons). He must prove that his uploads are in compliance with Wikimedia's copyright policy in a civil manner, and accept that ones that are copyright violations will be deleted. But instead of providing publication dates or newspaper clippings, he disrespectfully calls me "girl", "devochka", and "madam" in disrespectful manners. His behavior is unacceptable and warrants administrator intervention.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Gentle WP:HA and nomination for deletion on EVERY of mine photos. Also we have new discoveries on the ground of military strategy: from now military orders are copyrighted! KrakauKrakau (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Anything permanently recorded is copyrighted by default. The US Federal Government has explicitly disclaimed its copyrights, at least in the US. Most other governments have not been so generous, and thus military orders would indeed be copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a law degree? [К𝖗𝖆к𝖆𝖚К𝖗𝖆к𝖆𝖚] (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No. Do you? And that is exactly why you're here on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, because you use mockery and personal attacks instead of discussing the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User reverts administrator’s actions

Please check these edits: [10] [11] [12]. Is it fine that the user disallows to summarize her controversial deletion requests when she doesn’t like results? --VLu (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure administrators don't get to unilaterally close deletion requests contrary to evidence of copyright status. I asked for evidence of early enough publication (required under Russian law in order for item to be PD in both Russia and US) but they just pretended the issue was non-existant simply because the author died over 74 years ago (contrary to the footnote in the PD-Russia template about publication times) Frankly, I would think that such disregard for copyright concerns, and lack of willingness to attempt to understand and read the copyright law would be grounds for de-adminship. Frankly the amount of admins without basic knowledge of these matters is concerning, and seniority should never be an excuse for willful wrongs. Nominating something for deletion without sufficient publication information shouldn't be considered controversial here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, Ahonc's right to perform administrative work wasn't disputed by anyone, unlike yours. When did you decide that you're aware of copyright issues better than administrators and you have the right to ignore their decisions? --VLu (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Adminship doesn't require passing a copyright knowledge test. An admin can be mistaken as anyone else. What made me decide that I'm more aware of copyright issues that some administrators? The sheer number of Russian administrators who know next to nothing about Russian copyright law and/or think "date legally made to the public = date photo was created", going against the consensus of the rest of administrators at Wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@PlanespotterA320: I’ve no idea why, but I’m afraid, users are not encouraged or supported by admins to raise publication issues here so far. You may want to take a look at this DR – among many similar ones. --Яй (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, admins rarely have in-depth knowledge of the copyright laws they make rulings on. There is no official rule against asking for publication information. I like to stick to the offical Commons policies (not the whims of a random admin in a random deletion nomination that ruled differently to another in a similar circumstance) - ie, Commons:Burden of proof, Commons:PD files, and the official copyright expiration templates here on Commons (like I have said before, it is very often overlooked that many people ignore the footnotes about copyright status of photos by dead authors published posthumously noted in the Template:PD-Russia and Template:PD-Russia-1996. The part about posthumous publication is in Russia's civil code. If we have no evidence whatsover that a photo was published early enough, regardless of when the author died, it cannot be on Commons. I have repeatedly tried explaining the posthumous publication footnote but it has largely been ignored since many people think the PD-old-70 tag is sufficient (despite the footnotes on that tag saying that other templates need to be used with it).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Own work? ~

I don't believe all these uploads added by User:GaultierA between the 12th of February and the 15th of February is the editor's Own Work. Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: You may wish to nominate them at Commons:Deletion requests, and explain why you are doubtful regarding their authorship. GMGtalk 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

GeneralErwinStanley's socks are back

New sock uploading copyvio images is JamesMattoonScott (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .

Last time Taivo nuked the socks' contributions and indeffed the socks.

✓ Done. I blocked yesterday the account, tagged it and created a sockpuppet category. Now I'm going to delete suspicious uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much Taivo for your continuing assistance and hard work. Much appreciated. Best regards. Dr.K. (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ángel Ol. Aray

Ángel Ol. Aray is yet another sock of ángel Olivares Aray, a banned sockpuppeeter. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Indef, upload deleted. --Achim (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Elana Barker

Elana Barker (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Everything is copyvio except one Iphone family selfie. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Not everything was copyvio, so I blocked her for a month. Taivo (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

DrJSE socks

For what it's worth, the following accounts are confirmed to each other on English Wikipedia:

