Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carfanatic2019

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

Files uploaded by Carfanatic2019 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Basically CarFanatic has included excessive details in file names and descriptions such as registration plates, and excessive vehicle detail

(example: Spotted in Upwey, Dorset. Colour: Red, Type: LCV, Style: Car Derived Van, Fuel: Diesel, Engine Size: 1686cc, BHP: 64, Registered: 3 Feb 2004, V5C Issue Date: 7 Jul 2014, Registered Near: Chelmsford, MOT Due: 8 Nov 2021, Tax Due: 1 Sep 2021, Last MOT: 9/11/2020 11:08 246,037 miles)
The excessive details may also violate EU GDPR which goes into detail inregards to this.

Unfortunately the quality of the images are all poor too - Most if not all images have been taken on a phone/tablet.

Because the excessive details violate EU GDPR it would also mean having to edit the file and descriptions and revdelling all 2 thousand files which to be blunt is impossible and rather pointless given the quality of the files.

(Also stating for the record that CF has taken the images from a passenger seat and is not the driver and it would appear he simply enjoys taking random images.)

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Update: Just to clarify inregards to the confusing rationale above - I'm not entirely sure if this does actually violate GDPR or not however that aside the images are still of very poor and unusable quality to ever be used anywhere so either way these should still be deleted - Images pointed out below by participants have been removed this DR. –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Files up for deletion