It looks like they've been screwing around over here, too, going by all the deletion notices on DrJSE's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Socks blocked indefinitely. Master blocked temporarily for uploading copious amounts of out of scope images. If they return and resume, I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to be generous with second chances, given the amount of time that's been wasted already. GMGtalk 19:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Should we make this indefinite for the master? We can get a request that the master and the socks to be locked on meta:SRG for cross-wiki behavior. 2600:6C4E:580:A:259F:217F:A4D5:D511 02:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's not clear that the accounts were directly used to corrupt or circumvent some community process, other than the possibility of avoiding scrutiny for out-of-scope files. We normally wouldn't immediately indefinitely block a user for out-of-scope uploads. Having said that, a week block is probably plenty enough notice that something is problematic, and if they create new accounts to avoid the block, then it should probably be immediately upgraded to indefinite. There may be a NOTHERE argument as far as en.wiki goes, and I'm a bit skeptical that the master is actually the master, since it's pretty peculiar for any new account to be aware of project space at all, much less en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, which many experienced users are most likely unaware of. GMGtalk 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Odnailro

User:Odnailro has been repeatedly uploading out-of-scope files using the Parliament diagram tool, despite a clear warning on the site, and repeated deletion of the files, as seen on their talk page. I recommend a temporary block to make it very clear that such behaviour is not acceptable. --Slashme (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Warned against uploading copyrighted works. --Mhhossein talk 06:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible uploads by individual labelled as LTA

Jaahanbakht has uploaded files very similar to those of LTA-tagged user Elipersian

Jaahanbakht's uploads:

Elipersian's uploads

If it quacks like a duck... --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

They have matching behavior on enwiki and fawiki also. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock IP cleanup

This is a followup to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_83#Wikipedia_sock_turning_to_Commons, which was archived without a response to the final IP. This IP went silent the moment that Globetowner1 (talk · contribs) was blocked on the 10th, and had been making the same kinds of edits to east London image pages, changing categories and descriptions to match their personal and frequently inconsistent take on east London geography (which has gotten them fully banned from Wikipedia as User:Hopeful2014).

Requesting their edits either be checked by someone who knows east London well enough to verify which are improvements and which are detrimental or questionable, or the same blanket rollback that Globetowner1 received. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Predrag Bojic

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

Escape block by Миодраг Крагуљ (talk · contribs), same uploads related to Orthodoxy, same categorization (Category:Monastery). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Quite betraying is that he claims, that his photos are made in North pole. Taivo (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SPA abuse account

Could someone examine this user? Abusive account name and abusive upload. --Fæ (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed, deleted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Anasselhadi

Anasselhadi (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

As far as I can see, all edits are nonsense, likely automated, caption additions. May an admin please revert all of their edits and block them? Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks for the notice, Ariadacapo. This appears to be a cross-wiki vandal with a focus on Commons. I've reverted all live edits and indef'd this account. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SUNNY PRAJAPATI

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Naman darda

Naman darda (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Seems to be oddly focused on disruptive deletion requests after a series of deletions of their own uploaded copyvios since account creation today. Could someone investigate? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

I blocked Бучач-Львів for a year and said him to request unblock. I did not action earlier, because I am not native Russian or Ukrainian speaker and I did not no theological words in these languages. I could only act after repeated violations of emerging consensus. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thank you for your reaction.
I am not willing to build a consensus on theological words here. I am just willing to say that requesting to rename something previously reverted as an obvious error cannot be allowed. No matter what the wording is, it cannot be an obvious error if someone already reverted it before.
Бучач-Львів has useful uploads so I don't think a full block is the best solution and I hope reasonable unblock conditions will be found — NickK (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Insults

Brateevsky (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  [13] @Ymblanter, Taivo, Well-Informed Optimist, Sealle, and Ahonc: . --VLu (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: . See also Commons:Форум/User:VLu (in Russian). --Brateevsky {talk} 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I have warned him. Just as side note: no need (and not appreciated) to ping all Russian-speaking admins. --A.Savin 14:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree these pings don't look good. Although, I used to wait for weeks, cause nobody went into the matter, saying "let Ru-admins to decide". --VLu (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Umair Mirza

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

Continues copyvios despite warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Пачан (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues copyvio uploads after multiple warnings and a block. --VLu (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked, deleted uploads. Materialscientist (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Duck

same as Tendral1023. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 04:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Globally locked. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: Might want to lock the others as well. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tendral1023/Archive. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 04:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Username possibly in violation of Commons:Username policy

Username implies a connection to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (UA being the ISO Country code for Ukraine), however, no verification via OTRS per username policy has been done. The only upload by this user is File:Асман Ярослав Степанович.jpg, which is stated to be the former "Consul of Ukraine in Brno (2007-2011)" according to the file description. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 11:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: I understand you are OTRS and are dealing with the case. If the outcome is that you add OTRS permission to the file, that means the identity should have also been sufficiently verified. Also I'd like to note that merely the username wouldn't be enough for a block. "MFAofUA" could mean something else. In combination with the upload though it's clear. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with above statement by Alexis: this abbreviation cannot be considered promotional. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive previously-blocked sockpuppet back at it again

User:Vipat89 is a sockpuppet of User:Covlo/User:Vinci84, doing same disruptive edits that got the latter two blocked, under the same MO (editing [disruptively] the same files in the exact same manner and not responding to talk page warnings). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked and tagged the user, cleaned history of the file and protected it for a year against upload. Taivo (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

File renaming

Please evaluate the actions of Marcus Cyron when renaming files: File:Съёмки клипа 2019.jpg, File:Хеллоуин 1.png, File:Кошмал.jpg. — Ирука13 05:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Iruka13 confused the description part of a file with the title. Descriptions depend to the description section, not in the title. Btw, it's very unpleasent to work in such a project with aggressive persons as Iruka13. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Filenames should be sufficient to more-or-less uniquely indicate what a file shows. This will be shorter than a good file description, but longer than one or two words. (My personal uploads tend to have filenames with 5-8 words, including the month and year when known, and never require later renaming for clarity.) This is so that users looking at categories and search results (which do not usually show the description) can quickly know what is in the file without having to open the file information page.
None of those three files have good filenames; all of them were unambiguously eligible for renaming under criteria 2, type 5. While the rename request for the first file was flawed because it mixed scripts, all three of these files should have been renamed, and you were incorrect to reject the requests. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Völlig korrekte Entscheidung von Marcus. Diese Unsitte, Romane in Dateinamen zu packen, muß aufhören. Beschreibungen gehören in die Beschreibung Ralf Roletschek 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of a file

Hello. A few days ago, I uploaded File:Sid Vere.jpg to commons rather than my local Wikipedia, accidentally. It's a fair use promotional image so it's up for speedy deleting, but I just need for it to be deleted as soon as possible, so I can upload it to my local Wiki without it being a duplicate. Thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

File protection or user block

Good morning

For several days the user Henblo (talk · contribs) has been uploading again and again and again, violating the rule of the three reversions (which I don't know if it applies here in commons), his own version of the File:Escudo del Atlántico.svg, and although he has been told to upload it as another separate file because this is part of a family, he continues to insist on the same. This user already has a record in wikipedia in Spanish in reversing issues that don't seem like him and impersonate other users to perform this type of actions, ¿Could you indicate what should be done about it? thanks. --Milenioscuro (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Devmanga

Hello,

user Devmanga has been disclosing personal information about a contributor, probably repeatedly under an IP as well, and is now complaining about me blocking them on my talk page as 122.169.141.64. If somebody can have a look and confirm that I was not hallucinating I would be grateful. Rama (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...that's evasion. Reverted, blocked, and removed TPA from the IP due to the original circumstances behind the account block. --Majora (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh and if you think they posted the material elsewhere on the project you might want to do an insource: search with the "all" setting on for whatever they were disclosing to see. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward

This began at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 83#Pi.1415926535 deleted files not using a real criteria which resulted in an undeletion request. That undeletion request was supported by me, GreenMeansGo and Gone Postal. The deleting admin Pi.1415926535 didn't oppose it on the condition that the files would be categorized, which was offered by Gone Postal and myself. Only Jameslwoodward opposed it and later he also closed the request:

" Not done: Per discussion -- we do not encourage abusers by keeping their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)"

The "per discussion" part is obviously laughable as he was the only opposer. Jameslwoodward confused the words "discussion" and "veto" here. But we don't do vetos here. Or so I hope. I took the matter to his talk page: User talk:Jameslwoodward#Per "discussion" and while James did respond and questioned his choice of words, he hasn't resolved the matter.

The files should be undeleted per discussion (see what I did there?) and James should be told in very clear words that this is not what we expect from bureaucrats. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Speaking of bureaucrats, is there even a need for them anymore? What exactly do they even do these days besides closing RfAs? If admins are able to block, delete, merge, and protect, they should be able to give sysop rights as well—similar to how license reviewers are able to give the LR right. Personally, I don’t see a need for a bureaucrat team to exist on Commons anymore. As for James, as he weighted in on the discussion, an uninvolved admin should of closed the discussion, not him. 1989 (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It's offtopic but I'll bite. From a security and quite possibly even legal perspective it wouldn't be a good idea to give 200+ users the ability to assign rights that include undelete to other users. Having admins who don't work for the WMF is already sort of tricky. This is all because of copyright, DMCA, etc. As long as files are public, there are no legal issues. If anyone has a problem with them, they file a DMCA takedown and that'll be that. The uploader might be prosecuted, but that's not the WMF's problem. So a small, say, <10 group of users who have the technical ability to assign any group right that includes undelete is a good idea. Now, this could just be done by stewards on meta so we don't need local crats for that. This already happens in some cases. (both sysop and desysop were done by a steward) The other tasks of a bureaucrat according to Commons:Bureaucrats are to grant and revoke bureaucrat (won't need that anymore without bureaucrats..), bot flags (could be done by admins), translation admin (same), GW Toolset (same) and (not listed but true) account creator. (guess what: same) We don't really need crats to close discussions in practice (no, we don't) so if we can trust stewards to assign permissions that include undelete and copy all other permissions to admins, I don't think we'd really miss the bureaucrat user group. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Jim has no special rights in this closure. Given the content, if anyone wants to reopen the case for a second opinion that would seem a reasonable next step. As for Jim's closure, it's never a majority vote, closures should be based on the evidence put forward and interpretations of policy, but it is obviously unusual for a closure decision to contradict all the views in the the discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
How do you envision reopening? I mean technically because the thread has already been archived. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It would not be against any policy to cut and paste the original thread from the archive, or, probably a better option, to open a new UNDEL discussion on the basis of the last one being sufficiently controversial to warrant a second consensus.
I'd rather it were not me that does it. --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