!votes

[edit]
 Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not all of these images are as described File:Cord Beverly.jpg Looks to be a fine picture to me, No numberplate details in the filename, taken in a Museum open to the public and Metadata says taken with Olympus digital camera. Many images towards the end of this list are like this File:Willys MB "Jeep".jpg File:Cars at Haynes Motor Museum.jpg and File:1967 MG B (KDE 286F).jpg for instance. Images should be reviewed individually to judge their merits, sure this may take some time but so what. User should be encouraged to donate decent photographs and asked not to include numberplate details where that is a problem Oxyman (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion
Excuse me, but can I barge in for a bit ? I'm relatively new to this, so please forgive and ignore me if I'm saying something ignorant. Shouldn't we have a process to "Quarantine" pictures that are possibly violating either WM/WP rules/spirit and/or external legal limits ? — Should we not have a procedure to make the Uploader (CF in this case) review their own files, and do whatever (Page moving / faces blurring / cropping etc.) is needed to make the files compliant on WM ? — In the case of name or description editing, the user can simply suffice by moving and editing. — In case the files themselves are violating rules, the originals do have to be deleted ASAP, and only edited – compliant – versions can be accepted.
I think we need a procedure to put the workload on the uploader, by quarantining these files for a limited "expiration" time to be determined, meaning restricting only thumbnails open to the public and search engines, and restricting the larger files only to the uploader, plus suitable admins / reviewers. Anybody interested in spending time reviewing should of course be allowed ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having compiled a list at User:Davey2010/CF it would indeed seem not all are bad - unfortunately there's no easy fix here tho - Unless we spread the load evenly it's a case of either we delete all or keep all and hand all this to admins (to revdel etc) which seems unfair. I certainly don't mind helping out but no way am I sifting through 2 thousand files on my own. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why handing an administrative tasks to admins is unfair, Yet apparently deleting good images for convenience is fair. Why not delete every image and close down commons? This would eliminate all the administrative work. Oxyman (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all files taken with a smartphone that are not used in an article.  Keep files taken with Olympus camera taken in a museum setting. Nominate all other files for deletion individually if necessary. William Graham (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - removed those 2, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These files (and probably others) of outdoor photos of parked cars should be kept. There are far worse photos on Commons. Its should not be difficult to edit for 16:9, and remove people/unwanted objects. Anders (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Greatly appreciate you finding these Anders many thanks - I've removed all escept the Mokka as there's a better image of it here. Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep c:File:1999 Ferrari 456 (V980 DCH).jpg - perhaps a bot can sort away any pictures used in a project? It is probably not many, but still. As far as publishing the vehicle data, it is publicly available. I always blank plates as a courtesy, but it is certainly not a requirement: here, someone was even stating that I was acting inappropriately in blurring the face of a person driving a car. While obviously the overwhelming majority of these photos are of no use whatsoever (reminding me of Bull-Doser's old photos), a blanket deletion for having included too much (publicly available) data is an overreach with troubling implications. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - We currently have 7 images of that model in that colour so therefore there's no reason to keep a poor image. Yeah blurring faces is OTT, I have blurred a few bus drivers where they're not in the vehicle purely out of respect and purely for their privacy but blurring faces of those who are diving is ott. –Davey2010Talk 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of these images are bad quality but they definitely don't breach any form of privacy laws in the UK. I will breakdown each factors with one example and show where you can get this info publicly and legally.
Style: Car Derived Van (This can be viewed if you type the registration plate in most third-party UK car checking websites. One I commonly use for my own photos is https://www.instantcarcheck.co.uk/ but there several others you can get the same information from.)
Fuel: Diesel (This info can be found if you look up a registration plate on the UK government DVLA website. https://www.gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla)
Engine Size: 1686cc (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website or a third-party car check website as per above.)
BHP: 64 (Info can be found on a third-party car check website as per above.)
Registered: 3 Feb 2004 (This info can be found if you go on the UK government DVLA website. Not only you can check basic vehicle information but also their MOT history and last clocked mileage. https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history)
V5C Issue Date: 7 Jul 2014 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website as per above.)
Registered Near: Chelmsford (The UK always have a local memory tag to determine which DVLA office the plate was registered in. For example, a post-2001 Chelmsford registration plate example could be EB05 GHK The "E" is a mnemonic for Essex, followed by any other letter except for D and H. If it pre-2001 plate then the last two letters would indicate where the car was registered. For example, N850 GHK.) Further reading here.
MOT Due: 8 Nov 2021 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website and some third-party car check website as per above.)
Tax Due: 1 Sep 2021 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website and some third-party car check website as per above.)
Last MOT: 9/11/2020 11:08 246,037 miles (This info can be found if you go on the UK government DVLA website as per above.)
Hopefully this should clarify some concerns regarding the privacy issues. For my opinion regarding the mass deletion, I would say  Delete to the ones currently on the list due the poor quality and out-of-scopeness. --Vauxford (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I've spot-checked a number of these images, and they look like they are largely of acceptable quality. The only issue would be blurring or obscuring license plates. This is quite a doable task (either algorithmically or manually). I'd be happy to contribute to such an effort. JPxG (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG You say they're largely of acceptable quality - Would you say this file this file, this file, this file and this file are all of acceptable quality ?. I wouldn't. Those that have been identified as being of good/acceptable quality have been removed from the above list.