First, there is absolutely no rule against an Admin closing a DR or UnDR which he has commented on. The only restriction is that an Admin should not close a discussion of their own upload. And, in fact, since Ankry and I are the most active Admins on UnDR, we do it all the time if 24 hours has elapsed since the last comment.

Second, no one above has mentioned the reason I closed this as "not done" -- that the uploader is a serial sock-puppeteer. I believe that keeping a sock's work simply encourages them to continue their activities. We spend considerable time chasing socks -- time that otherwise could be spent on work that actually enhances the project, and it is a serous mistake to encourage such people by keeping work done while they are blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"It is allowed for a bureaucrat to close a discussion or vote on which they have previously expressed an opinion, but in such a case the closing bureaucrat should take care to close based on policy and overall consensus, and not on their own views. The bureaucrat's opinion/vote should be taken into account in the same way as that of the other voters, but with no special weight given to it."
Don't make me do this. And your reasoning is flawed. First there's no proof whatsoever that blindly deleting files will discourage the uploader. For all you know, they actually love seeing you waste your time. Second, it's not policy. You say it yourself: "I believe that.." and you've given your own belief infinite weight over consensus. Third, you effectively give the sockpuppeteer admin-like power because the files that were blindly deleted can't easily be re-uploaded. (UploadWizard refuses them) I hope I don't have to explain why giving such a privilege to a sockpuppeteer is a bad idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding here Jim.
There's also no rule against the discussion being re-opened on UNDEL, even by a non-admin. However you are a Bureaucrat and that comes with respect and natural authority. Most administrators and others will not want to reverse your closure, just because you are you, not because the closure is a good implementation of community consensus or existing policies.
It is a fact that a critical difference between en.wp and Commons is that our primary purpose is to host in-scope content. There are no community agreed policies that support any purges of valid content simply on the basis that an uploader account is a sock of a blocked account, in fact I could name several well known sock accounts that have uploaded many thousands of valid files and absolutely we are going to continue to host them.
You appear to be locked-in to your belief rather than referring to policy. If in your 'crat role you want the community to enforce mass deletions of valid content on the basis of being seen to "not encourage such people", then why not make a proposal rather than being burned on this one case?
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess according to James, since Commons doesn’t have a local policy of en:WP:INVOLVED, it’s ok to perform actions where they are in a dispute in. That’s a very troublesome message, especially coming from a bureaucrat. 1989 (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I certainly agree with James in that keeping files just encourages socking and makes us appear like we don't care however until we have policy that states sock images should not be here then we should continue to have them. –Davey2010Talk 13:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I said in the UDR discussion, we simply don't have any en:WP:G5 criteria. That doesn't mean there might not be good arguments for adopting one, and anyone is free to make such a proposal, but I don't think we're exactly operating within the bounds of community consensus if we act as if we have such a policy until such a time that we actually do. I'm not an advocate for blind bureaucracy for its own sake, but existing policy is clear that administrators have privileged access, but not privileged opinions. GMGtalk 13:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Noting here that admins are volunteers and are free not to act if they feel uncomfortable with some decisions, even if there is a clear consensus. Ankry (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Equally worth noting is that being free "not to act" is not the same as being free to act which seems to be the case. --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Well, I suspect that the correct course of action here is to simply put a G5 criteria to the community at VP. If the broader community endorses or rejects it, then we should proceed with the result of that consensus. GMGtalk 14:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
          • That does require though that such a proposal is made. As I don't support it, it wouldn't make sense for me to do it. And there are differences between enwp and Commons. Deleting Flickr import makes it much more difficult for any user to upload those images because they're now registered as "deleted". And en:WP:G5 doesn't seem to allow blanket deletion either: "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban", now I understand that if some zealot is creating dozens of badly written or promotional articles that those would be deleted quickly. But this wouldn't actively stop other users from writing a properly sourced article on the same subject. The same is simply not true for us, once deleted an image becomes much harder to upload. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I fully support Jim's decision concerning closing this request. No admin, including Pi.1415926535, was willing to undelete the files. We do not want to support abusers and we undelete their uploads only in rare cases that they are important for some project and really useful. Never massively. However, I see no objection that somebody else reuploads these files under their own name. Also, as mentioned above, there is no problem creating a new request with clear explanation why they should remain here despite upload by an abuser. And I suggest to convince an admin to act on this request to avoid waiting a month for closure as a stale request that nobody wants to act on. We would appreciate more admins working on UDR. Personally, I will not undelete such files unless they are proven to be used. One by one. Ankry (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: GMG is an admin and supported the request. UploadWizard blocks reuploads and Special:Upload would warn against them, but Commons:Flickr2Commons appears to accept it. Thing is, it would be much easier to evaluate the uploads if they are simply here. That's why a DR for deletion would have been the way to go. Also, "proven to be used" is not a criteria for COM:SCOPE. And even if in this case it would somehow be relevant, it's not possible to use an image that's been deleted. It's also very difficult to discuss an image that's been deleted. "Is [red link] in scope?" how the hell should I know, it's a red link! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
If GMG wanted to undelete the images, they would undelete them earlier.
Agreed about scope. But we have conflicting rules of conduct here: scope vs. not supporting abusers. As already noted here, there is no clear community decision how to resolve such conflicts. And until it appears, I am against undeletion of unused images uploaded by abusers, even if they are in COM:SCOPE. Alse, even if such a rule appears, I am free to refrain from undeleting them. Ankry (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: so you're saying GreenMeansGo should have just been quicker? Don't wait for an uninvolved admin, don't wait for more comments to determine consensus, just be quick because first come, first served! And what's the conflict? Is there any policy or guideline that says "everything from sock accounts must be nuked blindly"? And is there any suggestion at all that this tactic would even work? I think the best strategy is to not deal with it in any special way. Out of process deletion is special, so if anything they might even get a kick out of it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I did not undelete the images myself because I would have rather the suggestion be made and seconded before doing something that might be controversial. If I had seen the later comments by established users frustrated that they couldn't view or attempt to sort the images, I would have undeleted them. GMGtalk 23:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been known to eliminate contribs by globally locked users myself for example (they do tend to be vandalism type images tho). However Commons role (as stated by Fæ) is that we are here for hosting freely licensed material that should be of use to other projects. That to me is the ultimate criteria. --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This looks to be a supervote as the closing admin both voted and closed the undeletion review. This may be acceptable in a uncontroversial close, but this is not the circumstance. The discussion should be re-opened so that that more discussion can be had to achieve a consensus. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with reopening the discussion at UnDR. If there weren't 105 files in the list, I would suggest that it would be better to restore the files and have the discussion in a DR -- it would get wider attention there.

I see the policy on bureaucrats closing discussions quoted above. While I am a bureaucrat, the quote is irrelevant, as it is meant to apply to discussions such as RfAs that require closure by a bureaucrat. And, of course, it permits closures where the bureaucrat has commented.

I cannot find any policy that precludes an Admin closing a DR or UnDR to which he has contributed. I generally wait a while before closing discussions that are not clear -- in this case I waited five days after the last comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I think James is trying to say you can undelete the files so they can be discussed in a DR.
@Jameslwoodward: "I see the policy on bureaucrats closing discussions quoted above. While I am a bureaucrat, the quote is irrelevant"
"Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate, respect community consensus. Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor."
The problem is not that you closed a discussion you commented on. The problem is you pushed your own opinion in the process. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I also don't necessarily see the policy on crats as particularly relevant. James wasn't closing the discussion using his crat hat. He was closing it as an admin. In comparison, just because someone is also OS or CU, doesn't necessarily mean every action is taken as part of these roles. Obviously gross misuse of any type of advanced access may speak to suitability for other types of access, but I'm not sure this crosses into the area of gross misuse. I would also be sympathetic to discussing language regarding more clearly defined guidance for COM:INVOLVED, since I think we often apply some such standard in practice.
At any rate, I've got a conference call coming up for the Wiki loves pride competition. Is there way to batch undelete these and nominate them for DR? Or do I just have a lot of repetitive clicking in my near future? GMGtalk 13:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that you give this discussion more time and not rush into anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I think it should be possible to fork cat-a-lot into restore-a-lot, but betacommons is down so I can't try much atm. I'm not aware of mass-undelete tools atm. Maybe @Zhuyifei1999: knows some? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a mass undelete tool either. The problem with forking cat-a-lot would be that, uh, by the time the page is deleted it would no longer be categorized, you can't you the find pages by category method; perhaps deleted contribs would do? Anyhow, I did write a mass undelete script after the INC incident:
Extended content 
import pywikibot

pywikibot.config.sysopnames['commons']['commons'] = 'Zhuyifei1999'

pywikibot.handleArgs()

site = pywikibot.Site('commons', 'commons')
for page in open('INCdel', 'r'):
    page = pywikibot.Page(site, page.strip().decode('utf-8'))
    try:
        page.undelete('')
    except pywikibot.Error:
        import traceback
        traceback.print_exc()

where INCdel is a libebreak-delimited list of page names, generated from js somehow.