There are currently 2 thousand and 200 files up for deletion so no I wouldn't say manually blurring these out is doable at all. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Thank you kind sir, I've removed that file too as completely agree with you, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep File:1997 Citroen Berlingo 1.9D 600 (P802 EDP).jpg - this is an image of one of the earliest Berlingos to be sold in the UK, of which few now remain (and according to vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk it appears this one has now been scrapped - the search result says "Vehicle details could not be found" - so there won't be any more images produced of this vehicle (and there should be no privacy concerns)). On the issue of all the other files, I think that wholesale deletion is not the right way to go about addressing concerns that are not applicable to every file. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - We have a plethora of images at Category:Citroën Berlingo I - It being a UK vehicle makes no difference as there's already UK ones there and the main point is that the UK version isn't different to say the Polish or Italian version. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 11:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This file seems to me to be, if not exactly the highest quality, at least perfectly adequate, and as I stated above, it represents a vehicle type of which few remain from that year of manufacture (and getting fewer with each passing year). What exactly are your objections to this specific file? If this is the kind of file that you wish to have deleted wholesale, then I say  Keep all of them and only assess files individually. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The file is of mediocre quality as are 95% of the uploaders files. Indeed the majority of 90s/00s UK cars are sadly no longer around but that alone isn't a reason to keep (of course if the picture was taken in the 90s/00s then that would be a different story and if that were the case now then we wouldn't even be here now).
Files that are deemed of great/good quality have all been removed from this DR. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Files that are deemed of great/good quality have all been removed from this DR". This is disputed, not fact. Also, in your post above you stated that there is "no way am I sifting through 2 thousand files on my own", so how can you know? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, It's a fact. Take a look through their uploads and you will find your answer. People have agreed with the deletion of most images thus far and those they don't agree with are no longer in this DR. A few admins have since deleted a fair few images from this DR so at this point there's no going back and there's no !Keeping (as per consensus in this very DR). Happy editing Pale. –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking opinion for fact. In the collapsed list of files above, I count 9 files that have been deleted so far - I don't think this constitutes "a fair few". And I don't see any consensus for mass deletion.
I came to this page not because I'm very active on Commons, nor because I'm watching any of the files, but because I happened to chance upon viewing the file I've already highlighted. To me, that file is almost like a museum specimen, as it documents one of the very earliest Berlingos sold in this country (a 'P' reg - I don't think they were sold on any earlier plates than that) and not only that, it also reveals - via the file description and reg plate number - that it had done 197,000 miles, which shows just how long those little Pug XUD engines can last - rather remarkable for such a cheap vehicle. All this I got from a file that you listed for deletion without - or so it appears - even viewing it. And your continued insistence on deletion is quite bizarre. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done kept as per your reply - Being honest it being a P reg or having done x amount of miles means nothing to me however if P reg was the earliest reg it was sold under than I do agree with keeping as like you say it shows history and shows something that is no longer on our roads. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your change of heart. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of his pictures are indeed of very low quality, especially those taken from inside another car. The subject is usually too distant, or the image is blurred or badly framed. To all these I say  Delete.
However, he's got a few sets of very good photos, which I have categorized for easier evaluation. I say  Keep to all those in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019
Besides the four sets above, I've reviewed the whole gallery at User:Davey2010/CF and picked a few more that I would  Keep because of their above-average quality:
—capmo (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you capmo for taking the time to sort and categorise their images, A few in the above list aren't great quality but indeed they're not completely bed either,
My only objection would be the Neoplan Skyliner image which IMHO is awful - There are images of the same coach at Category:Neoplan N 122 which IMHO are all better quality, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: , indeed a couple of pictures in the list above are not of the best quality possible, but they were included in the list nevertheless whenever I saw there were few of them in their respective categories (better have a bad one than nothing at all). But the list is up for discussion, take it as a starting point. —capmo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know where to even begin with separating the good files from the bad - I've tried separating them but it's not worked, I guess if possible they should still be deleted and then those in those categories should be restored .... If that can't be done then unfortunately I don't know any best alternatives. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to restore files that were previously in a specific category. But I suppose a bot can go through the categories I created and remove the {{Delete}} template from each file. —capmo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies capmo I should've clarified - The batch of files you've put in cats are still in the collapsed list above so I was trying to remove those files from that list but yeah I honestly don't know how too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked at Commons:Bots/Work requests if a bot can perform some (or all) of these tasks. —capmo (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I didn't check the whole discussion, but the picts in the last list are ok. Regards, --Wikisympathisant (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! I've included these 30 photos in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019 as a means to keep them from being deleted. —capmo (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed, all files in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019 and its subcategories will be kept. The {{Delete}} template was removed from 280 files belonging to these categories, and 278 entries were removed from the list of files for deletion above. —capmo (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the files which remain in the nom. Random smartphones photos of peoples' cars, including their registration number in the photo and filename, are not appropriate for Commons, and possibly represent personal data which falls under GDPR. Davey has removed the high quality images from this list; those which remain should be deleted. -M.nelson (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment

[edit]

As this is tangentially related to the deletion request, I thought it would be worth citing it here: I incidentally came across files by Carfanatic2019 (talk · contribs) that had been previously posted by another user, Xboxrocker84 (talk · contribs):

I was puzzled at first, but analysing their uploads, I came to the conclusion that they are the same person. Both accounts only edited on Commons. Xboxrocker84 was his initial username, posting generic things until April 2019. Then he started posting under Carfanatic2019 from December 2019 (lost password?). So, maybe we'll need to make a similar clean-up on Xboxrocker84's files too. —capmo (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks capmo - I've DR their files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xboxrocker84 - Geograph files haven't been nominated as they seem fine, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I am not a big fan of mass deleting a significant portion (or all) uploads of one user as it is likely that we will lose something valuable alongwith files to be deleted. But here we have a good example of community's contribution that reviewed the files and they were de-nominated from deletion. God bless me, I am deleting others. --rubin16 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Carfanatic2019&oldid=607308812"