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I think I can work it out, the real challenge is getting Cat-a-lot (in any form) to load on betacommons. Because even that doesn't seem to work atm. I'm just missing something. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:
Extended content 
Error: "Unknown module: jquery.ui.resizable"
    sortDependencies https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1010
    sortDependencies https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1040
    resolveStubbornly https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1081
    load https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:2129
    <anonymous> https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:9365
    <anonymous> https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/load.php?debug=true&lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:9406
load.php:227:13
Skipped unresolvable module ext.gadget.Cat-a-lot
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocking policy clearly states "A blocked user is restricted from editing and uploading files, among other things." and it follows that if they are restricted from uploading files then admins may delete them to enforce that. They do not need the parallel extension of en.wiki G5 speedy delete to explicitly do so although it would perhaps make things clearer. Abusing multiple accounts and Evasion of blocks are both covered in the Use section. Any edit or upload by any sock may be removed or deleted based on that policy at the admin's discretion. The intent of that policy is clear and supersedes the speedy deletion criteria...i.e. if he didn't cite the speedy deletion policy when he deleted them then you cannot point to that policy as not having been followed correctly. It may be useful to cite the blocking policy when deleting files in the future.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree with that reading exactly. This seems to be describing the technical restrictions of the blocking function in the software. I agree that your interpretation is indeed one possible interpretation, but I don't know that there is a broad community consensus endorsing it. If there is, then it should probably be added to guidance on deletion. Nothing that I haven't expressed an opinion on the validity on such an interpretation, only that we should be procedurally sound. GMGtalk 15:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Berean Hunter: I don't think that's how that works. Blocked users are not allowed to edit or upload files, but if they do it anyway we'll have to deal with that in an appropriate manner. You're not allowed to kick a football into your neighbours' backyard, but if you do it anyway it wouldn't be reasonable (or legal, for that matter) for the neighbour to incinerate the ball. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with you GreenMeansGo that it would be best to codify this but I do not see the absence of codification as a restriction on the admin's discretion to delete. The block is placed on the individual (or meatpuppets) and not just single accounts so that goes beyond simply being a technical restriction. If someone evades their block and uploads files then they have done so in violation of the blocking policy and what they have done may be undone by any admin who is enforcing the blocking policy. I would suggest that the blocking policy on Commons needs updating and is the first place to start. Sockpuppetry policy states, "Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions." That is taken from en.wiki policy but that is the one that has been defined here on Commons per the header at Commons:Requests for checkuser in the very first sentence. Commons does not appear to have a separate policy on sockpuppetry but the blocking policy clearly forbids it. Commons:SOCK redirects to Commons:Requests for checkuser.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • But surely you understand that G5 can be a controversial policy even on English Wikipedia where it's long been explicitly codified. I don't think you can generalize from the guidance on COM:BLOCK to get to an effective G5 on Commons, keeping in mind that it's not the letter of policy that matters so much as it is the consensus that backs it up. We should also consider, as indicated above, that speedy deletion on Wikipedia and other projects does not itself prevent recreation in the absence of protection, where the upload wizard on Commons does do this automatically without any administrator action needed, and moreover, I don't know that there is any "soft delete" option where a file can be deleted in a way that doesn't affect the upload filter. None of that is to say that we should or shouldn't have such a criteria, only that we currently don't. GMGtalk 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • GMG, CSD policy grew out of the deletion policy which grew out of existing practices. Reverting/Deleting socks pre-existed those policies and were an extenuation of the blocking policy. They were deleting sock edits before it was ever encoded into policy. We are not strictly limited by those policies as we also have an option to use "Other reason" in our toolset so that if we have any policy/guideline based rationale then we may document it. I appreciate that you opened the thread at the Village Pump. Thank you for doing that.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Berean Hunter: I'm not necessarily against such a policy, but I do recognize that there may be important differences between English Wikipedia and Commons that may make the community feel differently, or which may carve out certain exceptions not applicable elsewhere, even if such a policy has broad support here. I mainly don't think we should presume to know the disposition of the community, especially where established users have taken exception. GMGtalk 18:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Socks are one of our biggest problems. Any evasion that is allowed only encourages them. And as this is a public discussion, if we allow a sock to evade their block they are going to be even more encouraged, as will other socks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Socks are no problem, copyvios and vandalism are. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not the English Wikipedia. There is no policy agreed by the community that encourages administrators to go on an spree of deleting valid in-scope media just because some time after upload someone works out that the uploading account was a sockpuppet. If you really think that changing policy would improve Wikimedia Commons, then make the proposal. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that this isn't the English Wikipedia and most experienced editors know that there are big differences between enwiki and Commons. @Alexis Jazz: I have no idea why you think socks are no problems. I can only think that you lack the experience. Setting aside the fact that a very large proportion of attacks on editors come from socks, particularly LTAs, so does a lot of the copyright, vandalism and NPOV editing. I doubt that any English Checkuser would agree with you. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: "I can only think that you lack the experience." LOL
Yeah that must be it! I don't have enough sock accounts to make any intelligible statement on the matter!
In all seriousness, you do see the problem with your statement, don't you? If black people are overpopulated in store robbery statistics, what do you do: go after all black people, go after robbers or try to prevent store robbings? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Do you mind explaining the purpose of this racial question? 1989 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@1989: Doug Weller said that socks were the problem, because socks are often associated with bad editing. But alternative accounts (which is all that socks are) are not bad in and of themselves. Black people (depending on location) are more likely to get involved with crime. It would be easy to say "let's crack down on black people/Mexicans/etc" and, well, some politicians do that. And those are idiots. Socking is not the issue, abuse is. Let's not confuse the two. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, this is the most offensive tripe and you really need to strike and apologise. Sock accounts are not merely alternative accounts, but are accounts used to evade a block or ban or otherwise break the rules (e.g. voting twice). As such, they are always bad in and of themselves, and always a conscious choice to reject community values. What to do about material they have uploaded is a separate and difficult question from whether abusing accounts is a bad thing. Nobody decides their skin colour, or have a poor background or be prejudiced against, and comparing a sock with a black person is unacceptable. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Can Jameslwoodward stay on as a bureaucrat?

First let me make this clear: I'm just asking for consensus. If there is nothing that approaches consensus, I'll drop this no problem. Not worth having toxic discussions over. Also let it be clear that I don't seek a desysop for James.

It is true that the James' action was not technically a 'crat action. However, James did push his own opinion instead of following the community. And when questioned, he stood by his decision. For an administrator, every time this happens would be a strike against. For a bureaucrat, it's unacceptable in my opinion. Personally, I don't see how I now could trust James to, for example, close a contentious RfA. And if James can't do that (and I don't believe he could do that now in a credible manner), there doesn't seem to be much of a point in having James as a 'crat.

Based on the user rights log, James never granted or revoked any user right for anyone in his crat role. His history on Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard can also be summed up quickly: he recently requested translation admin for himself (not a 'crat action) and he commented on a discussion in 2016 (not a 'crat action) and that appears to be it. In his whole 'crat career, he has closed one (de)RfA: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3) back in 2016.

From James' request for bureaucrat: "I see the formal role of Bureaucrat as an extension of my ongoing effort to be the voice of calm and reason in our sometimes contentious and difficult atmosphere."

I'm not seeing much of that, I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Nothing to do here. Jim is perfectly capable of taking on board the comments made about this case and avoiding escalation. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Puma marca.png

Resolved

File:Puma marca.png is a file that's supposed to contain the Puma wordmark, not the logo. Despite this User:Luiscamilo89 keeps adding the puma which is 1. Copyrightable and 2. Not belonging in that file. I've told the user in their talk page yet he/she still reverts the edits. This is also a revert the user has done.Jonteemil (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the file, deleted the inappropriate versions, and warned Luiscamilo89. I hope this will do. Materialscientist (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mousebolivia

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

Uploads stills on behalf of a CC license at source. Neverthless every extracted sequence from, especially, NotimexTV contain a "Imagenes: Twitter" watermark. It's hardly beleiving that user didn't see the watermarks while cropping. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

İnsaatci muhendis

Resolved

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

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 2 weeks. --Ruthven (msg) 07:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fcuk1203

Why did the administrator unblock his account? He neither admit his mistake nor promise us that I wouldn't do it again. I see no reason to unblock this user.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at File:CYHS-1.JPG. He say "學校名稱都變更了，憑什麼回退到舊照", and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with the "COM:OVERWRITE" policy.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I blocked this user last September for persistent and long-term breaches of COM:OVERWRITE. I now see that @Shizhao: has unblocked in January, yet I see no unblock request on either the user's or the admin's talk page, despite the unblock reason being "user request". Unless there is a privacy issue meaning that unblock requests by email are the ONLY way of dealing with requests, it is vital for transparency and accountability that the blocked user's attitude to the block and their future conduct may be assessed. I look forward to hearing from the unblocking admin. There has been no transgressory behaviour since the unblock, so no reason to reimpose it at present. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue Kai3952 refers to happened on 29 August 2018. In Dutch we say geen oude koeien uit de sloot halen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
These were before the block. Some of his breaches have been the subject of warnings. ONly what happens after the block is now blockable, and I don't see any problems. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added his userpage to my watch list since he has been rarely active on Wikipedia Commons. I'll try to keep an eye out to see if it happens again. I intend to check his edits over the past ten years but I'm busy in real life and I'll managed to make time for this.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangel Carregosa

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

Blocked three times for not understanding copyright or licenses. Has been unblocked (from indef) on February for having "understanding the previous issues that prevented the block and commit to not uploading more copyrighted images." Unfortunately is still unable to recognize a bad Flickr account from a good one despite what @Teles: has explained to him/her in their own language. IMO it's time to take a defenitive decision. Pinging @Taivo: too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User was warned that he would be reblocked in case of persistent violations. I tried to help, even on off-wiki chats, but it wasn’t enough. He doesn’t seem to have bad intentions, but just can’t understand the rules and desperately wants to upload this kind of material. I have no opposition on blocking again.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Any admins who know Mongolian here?

Tsendeep keeps creating encyclopedic content here. Can someone who speaks Mongolian talk to them?

And could someone with Mongolian copyright law knowledge check if File:2V1A0075.jpg violates COM:FOP? I don't know when that building was built, maybe its copyright has expired. Thanks, pandakekok9 05:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I nominated the image for deletion. Per COM:FOP Mongolia, there's no freedom of panorama in Mongolia. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Same person

--Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done; blocked DanGrinzzi00 indefinitely and DanrleySantana for a month. Ahmadtalk 17:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

حسن سلمان الحسن

What is not copyvio is by chance uncopyrightable. Already blocked. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. I also deleted most of their uploads, fixed one, and nominated one for deletion. Apparently, they have little or no idea about copyright and the licensing policy. Ahmadtalk 19:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

IP user 2408:8215:1C01:7A4:84F3:23B8:748:17D0

Creates a lot of empty category. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the IP partially (in category namespace) for 3 says and deleted his/her remaining empty categories. Taivo (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What's mean of "3 says"?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ConstructorRob18

ConstructorRob18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Most if not all uploads have been deleted as copyvios. Behavior is persistent despite repeated warnings. JalenFolf (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. All his contributions are deleted. Copyvios stopped after he was warned. If this does not help, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Spam bots

All spamming same link.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cosmeticplastic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Same one?--BevinKacon (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Done? GMGtalk 20:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I tagged them and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Spam by User:Sisternamutekaya

Delete  : File:Namutekaya Herbal Clinic Men's +27726364222 - +27730727287.png and File:Before & After Enlargement Products Whats App +27726364222 or +27730727287.jpg.
Spam edits : here
User page is advertising in nature : User:Sisternamutekaya
//Eatcha (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2408:8215:1C01:A58:84F3:23B8:748:17D0

Creates lots of empty category in Category:2019–20 COVID-19 pandemic. Socks of 2408:8215:1C01:7A4:84F3:23B8:748:17D0. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked by DarwIn. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Emekdar jurnalist

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

Reupload deleted content by blocked user İnsaatci muhendis (talk · contribs), especially File:Elshen Qeniyev.jpg, File:Telman Eliyev.jpg and File:Musedin Namazov.jpg ‎. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the sock indefinitely and master for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Luiscamilo1989

Luiscamilo1989 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Looks like a new user, with 154 edits. Half of them are reverts of declined rename requests. The last ones are from me, but he reverted others before. Last time I see more and more users who request a bunch of files and (I think) it's not really necessary. The renaming is not for fun. Also users revert more often declined requests. They don't respect it. Sure it's possible that a file is declined by mistake, but mostly it's a good reason. But back to the user, I have seen his files in 'declined requests' and he reverted them all and now I declined a lot of them and he reverts it again. Can a moderator say something about it, or take another action? - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info: User:Luiscamilo1989 might be another account of User:Juancameneses11. --Achim (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I want to second Richardkiwi’s report. Luiscamilo1989 continues to revert all declines of his/her (IMHO invalid and useless) file renaming requests, so his/her requests block again the rename category. What should I do, or could someone else do something about this? Thank you very much for any help, --Aristeas (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
And Luiscamilo1989 continues his/her work, still reverting any decline of his/her requests. Could someone stop this? I don’t want to revert Luiscamilo1989’s reverts, as this clearly becomes an edit war. Please help us poor filemovers ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Umm... @Explicit: Care to lend us your Español and see if we can resolve this? Otherwise, I not sure what other option we have other than a block for edit warring and disruptive move requests. GMGtalk 15:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Or never mind. User now CU blocked. GMGtalk 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, GMGtalk! --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_83&oldid=633662753"